In the days since President Trump’s inauguration, news
consumers have watched members of the press all but implode over the recent
barrage of “alternative
facts.”
In the administration’s first full day, White House Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, presumably under direction from Mr. Trump, used his
first press briefing to claim the president’s inauguration
crowd was the largest in history. Not long thereafter, Mr. Trump reiterated
his belief that he lost the popular vote because 3 to 5 million illegal
residents voted fraudulently, and has since indicated he plans to investigate
this alleged voter fraud.
From all the available evidence, these claims are demonstrably false.
And not false in the maybe-sort-of-kind-of way that has dominated our politics
in recent years. Flat out false. Easily observable false. Unbelievable that
anyone in a position of power would suggest them false.
That’s what journalists have found so utterly baffling. It’s
not what Mr. Trump and Mr. Spicer said that so confounds them, but rather why
they would say it. Writers, reporters and pundits’ heads are spinning
frantically as they attempt to wrap their minds around these lies. In general,
the narrative that has dominated the news cycle during this first week is that
Mr. Trump would only make such assertions if he were incompetent, insecure or
some combination of the two.
And therein lies the answer to the ultimate, “Why?” No, not
that the president is incompetent or insecure – though he perhaps may be. The
answer is that Mr. Trump has been able to dominate the news cycle. Or, to be
more precise, he has dictated it.
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has taken a variety of
actions, many through executive
orders, that have potentially far reaching effects on numerous fronts:
access to health care, abortion rights, trade policy, climate change. These are
all crucial issues that may significantly impact the lives of American and
global citizens alike.
To be fair, these actions by Mr. Trump have garnered some
media attention, though that attention seemingly pales in comparison to time spent
debunking and debating alternative facts – or falsehoods, in the old tongue.
But that’s the media magic of the Trump administration. Magic
is the practice of slight-of-hand. We’re only mesmerized by the magic act if we
focus so much attention on the magician’s left hand that we overlook what he
does with his right. That’s essentially been the playbook for Mr. Trump’s first
week. In the left hand are outlandish lies concerning voter fraud and crowd
size, so ridiculous in nature that both the public and the press have paid too
little attention to the orders Mr. Trump has signed with his right.
Whether Mr. Trump’s administration is putting on this magic
show purposefully or by accident is hard to say. After all, much of the press
response to these false claims has been understandably negative. However, if
the primary and general election contests are any indication, this stunning
behavior will be rationalized (The tax returns can’t be released because of an
audit) replaced by something as, if not more, shocking (He grabs women
where?!), and ultimately forgotten, buried amidst the seemingly endless array
of past blunders.
I’m not arguing that media outlets should ignore these
falsehoods. In fact, I think most journalists have done right by the public to
hold the administration accountable. But there must be some perspective, some
proportionality of response. Do we really need five days of around-the-clock
coverage of the administration’s inauguration crowd claims when even cursory
comparisons of photographs, Nielsen ratings data and DC Metro records can
quickly and clearly demonstrate to any reasonable person that these statements
are false?
Perhaps the limited resources of our press might be better spent in helping the public understand how sometimes complex bills and obscure executive orders might affect their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens. Adding context to Mr. Trump’s actions of public import is more greatly needed than adding conversation to Mr. Trump’s actions of self-delusion.
Perhaps the limited resources of our press might be better spent in helping the public understand how sometimes complex bills and obscure executive orders might affect their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens. Adding context to Mr. Trump’s actions of public import is more greatly needed than adding conversation to Mr. Trump’s actions of self-delusion.