Two common responses to this kind of criticism, and their refutations:
“Hey, he said it; we reported it. It’s up to you whether you believe it or not.”
No reporters on any other desk at any news outlet thinks that way—not even the local politics desk.
“Look, they all lie; everyone knows that.”
Is that what you put in your promotional materials? They all lie—follow (news outlet) so you’ll be up to date on the latest lies. Is that really your pitch to viewers? I bet it isn’t.
It's also striking how much the media will race to amplify anything Trump says that sounds like a halfway coherent policy idea (even if it's often completely divorced from the context of his previous positions) while pretty much ignoring the vast majority of stuff he vomits out at his rallies and on his social media feed. Yesterday he talked about wind power being connected to the drop in bacon consumption. Stuff like that does not get blasted out the same way.
It's all part of the normalization and sane-washing that's sadly become the standard operating procedure for the core Beltway journalists.
If they want to describe what’s really happening, the headlines should be some version of “After dramatic slide in polls, a desperate Trump reverses position to try to stop the bleeding.” And if you think about it for 2 seconds this doesn’t make sense as a policy. IVF is super expensive. The GOP is going to force private insurance companies and/or private employers to pay up? Or shell out public money for an expensive new entitlement? Please. These people don’t even think IVF should be legal, and they have fought long and hard against ACA rules requiring coverage for things like birth control if your “Christian” boss thinks it’s icky. So tired of the media dragging us into these abusive mind games. He’s desperate. He’s lying. It’s not even a good lie. End of story.
Trump’s “policies” have always been whatever the people in the room with him want to hear at that exact moment. Since it’s impossible to be too dumb to understand this after EIGHT YEARS of this exact same shit, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the people regurgitating this are malevolent. Thanks for cutting through this as always, Parker.
Parker, I’m just moved to say: you are my most satisfying (and paradoxically, enraging) Substack writer. You keep the major journalism outlets under the microscope and it’s so important. Thank you for your work. Grateful subscriber here.
The very next article down in my Axios feed from this IBF one was "Harris to explain flip-flops."
Also, I fully believe a JD Vance America would make IVF free, so long as it was only for the right people. Queer Black woman gets free IVF and we'll see how fast no one gets free IVF.
Someone on Twitter put the problem really succinctly by noting that major media organizations keep treating the word of a known inveterate liar as if it has more weight than all other available information.
Of course, Trump's word is about as worthless a source of information as it's possible to have. His word salad allows his supporters to find just about anything they went to hear in his statements, and his bullshitting—his indifference to truth—enables him to say anything at any time to try and benefit himself. Interestingly, even his supporters seem to acknowledge he's lying about his reproductive health policies for political gain and will still enact their "pro-life" positions if put in office. Having been drawn into the movement because "he speaks what's on his mind," they're now sticking with him even as he openly practices the things they've long accused the politicians they dislike of doing. It's stunning cynicism, quite possibly crossing over into nihilism.
Wait so he would vote overturn Florida's 6 week abortion ban (which what the fuck does that even mean in the context of the US president) but he thinks the legality of abortion should be left to the individual states?
I recognize that these articles may have included that context in the article, but they could at least point out that he's contradicting himself in the headline.
Who is the audience for this nonsense? As an overly literate classical nerd, I'm reminded of Cicero's line: "The Senate knows what's going on. The Consuls have the evidence right in front of their eyes!"
The American Left was the last bastion for the traditional media. We (temporarily) bought into the WaPo’s “Democracy dies in Darkness” and the FTFNYT’s “Resistance to Trump” sales pitches. But ABC, Reuters, and USA today clearly don’t want our business, as they chase the illusive approval of the non-existent rational conservative.
From a business standpoint, I cannot comprehend this at all. Alienating your customers, nay, outright hostility toward them, gets you shitcanned in every market.
This is not a policy proposal. It should not be treated like a policy proposal. While I respect this moderately deep dive, I do not think that this was necessary to criticize the media.
Trump does not even know whether he wants insurance companies to cover it or the government to cover it. Is this regulation of the insurance market, or is it a new universal entitlement? Which is it?
From there, if the press wants to cover it, what will it do to insurance rates? Or, what will it do the budget deficit? Someone could dive into details, like whether the benefit will be available to legal resident aliens. Will if be available to non-citizen spouses of US citizens.
And, of course, there is the credibility question that Parker addresses.
But what I think is most obvious about it is the desperation of the barely conceived thought. No, he shouldn't be credible about any healthcare promise—but what is the promise here? Which is it?
Even if we were take Trump at his word (which is of course absurd), he could not execute such a policy alone. So the next obvious question would be, are there any OTHER Republican politicians who support this position? The answer obviously being no, this dumbshit proclamation is not even worth reporting on. Good grief.
How many of the media "announcing" this promise mentioned what the COST this would be? And what effect "mandating" that insurance companies cover it would be on premiums for everyone else? And what would happen if a state that banned it objected--remember he wants to leave abortion laws to the states. Would their Congressional representatives vote for such a promise.
I can see a tax deduction for the expense. In fact, one is already available for at least a portion of the costs--as is the use of an HSA or FSA.
This is just a desperate version of his "promise" to build his wall. He completely ignores the role of Congress in implementing his promises--or, in the case of the wall, Congresses ability to refuse to fund it.
The Wall promise was to stoke fear in the hearts of Americans. This is due to fear that HE will be the loser here. He gets more selfish by the day.
Every day I get a little more hopeful that just enough people have caught on to this obvious fraudster that we won't be forced to endure another four years of him. The fucking cowards in the media will never call him a liar, but never mind, enough people now see him for what he is and won't take anything he says seriously, that's his reward for a lifetime of lying.
Ever notice how in the polls Trump never reaches 50% (not in any reputable polls I've seen) Even when Biden hit his absolute low point after the debate, most polls had Trump up something like 46-42 or 48-42. Even then, under the best conditions possible, he still couldn't get a majority. Why? Because 52-54% of the voters will just NEVER vote for Trump. Yes, I wish it was 60% who were just done with him, so it wouldn't be such a nail-biter, but it's enough.
And now he's reversed himself and said he'll vote against Florida's abortion-rights ballot initiative, after saying he'd vote for it. Anybody remember John Kerry and "I voted for it before I voted against it" and all the shit he got for that? Now the media just shrugs because it's Trump.
Also, is Florida now allowing felons to vote? I know there was a statewide ballot initiative that reinstated voting rights for ex-convicts, then the Republican-controlled legislature did everything they could to keep it from going into effect. Did they reverse themselves on that once their God-King got convicted?
Two common responses to this kind of criticism, and their refutations:
“Hey, he said it; we reported it. It’s up to you whether you believe it or not.”
No reporters on any other desk at any news outlet thinks that way—not even the local politics desk.
“Look, they all lie; everyone knows that.”
Is that what you put in your promotional materials? They all lie—follow (news outlet) so you’ll be up to date on the latest lies. Is that really your pitch to viewers? I bet it isn’t.
It's also striking how much the media will race to amplify anything Trump says that sounds like a halfway coherent policy idea (even if it's often completely divorced from the context of his previous positions) while pretty much ignoring the vast majority of stuff he vomits out at his rallies and on his social media feed. Yesterday he talked about wind power being connected to the drop in bacon consumption. Stuff like that does not get blasted out the same way.
It's all part of the normalization and sane-washing that's sadly become the standard operating procedure for the core Beltway journalists.
Ha, I thought you were joking about the bacon and wind energy, but it's real:
“Some people don’t eat bacon anymore,” Trump replied. “We are going to get the energy prices down,” he continued, jumping from topic to topic.
“This was caused by their horrible energy. Wind. They want wind all over the place. But when it doesn’t blow, we have a little problem.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/185496/trump-rant-bacon-wind-power
You misspelled Biden or Harris.
Good luck, USA! Canadian fingers crossed here for you to recover from all this nonsense.
If they want to describe what’s really happening, the headlines should be some version of “After dramatic slide in polls, a desperate Trump reverses position to try to stop the bleeding.” And if you think about it for 2 seconds this doesn’t make sense as a policy. IVF is super expensive. The GOP is going to force private insurance companies and/or private employers to pay up? Or shell out public money for an expensive new entitlement? Please. These people don’t even think IVF should be legal, and they have fought long and hard against ACA rules requiring coverage for things like birth control if your “Christian” boss thinks it’s icky. So tired of the media dragging us into these abusive mind games. He’s desperate. He’s lying. It’s not even a good lie. End of story.
An accurate headline would be "Desperate, Lying Sack of Shit Lying Again" but I guess that's too much to ask for.
OMG. Is this satire given the great flip flopping of Harris?
Go away, ChatGPT
Trump’s “policies” have always been whatever the people in the room with him want to hear at that exact moment. Since it’s impossible to be too dumb to understand this after EIGHT YEARS of this exact same shit, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the people regurgitating this are malevolent. Thanks for cutting through this as always, Parker.
Parker, I’m just moved to say: you are my most satisfying (and paradoxically, enraging) Substack writer. You keep the major journalism outlets under the microscope and it’s so important. Thank you for your work. Grateful subscriber here.
The very next article down in my Axios feed from this IBF one was "Harris to explain flip-flops."
Also, I fully believe a JD Vance America would make IVF free, so long as it was only for the right people. Queer Black woman gets free IVF and we'll see how fast no one gets free IVF.
Ah, but we expect CONSISTENCY from Democrats, so if they change any of their policies by one iota, they better have a damn good explanation for it!
Nobody expects consistency from Trump, or even a single coherent thought, so he gets graded on a curve.
Someone on Twitter put the problem really succinctly by noting that major media organizations keep treating the word of a known inveterate liar as if it has more weight than all other available information.
Of course, Trump's word is about as worthless a source of information as it's possible to have. His word salad allows his supporters to find just about anything they went to hear in his statements, and his bullshitting—his indifference to truth—enables him to say anything at any time to try and benefit himself. Interestingly, even his supporters seem to acknowledge he's lying about his reproductive health policies for political gain and will still enact their "pro-life" positions if put in office. Having been drawn into the movement because "he speaks what's on his mind," they're now sticking with him even as he openly practices the things they've long accused the politicians they dislike of doing. It's stunning cynicism, quite possibly crossing over into nihilism.
Wait so he would vote overturn Florida's 6 week abortion ban (which what the fuck does that even mean in the context of the US president) but he thinks the legality of abortion should be left to the individual states?
I recognize that these articles may have included that context in the article, but they could at least point out that he's contradicting himself in the headline.
Who is the audience for this nonsense? As an overly literate classical nerd, I'm reminded of Cicero's line: "The Senate knows what's going on. The Consuls have the evidence right in front of their eyes!"
The American Left was the last bastion for the traditional media. We (temporarily) bought into the WaPo’s “Democracy dies in Darkness” and the FTFNYT’s “Resistance to Trump” sales pitches. But ABC, Reuters, and USA today clearly don’t want our business, as they chase the illusive approval of the non-existent rational conservative.
From a business standpoint, I cannot comprehend this at all. Alienating your customers, nay, outright hostility toward them, gets you shitcanned in every market.
This is not a policy proposal. It should not be treated like a policy proposal. While I respect this moderately deep dive, I do not think that this was necessary to criticize the media.
Trump does not even know whether he wants insurance companies to cover it or the government to cover it. Is this regulation of the insurance market, or is it a new universal entitlement? Which is it?
From there, if the press wants to cover it, what will it do to insurance rates? Or, what will it do the budget deficit? Someone could dive into details, like whether the benefit will be available to legal resident aliens. Will if be available to non-citizen spouses of US citizens.
And, of course, there is the credibility question that Parker addresses.
But what I think is most obvious about it is the desperation of the barely conceived thought. No, he shouldn't be credible about any healthcare promise—but what is the promise here? Which is it?
Even if we were take Trump at his word (which is of course absurd), he could not execute such a policy alone. So the next obvious question would be, are there any OTHER Republican politicians who support this position? The answer obviously being no, this dumbshit proclamation is not even worth reporting on. Good grief.
It's up to us to save ourselves.
Absolutely. On that day when Harris is inaugurated President, let's remember these fuckers did everything they could to help the felon.
How many of the media "announcing" this promise mentioned what the COST this would be? And what effect "mandating" that insurance companies cover it would be on premiums for everyone else? And what would happen if a state that banned it objected--remember he wants to leave abortion laws to the states. Would their Congressional representatives vote for such a promise.
I can see a tax deduction for the expense. In fact, one is already available for at least a portion of the costs--as is the use of an HSA or FSA.
This is just a desperate version of his "promise" to build his wall. He completely ignores the role of Congress in implementing his promises--or, in the case of the wall, Congresses ability to refuse to fund it.
The Wall promise was to stoke fear in the hearts of Americans. This is due to fear that HE will be the loser here. He gets more selfish by the day.
Every day I get a little more hopeful that just enough people have caught on to this obvious fraudster that we won't be forced to endure another four years of him. The fucking cowards in the media will never call him a liar, but never mind, enough people now see him for what he is and won't take anything he says seriously, that's his reward for a lifetime of lying.
Ever notice how in the polls Trump never reaches 50% (not in any reputable polls I've seen) Even when Biden hit his absolute low point after the debate, most polls had Trump up something like 46-42 or 48-42. Even then, under the best conditions possible, he still couldn't get a majority. Why? Because 52-54% of the voters will just NEVER vote for Trump. Yes, I wish it was 60% who were just done with him, so it wouldn't be such a nail-biter, but it's enough.
And now he's reversed himself and said he'll vote against Florida's abortion-rights ballot initiative, after saying he'd vote for it. Anybody remember John Kerry and "I voted for it before I voted against it" and all the shit he got for that? Now the media just shrugs because it's Trump.
Also, is Florida now allowing felons to vote? I know there was a statewide ballot initiative that reinstated voting rights for ex-convicts, then the Republican-controlled legislature did everything they could to keep it from going into effect. Did they reverse themselves on that once their God-King got convicted?