The Wall Street Journal Provides a Template for Covering the Right's Springfield Lies
The Wall Street Journal Provides a Template for Covering the Right's Springfield Lies
Plus: Three other Springfield-specific reading recommendations
Today, The Wall Street Journal published a fantastic exposé about Springfield, Ohio, urban legends, and the power of lies, titled, "How the Trump Campaign Ran With Rumors About Pet-Eating Migrants—After Being Told They Weren't True." I want to give credit to a job well done.
The article chronicles how Springfield became the epicenter of a national controversy. Baseless rumors about Haitian immigrants eating pets, initially circulated by neo-Nazi groups, were amplified by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance and former President Donald Trump. Despite direct refutation from local officials, these claims spread like wildfire, culminating in Trump's inflammatory statement to 67 million debate viewers.
As I’ve written before, the fallout was swift and severe. Springfield, already grappling with the complexities of integrating a significant Haitian population, plunged into chaos. Bomb threats, school evacuations, and the cancellation of the town's annual CultureFest followed, unraveling the community's social fabric.
WSJ's reporting succeeds in a few important areas:
Fact-checking and accountability. WSJ didn't just report on the surface-level events; they dug deep. They highlighted how city officials, including Mayor Rob Rue, a registered Republican, actively refuted the false claims. The article holds Vance and Trump accountable for perpetuating lies, emphasizing that they continued to spread misinformation even after being informed of the truth.
Humanization. It’s easy to ignore a problem in the abstract. WSJ’s reporting centered the people of Springfield — lifelong residents, recently-arrived Haitian immigrants, and everyone caught in the crossfire. They told the heartbreaking story of Aiden Clark, an 11-year-old boy killed in a bus accident involving a Haitian driver without a valid license. Importantly, they quoted Aiden’s father, Nathan, who spoke out against the politicization of his son’s death.
Depth. Moving beyond stereotypes and oversimplification, the article provides historical context of Springfield as a city shaped by waves of immigrants — Irish, German, Black Americans, and now Haitians — over the course of decades, helping readers understand some of the complexities of the city’s demographic shifts and economic challenges.
Emphasis on real-world consequences. The article makes clear this isn’t just political theater — real people are suffering. Haitian immigrants are living in fear, and local officials are scrambling to protect their community amid bomb threats and public safety crises.
The final piece is more than just reporting; it is a well-rounded and corroborated investigation that informs the public and promotes accountability. What’s more, it presents what’s happening in Springfield in a relatable and accessible way, framing it as a microcosm of how misinformation can escalate into real-world harm, especially when amplified by people and groups with massive platforms.
More reading
“Trump Knows What He’s Doing in Springfield. So Does Vance.” (The New York Times, Jamelle Bouie, 9/18/24)
Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, himself a resident of Charlottesville, Virginia, uses his column today to draw a comparison between what happened to his hometown in the wake of 2017’s “Unite the Right” rally and what Trump and Vance are doing to Springfield today.
It is important to say that if presidential campaigns are a glimpse into presidential governance, then the Trump campaign’s anti-Haitian agitation is a clear glimpse into how President Trump would behave and govern in a second term. One can imagine Trump spreading Springfield-esque lies from the Oval Office directly to the American public. One can imagine a Vice President Vance touring cities with new immigrant populations, attacking them with the same smears he’s used to target the Haitian community of Springfield, spreading hate so that the public will accept the mass deportation of millions of immigrants. Trump, in fact, has already promised to start mass deportations in Springfield. “We’re going to have the largest deportation in the history of our country,” Trump said on Friday. “And we’re going to start with Springfield and Aurora.”
“Why MAGA views blatant lying as a righteous and important act” (, , 9/18/24)
Until I saw Signorile’s piece, this was actually going to be the topic of today’s newsletter. After seeing it, I wanted to take a little extra time to make sure I’m not retreading too many of his points. So until I get around to that, give his piece on the truth-optional approach of the conservative movement a read.
Much of the corporate media thinks that merely exposing the lie itself—particularly in splashy on-air interviews—is journalism’s goal (while remaining “respectful” of the liars and continuing to give them the platform). Yet they don’t seem to understand that not only are Trump and Vance completely fine with being exposed if means they get the platform; the MAGA base is fine with it as well.
While a recent YouGov poll showed, for example, that about half of Trump’s supporters actually believe the pet-eating lie, the rest do not. They, like Moms for Liberty’s Tiffany Justice, just go along with it, understanding that there’s a method to the madness: redirecting the discussion, as Vance confessed.
“J.D. Vance and the Grim Rise of Rightwing Standpoint Theory” (, , 9/18/24)
I really enjoyed Adam Johnson’s latest post at his The Column newsletter. It’s about how JD Vance hides behind nameless, faceless constituents using something known as standpoint theory, which he describes as “a framework that emerged from feminist theory that says there is special and useful authority rooted in a person’s personal experience and perspectives.” Basically, Vance is hijacking a liberal rhetorical framing for his own gain.
This isn’t, of course, the first time right-wing demagogues have claimed to speak for the silent majority, the silenced Every Man—indeed, supposedly doing so is a key element of fascistic messaging and has been for 100 years. But demagogues historically position themselves among the people, as part of the alleged masses and championing their message—defending their xenophobic paranoia on its merits—not positioning themselves as a mere civil servant reluctantly responding to their organic demands. By framing his incitement campaign as something he’s only doing because his “constituents” are demanding he do so, Vance is putting himself apart from the unwashed masses. He is engaging in the most liberal of pastimes: avoiding ideological debate and painting himself as a helpless and reluctant messenger. Vance has neither the courage nor the honesty to defend his racist lies as such. He can only shrug and start every conversation defending them as something he’s simply responding to. Just as Democrats insist they have to go right on “border security,” Gaza and a host of issues because the public is allegedly demanding they do so, Vance is taking the easy and cheap cop-out of couching his reactionary position as a bottom-up reflection of democratic pressure.
Glad to see the the firewall still exists between straight reporting and the editorials in the age of Murdoch.
Not often you can say something positive about WSJ