Thanks for this, Dick. It’s up to main stream journalists to decide whether to provide coverage that challenges or turbo charges the worst of what lies ahead. The Founding Fathers created a system that assumed the former - let’s hope they were right.
Dick, you wrote, on the WaPo's 2017-2021 cataloguing of Trump's false and misleading claims: "I don’t see any value in repeating that exercise, not because Trump has reformed, but because the point has been made, and even most of Trump’s supporters get it."
Couldn't disagree more strongly. This is at the heart of journalistic work, and if we concede that a flood of lies aren't worth highlighting and tracking, well, that is an abandonment of a critical role of journalists in a democracy increasingly in peril. And, arguably, one put in peril by those very lies and misrepresentations.
Bill, First, thanks for reading. Not saying we should abandon telling readers when Trump lies, just that putting effort into cataloging and centering it no longer feels useful.
Do you disagree with my main point that instead highlighting his report card on what he pledged to his voters is a better frame?
It’s a great frame, absolutely, and will require sorting through quite a lot of statements and promises made throughout the campaign beyond the web site lists — and that likely fail various tests of specificity, consistency and internal logic. The promise to cut energy costs in half in a year or 18 months is a good example of your suggested frame, for sure. The caveat here springs from where we started and why both frames are needed: He’s likely to continue to offer misrepresentations about who’s to blame for energy prices not dropping by half, if they don’t, and for other promises that don’t materialize in full. (My bet is on those pesky Greenlanders ;)
Separately, I think your “Reichstag Fire moment” warning will be prescient, particularly as it relates to the border.
Thanks, Dick, for this piece and the steady stream of important things to think about.
As a non-duopoly, third-party voter, as well as a member of the media, I agree with rhetoric vs reality. I expect most areas will remain more rhetoric, but keep an eye on immigration as long as Stephen Miller has even half of Trump's ear.
That said, re the Founding Fathers, etc.? Our current constitution is anachronistic, and while I accept that it's the current governance document of the USofA, like David Lazare and many others I most certainly don't venerate it.
Thanks for this, Dick. It’s up to main stream journalists to decide whether to provide coverage that challenges or turbo charges the worst of what lies ahead. The Founding Fathers created a system that assumed the former - let’s hope they were right.
Dick, you wrote, on the WaPo's 2017-2021 cataloguing of Trump's false and misleading claims: "I don’t see any value in repeating that exercise, not because Trump has reformed, but because the point has been made, and even most of Trump’s supporters get it."
Couldn't disagree more strongly. This is at the heart of journalistic work, and if we concede that a flood of lies aren't worth highlighting and tracking, well, that is an abandonment of a critical role of journalists in a democracy increasingly in peril. And, arguably, one put in peril by those very lies and misrepresentations.
Bill, First, thanks for reading. Not saying we should abandon telling readers when Trump lies, just that putting effort into cataloging and centering it no longer feels useful.
Do you disagree with my main point that instead highlighting his report card on what he pledged to his voters is a better frame?
It’s a great frame, absolutely, and will require sorting through quite a lot of statements and promises made throughout the campaign beyond the web site lists — and that likely fail various tests of specificity, consistency and internal logic. The promise to cut energy costs in half in a year or 18 months is a good example of your suggested frame, for sure. The caveat here springs from where we started and why both frames are needed: He’s likely to continue to offer misrepresentations about who’s to blame for energy prices not dropping by half, if they don’t, and for other promises that don’t materialize in full. (My bet is on those pesky Greenlanders ;)
Separately, I think your “Reichstag Fire moment” warning will be prescient, particularly as it relates to the border.
Thanks, Dick, for this piece and the steady stream of important things to think about.
As a non-duopoly, third-party voter, as well as a member of the media, I agree with rhetoric vs reality. I expect most areas will remain more rhetoric, but keep an eye on immigration as long as Stephen Miller has even half of Trump's ear.
That said, re the Founding Fathers, etc.? Our current constitution is anachronistic, and while I accept that it's the current governance document of the USofA, like David Lazare and many others I most certainly don't venerate it.