Why The Atlantic’s Critique of Sanewashing Doesn't Hold Up

Far from debunking the concept, The Atlantic’s defense of media coverage inadvertently reinforces the dangers of sanitizing Trump’s rhetoric.

Last week, I explored the concept of “sanewashing” — the media’s troubling tendency to sanitize Donald Trump’s incoherent and erratic statements, making them appear more rational than they truly are. This practice not only misleads the public but poses a significant threat to democracy by eroding our shared reality.

Paul Farhi’s recent piece in The Atlantic attempts to refute this argument but ironically reinforces it. Despite trying to dismiss the sanewashing critique, Farhi inadvertently provides examples that illustrate precisely how major outlets reframe Trump’s bewildering remarks into digestible sound bites, obscuring their absurdity.

---

---

Farhi begins by arguing that accusations of sanewashing are overblown and that the media doesn’t regularly protect Trump’s image. Yet, in attempting to debunk this critique, he admits to the very phenomenon he claims doesn’t exist. Take Trump’s rambling response to a question about affordable child care at the Economic Club of New York. His answer wandered through eliminating deficits and wasteful spending, yet never touched on the actual question. Farhi concedes that “nothing short of the full transcript can do it justice” but fails to acknowledge that the headlines covering Trump’s speech turned it into a coherent-sounding policy proposal. This is exactly the type of sanewashing I’ve described — where the media packages Trump’s word salad into something that appears thoughtful and deliberate, misleading the public.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Farhi also tries to argue that no public figure has received worse press than Trump, citing the coverage of his racism, lies, and authoritarianism. While investigative journalism has certainly exposed many of Trump’s worst tendencies, day-to-day reporting often normalizes his erratic behavior. Farhi misses the point: it’s not just about negative coverage; it’s about how the media consistently reframes his chaos to fit conventional political narratives. This repeated sanitization shields the public from fully grasping the extent of Trump’s unfitness for office.

One of Farhi’s key defenses is that Trump’s supporters either don’t care about his flaws or don’t consume mainstream media at all, thus minimizing the impact of sanewashing. But this overlooks the media’s role in shaping perceptions beyond Trump’s core base. The public relies on the press to provide an accurate portrayal of political figures, and when major outlets sanitize Trump’s rhetoric, they create a distorted reality. This influences undecided voters and those less politically engaged, presenting Trump’s dangerous ideas as just another part of the political discourse.

Farhi briefly acknowledges the media’s occasional attempts to highlight Trump’s absurdities — such as his references to Hannibal Lecter or his rants about sharks and wind energy — but these moments are the exception, not the rule. For every article that exposes his incoherence, many more present his statements as policy-driven, particularly in initial reports that reach the broadest audience. First impressions matter, especially in today’s fast-paced media environment. By the time corrections or deeper analyses come out, the damage is often already done.

Farhi’s misunderstanding of sanewashing is apparent when he writes, “When sane-washing does occur, it’s usually not the last word on the subject.” While follow-up reporting like Peter Baker’s acknowledgment of Trump’s incoherence is commendable, it’s insufficient. Headlines, which shape public perception more than anything else, often convey coherence where there is none. Farhi’s reliance on these later articles to correct misrepresentations overlooks the importance of the initial framing.

The core problem with sanewashing isn’t that every article fails to capture Trump’s incoherence—it’s that there’s a systemic pattern of normalizing his absurdities through palatable summaries. This trend lowers the bar for acceptable political behavior and desensitizes the public to the alarming nature of Trump’s rhetoric. When the media routinely reframes his words to fit standard narratives, it reinforces a sense of legitimacy around behavior that should be alarming.

Farhi dismisses the idea that this reframing has long-term consequences, suggesting that those who fall for sanewashing likely aren’t reading the news to begin with. This is a defeatist argument that implies accurate reporting doesn’t matter because some people won’t consume it. But that line of thinking undermines journalism’s fundamental responsibility: to inform the public and hold power to account.

Sanewashing is not an isolated problem; it’s a systemic issue within political journalism. By prioritizing access and avoiding accusations of bias, the media often fails to convey the full gravity of Trump’s actions. Farhi’s piece misses this crucial point, instead cherry-picking examples to suggest that the media is doing its job. But the evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.

As we approach this election, it’s essential for the media to confront this issue head-on. Sanitizing Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t just mislead the public—it erodes the standards of political journalism itself. If we are to navigate today’s complex political landscape, journalists must move beyond outdated notions of neutrality and commit to presenting the truth, unvarnished and unfiltered.

---

Dear Readers: I’m excited to announce a new partnership with The 19th, a powerhouse nonprofit newsroom that reports on abortion rights, women’s rights and LGBTQ+ issues. Their dedication to covering stories that are often overlooked makes them a vital resource, especially now, as we approach the 2024 election. 

Their recent series on how attacks on trans rights are an attack on all of us is a perfect example of their commitment to deep, impactful journalism. That’s why I’m endorsing The 19th for their top-notch coverage. I’ve relied on their reporting myself, and I highly recommend signing up for their free newsletter to stay informed ahead of the election.