How do you solve a problem like the media’s relationship with Trump?
But if he had, this is what I think he would have said and meant.” But if he had, this is what I think he would have said and meant.”
That’s a razor sharp X post by New York Times Pitchbot, a parody account run by a professor using the alias Doug J. Balloon. It’s funny because it’s so accurate. The New York Times and other legacy media outlets are either too sycophantic or too afraid to report on the daily nonsense Donald Trump spews, or both. But do they really have to be helpful? It would be an understatement to say that Trump is a liar. NPR reports that during a press conference on August 11, Trump lied 162 time in 64 minutes. This is about two and half lies per minute. Every 30 seconds, he would tell a new lie. The lies ranged from the ridiculous to the misogynoir, as in his constant fabrications of the size of the crowds at his rallies to his sexist remarks about Kamala Harris (the Democratic nominee), including that she is not intelligent, incompetent, and even Black. Everyone knows that he is a liar. Why do the media take things he doesn’t say and turn them into things he might have said if he weren’t such a blazing dumbass? And even worse, perhaps: Why does the media continue to take things he doesn’t say and turn them into things he might have said if he weren’t such a blistering dumbass?
Maybe it’s my mistake: I was unaware it was the media’s job to make a deeply stupid and sinister man seem palatable to mainstream Americans.
But that seems to be what they are doing. The media is doing this. Gibberish. Incomprehensible rubbish.
This is what he said in response to a question from NBC’s Garrett Haake about a national abortion ban and whether he would be open to ordering the FDA to revoke the authorization for mifepristone:
You could do things that will be–would supplement, absolutely, and those things are pretty open and humane, but you have to be able to have a vote. What is he saying? What is that supposed meaning?
Haake asked, “Is this something you would seriously consider?” To which I replied, literally what?
Would Trump consider that? Garrett, what are you talking about? What about his insistence on everyone having a say? If someone answers that way, you should ask them “What the actual fuck are you talking about?” Or, if unlike me, you’re a professional “Can You Explain What You Mean?” If someone gives you a response like that in my country, I would ask, “What are you actually talking about?” or, if you are a professional and not me, “Can You Explain What You Mean?”
But Haake did not do that. Trump continued to ramble on about giving everyone a voice: “There are a lot of things you can do to be humane, but you have to also give a voice.” And for what? What for? Is that a man who understands what mifepristone means? He doesn’t. Why have journalists treated this as substantive? Perhaps it was unfair of me to open this commentary with a tweet from an account that relentlessly mocks the New York Times, because in all fairness to the Gray Lady, the Times is one of few outlets that didn’t run with a headline about how Trump was perhaps open to banning mifepristone.
But the Washington Post did. And so did NBC News. Vox. Even the New Republic recognized Trump’s response to the question as gibberish, but then gave him an unnecessary assist by reporting the exchange as if he had made some policy pronouncement about mifepristone.
He hadn’t. It’s because Trump doesn’t understand what mifepristone means. He didn’t understand what was asked of him. What’s more, you ask? Trump doesn’t even care if the mifepristone drug is banned. He doesn’t care whether abortion is legalized or not. He only cares about abortion if his record and his Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade in 2012 will prevent him from winning this year’s election. If it happens, it puts him in the crosshairs for the state and federal prosecutors, like Jack Smith and Fani Wilis, who want to hold him responsible for his crimes. He doesn’t even know what mifepristone means. Can we stop pretending he knows? They’re angry with him right now because he boasts about killing Roe but he also knows abortion is a popular issue among Democrats. So he has distanced himself from his previous positions. It’s not that he is moving towards the center of abortion. He needs to win to avoid jail for his crimes. Stop. Report what he said. Ask follow-up questions. If he doesn’t or can’t answer your question then you should report that. Please, for the sake of old and new gods, stop helping this man. You’re embarrassing yourselves.
Will he ban the abortion pill? Yes. But does he know what it is?
Nope.
