The debate over how to accurately cover Donald Trump’s statements has persisted for years. The tendency of mainstream media outlets to “sanewash” his more outlandish pronouncements – translating incoherent ramblings into seemingly plausible policy goals – has been a recurring criticism. But a parallel issue exists: the media’s willingness to treat demonstrably false statements as earnest declarations worthy of serious reporting.
Both approaches, as highlighted by multiple media critics, stem from a desire to fit Trump within conventional political norms. Whether it’s polishing his often-unintelligible rhetoric to resemble coherent policy or accepting his falsehoods at face value, the effect is the same: a failure to accurately portray the extent to which Trump operates outside the bounds of established political and factual reality.
Margaret Sullivan, a prominent media critic, recently articulated this problem in her newsletter, emphasizing the need for increased skepticism in reporting on Trump’s claims. She argues that statements require “extra dollops of skepticism and context,” which are often lacking.
Specific examples illustrate this point. Consider reporting on ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) activity in New Jersey. CBS News reported on frightened residents in Hoboken expressing fear of ICE detentions, coinciding with Trump’s suggestion of a “softer approach” to immigration. The framing, Sullivan notes, often prioritizes the softened rhetoric over the ongoing reality of ICE actions.
This pattern extends to other areas. Despite reports suggesting a “new approach” in Minneapolis regarding immigration enforcement, stories continue to emerge detailing ICE and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) harassment at schools and the detention of residents. A recent post on Bluesky Social detailed an incident where ICE agents forcibly removed a man from his vehicle in Minneapolis, demonstrating the continued reality of aggressive enforcement despite any suggested policy shifts.
The situation surrounding Trump’s interest in Greenland provides another example. After initially threatening to acquire Greenland “by unstoppable force,” Trump later suggested a different approach at the World Economic Forum in Davos . Headlines, such as one from the Wall Street Journal, focused on his decision not to use force, framing it as a conciliatory gesture. Parker Molloy, writing in her Substack newsletter, argued that this framing missed the core issue: Trump’s initial threat of force and his attempt to present a retreat as a positive development.
CNN’s Aaron Blake was an exception, providing crucial context by pointing out the similarity between Trump’s proposed “framework” for a deal and an existing agreement. This type of contextual reporting, Sullivan argues, is essential for informing readers.
The underlying issue is that the media often prioritizes reporting on the *change* in Trump’s position rather than the initial, often outrageous, statement itself. It’s akin to praising someone for refraining from a more severe action. This pattern is driven, in part, by the architecture of news consumption: headlines and push alerts are often the only information many people receive, and nuanced context buried deep within articles is often missed.
Sullivan suggests a simple solution: using language that conveys skepticism rather than credulity. Instead of headlines stating “Trump orders ICE to ease up…”, she proposes “Trump claims a new approach, even as ICE continues arrests.” This subtle shift in framing can significantly alter the reader’s perception.
The media’s reluctance to accurately portray Trump’s statements is, to some extent, a response to years of accusations of “liberal bias” from the Republican party. The fear of being labeled biased has led to a tendency to avoid reporting that could be perceived as critical. This has resulted in a situation where the media often bends over backwards to present Trump’s statements in the most favorable light possible, even when those statements are demonstrably false or misleading.
This learned helplessness represents an institutional failure. Experienced journalists and editors have the tools and expertise to accurately report on Trump’s statements, but they often default to a pattern of sanitizing and normalizing his rhetoric. The press is meant to inform the public, not to act as stenographers for political figures. The current approach consistently misleads the public by downplaying the reality of Trump’s statements and presenting them in a manner that obscures their true meaning.
As the saying goes, a reporter’s job isn’t to report what someone *said* is happening, but to look out the window and report on what *is* happening. And for the past decade, the window has shown a reality far removed from the narratives often presented by the mainstream media. It’s time for reporters to look out the window and report on what’s actually there.
