The press chooses victim-blaming and apathy.
The press chooses victim-blaming and apathy.
S omething weird has happened.
This summer, America experienced what should be the type of generationally defining moments that leave a man remembering, even decades later, precisely where he was when he heard the news.
The first incident occurred in July. A would-be assassin fired shots at Republican nominee Donald Trump, a bullet clipping the former president’s ear. Trump survived the encounter (another man was killed, two others wounded). The second incident happened last weekend. The United States Secret Service flushed out and pursued, and the police apprehended, a second would-be Trump assassin. This failed killer was discovered lying in wait, armed with a scoped rifle, by the fence that surrounds Trump’s golf course, where the candidate was playing that day.
These should be significant moments in our collective psyche. It’s not every day you see a former president covered in his own blood, rushed from the stage by a panic-stricken security detail. It’s not every day you learn his security detail spotted and took a shot at a second would-be presidential assassin, who was captured and arrested later while attempting to flee.
The severity of the matter, coupled with the short time elapsed between the events, demands our attention and careful discussion.
Yet the collective response from the so-called first drafters of history, the Fourth Estate, has been anything but appropriate for the moment, especially concerning the second assassination attempt. The reactions have lacked the weight and seriousness one would expect as recently as ten years ago for just one of these incidents, let alone events just two months apart.
At best, the coverage has morphed into a disinterested shrug. At worst, it has inspired evident disappointment. In between, there have been the usual attempts to find fault with Republicans while absolving Democrats of any potential responsibility. And the underlying theme? The belief that Trump would indisputably be responsible for his own murder.
CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell, for example, remarked the day after the second attempt on Trump’s life that he “is blaming Democrats for inflaming political rhetoric, but the former president’s own words seem to be increasing the threat of political violence in Springfield, Ohio.”
She added, “That’s where a false and ugly accusation against Haitians — thousands of whom are legal permanent residents — is impacting everyday life.”
For the record, Ohio governor Mike DeWine reported last week that the threats to Springfield-area schools and businesses were hoaxes. He noted further that the threatening calls and messages came from “overseas,” including “from one particular country.”
So, no. It’s not quite an apples-to-apples comparison to point to hoaxes in Ohio while reporting on the pursuit and apprehension of a thwarted rifle-toting presidential assassin. Are we comparing the potential for political violence to actual political violence?
Speaking of Ohio, the Cincinnati Inquirer caught heat last week after it published a post initially titled, “Trump brings these assassination attempts on himself.” This headline did not go with any original news report or professional commentary but rather a letter to the editor. That said, the Cincinnati Inquirer does not have to publish every crackpot comment it receives. Publishing the letter with that headline was a choice.
Elsewhere, the New York Times’ Peter Baker parroted the refrain, highlighting during a discussion titled “Trump and a New Era of Political Violence” that the former president “has long been seen as an instigator of political violence.”
Have these people not yet grasped the severity of the situation? There have been not one but two assassination attempts on a former and possible two-term U.S. president. Is this nothing more to them than a mere “golf club incident,” as NBC News initially characterized it?
Also, let’s reflect for a moment on the absurdity of suggesting that Trump’s admittedly grotesque rhetoric inspires political violence while also dismissing allegations that similar rhetoric by Democrats has inspired violence against the GOP nominee.
It’s an ingenious system they’ve devised for themselves, one in which they are never held to the standard they apply to their enemies. Trump’s reckless rhetoric triggers political violence, they say. And what if Trump is killed in an act of political violence? Well, that would be his fault, too. Not only does this make no sense, it’s clearly inconsistent. If a right-leaning individual tried to murder Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump would be accused of inspiring the attack. There’s no doubt about it. Weirdly, when we reverse the roles and an individual with Democratic ties attempts to murder Trump, Trump is also accused of inspiring the attack. It’s a worldview in which Trump is responsible for all political violence, regardless of the target. Meanwhile, the people who claim his rhetoric inspires such violence are never held accountable for similar rhetoric, even when political violence is committed against the GOP nominee and conservatives.
Speaking of people with no standards, let’s not forget the press’s efforts last week to reshape the story of a second assassination attempt into something more broadly anti-Republican.
“Trump pivots from second apparent assassination attempt to more incendiary claims,” reported CNN.
At Politico, the editors came up with this headline: “Trump called for ‘unity’ after first assassination attempt. Not this time.” Politico also published this banger: “Republicans outraged over possible assassination attempt: ‘They are going to keep trying to kill Trump.’”
The most notable thing about that headline is the implicit presumption: Only Republicans and conservatives are disturbed by the assassination attempts on the former president and GOP nominee. That this is not a bipartisan issue says more about non-Republicans than the media realize, and none of it is good.
Also at Politico, a team of reporters stumbled upon the real problem last week in a report headlined, “Trump’s golf habit has raised alarms about security for years.” The New York Times also took this tack, publishing a story titled “Secret Service Scrambled After Trump’s Short Notice on Golf Outing.”
The Hill, for its part, went with this: “GOP seethes after second apparent assassination attempt on Trump.”
The commentary was not better.
At the Atlantic, Tom Nichols reasoned that Trump’s response to the second assassination attempt is further evidence the man is unfit to serve as president.
“Donald Trump is using another possible attempt on his life to inflame tensions in America,” the self-proclaimed expert in expertise declared, “which is one more reason he should never be president again.”
Then, of course, there were the articles downplaying the second gunman’s apparent left-wing inclinations, including his multiple donations to Democratic candidates, his pro-Democratic voting record, and his very public embrace of Democratic sloganeering.
“The suspect arrested in relation to the shooting at Trump’s golf course in Florida on Sunday has been identified as Ryan Routh,” Time magazine reported on September 16, “a 58-year-old with unclear political ideology, a criminal record, and a history of praising Iran and supporting Ukraine.”
The donations and voting record may provide a clue.
“Suspected gunman at Trump golf course has a quixotic past,” declared a Washington Post headline.
We’ve lost the plot. Our ability to see the larger context and view major events in terms of our broader American history has degraded considerably — to the point where what should be generationally defining incidents are covered about as carefully as any horse-race journalism.
For a clique with an almost perverse addiction to the word “unprecedented,” national reporters sure have picked a funny time to embrace existential ennui.