Mealy mouthed Trump analysis, continued

Once again, we seem to be witnessing editorial decisions at the major mainstream print media to not go out of their way to offend people who would vote for Trump. 

This has driven some online commentators nuts ever since Trump was campaigning in 2016.  As it should. But it's pretty appalling that it is still going on. 

I offer these examples.

From the Washington Post, an article headed ‘Ordained by God’: Trump’s legal problems galvanize Iowa evangelicals (gift linked), we get these lines:

In several ways, Trump is an unlikely hero for those who identify as deeply religious Christians given his history of committing adultery, promoting falsehoods, and uttering vulgar comments and insults about women and people who cross him. But many have overlooked these indiscretions and questionable morals.

Now, it's true, the next paragraph speaks more strongly - but it is using the words of a commentator, not the newspaper itself, which, I think it fair to say, takes a "two sides-ing approach":

“The support has gone from begrudging to enthusiastic. Many evangelicals now see Trump as their champion and defender — perhaps even savior,” said Barry Hankins, a history professor at Baylor University who is an expert in evangelicalism. “Unwittingly, in my view, many evangelicals are welcoming authoritarianism and courting blasphemy.”

More from the article:

Standing outside a commit-to-caucus rally in Clinton, Iowa, recently, Paul Figie, a pastor and a Trump caucus captain, said Trump is “ordained by God.” He pointed to how he has seen Trump as being mistreated by the justice system and Democrats, equating the former president to a martyr. He dismissed the viability of other candidates, saying he was convinced that a higher power would put Trump back in office.

“Trump is the guy to be in there, and amen,” he said.

Trump has accused the Biden administration of discriminating against people of faith, suggesting at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, that “Christians and Americans of faith are being persecuted and government has been weaponized against religion like never before.” Fact-checkers, however, have debunked that claim. Experts on religious liberty, such as John Inazu from Washington University in St. Louis, cite multiple major religion-related Supreme Court cases and say religious freedom is perhaps more protected than ever.

Trump has leaned into biblical comparisons. He recently shared on Truth Social a nearly three-minute-long video depicting him as a messiah — and played it at a rally. A narrator intones that “on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ‘I need a caretaker,’ so God gave us Trump” as a baby picture of Trump fills the screen.

See what I mean about "two sides-ing"?   "Trump often claims X.  Factcheckers say it isn't true.  Evangelicals would prefer to believe Trump."   It ends:

On a recent Sunday outside Walnut Creek Church in downtown Des Moines, Mark McColley, 71, explained why he is backing Trump.

“I am very disappointed that this country has been so brutal on Donald Trump,” he said. “It’s really brutalized him for the last six to eight years. And I don’t think that that’s warranted. I think he cares about this country. And I think that’s an important thing that we need to have.”

Over at the New York Times, meanwhile, we are getting headlines like this:

Election 2024 On Eve of Caucuses, Trump Casts Iowa as a Battleground for Victory Over ‘Cheaters’

The former president assailed his rivals before a rally crowd that braved subzero temperatures to see him. Nikki Haley got a boost from Maryland’s former governor.

And beneath that:

Democrats Fret That Biden’s Power Players Are Not at His Campaign Base

And also on the on-line front page, more "let's try to understand Trump supporters" guff:

How College-Educated Republicans Learned to Love Trump Again

Blue-collar white voters make up Donald Trump’s base. But his political resurgence has been fueled largely by Republicans from the other end of the socioeconomic scale.

In which we read  more mealy mouthed stuff:

Their surge toward the former president appears to stem largely from a reaction to the current political climate rather than a sudden clamoring to join the red-capped citizenry of MAGA nation, according to interviews with nearly two dozen college-educated Republican voters.

Many were incredulous over what they described as excessive and unfair legal investigations targeting the former president. Others said they were underwhelmed by Mr. DeSantis and viewed Mr. Trump as more likely to win than former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Several saw Mr. Trump as a more palatable option because they wanted to prioritize domestic problems over foreign relations and were frustrated with high interest rates.

And look at some of the voters they quote!:

Ruth Ann Cherny, 65, a retired nurse from Urbandale, Iowa, said she was turning back to Mr. Trump after considering whether the party had “a younger, dynamic guy.”

She considered Mr. DeSantis, but decided she couldn’t support him because “dang, his campaign is such a mess.” She wanted to support Vivek Ramaswamy, the entrepreneur and political newcomer, but concluded he was too inexperienced and could not win.

“Trump has been in the White House once, and maybe he has a better lay of the land this time and will know who’s who and what’s what,” Ms. Cherny said.

Yolanda Gutierrez, 94, a retired real estate agent from Lakewood, Calif., whose state votes in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 5, expressed similar views.

“I know Trump’s got a lot of baggage,” she said. “But so much of it is make-believe.”

Ms. Gutierrez, who studied education in college, said she had voted twice for Mr. Trump but had been leaning toward Mr. DeSantis because she liked his record as governor of Florida and thought the party needed a younger leader.

“But now I prefer Trump because Democrats are trying to find any way they can to jail him,” she said.

Are the editors at these papers a bit thick??   As I said above, online commentators have been talking for years about how important "framing" an article is, and how treating supporters of authoritarianism as just "reasonable people who need to be understood" is completely useless when they are under the sway of a character who, to them, is effectively a cult leader for whom reality doesn't matter, and for whom a large sway of self serving media barons (both mainstream and smaller) have pledged allegiance.  

The New York Times has also graced us recently with a column by Brett Stephens along the lines of "hey, you know I don't support Trump, but today I'm going to try to paint the best possible picture of him to explain why he still appeals to people."    

And Ross Douthat offered his opinion to try to held the Supreme Court rule that no court can find that Jan 6 was an insurrection attempt - he wrote a piece for subscribers entitled Why Jan. 6 Wasn’t an Insurrection.

He's quite the fool at times. 

Douthat has had plenty of pushback, including from columns at Reason and The Atlantic.  And on Twitter:

 

But it's still terrible that his trademark "excusing the authoritarian I personally don't like" comes under the New York Times banner.

Finally, while I should say that I actually do not think it likely that Trump will win an election against Biden, and think it much, much more likely that Biden might lose against an alternative runner, I nonetheless find it frustrating that the key US media outlets are still just "trying to understand" Trump supporters when they should be attacking them and not giving default endorsement to them as worthy of serious consideration that "they might have a point". 

UPDATE:

Cult members, remember to die for your leader:

Can you imagine the Right wing media machine going off its collective brain if Biden said something like that?   And for Trump, to the MSM, it's just "Just Trump being Trump".

UPDATE 2

Here's a couple of tweets making the point I did in comments (pretty much).

UPDATE 3:

Heh.