I got another note from TPM Reader NS this morning. He expresses rightful frustration with the way that elite media continues to focus on Trump’s recent antics as an extended tantrum or flawed strategy when it is much more appropriately seen as a mental and cognitive state which is manifestly unfit for holding public office. Trump is also not morally fit for office. But that’s different, and that’s always been the case. The normal rejoinder is that Trump’s mental fitness is sort of irrelevant since most of us already know that and his supporters don’t care. Those conclusions are mostly true as far as it goes. But it represents a failure of journalistic logic which is remarkably widespread in media today. Put simply, that reasoning is mainly above the pay grade of journalism. It’s not the job of journalism to adjust the editorial choices or insights of daily news coverage based on driving electoral or public opinion outcomes. It’s to cover the news. There’s no single way to cover the news and no single, objective version of what constitutes the news. But that reasoning about impact is not an appropriate one and it is deeply damaging to journalism in myriad ways.
Here’s NS …
Been really appreciating the TPM space of late, more than usual, notably because of the difficulties many outlets are having in covering the campaigns (when will Trump become sane? why isn’t Harris bending a knee to NYT?). Good luck with the Journalism fund, I tossed in my $100.
One thing I have seen folks saying more of and wondering when or if it might actually become a thing (and not a marginal conversation) is the lack of coverage about Trump’s manifest unfitness. What we mostly get from coverage of these last WTF weeks of crazy are comments on the unstrategery of rambling and lying and insulting various voting blocks and endless space to air the desperate fantasy of his advisors and acolytes who are begging him to be some other being who has focus and intention. The pretense that his rolling public meltdown is a temporary tantrum, or just Trump being Trump, or even a choice he is making (as opposed to sheer compulsion and psychic dread driving a weak mind) is getting increasingly tired. I think the reporting from anonymous staffers that he might have PTSD opens the door to that conversation but even that still pretends it was the assassination that precipitated these weeks of insanity when we all know his decline predates that by years (the event no doubt accelerated things, but no one should act like he was fine before that).
Jennifer Rubin’s column today is about this, and she references Goldberg’s Atlantic column last month. I discuss this subject with friends all the time. It drives us up the wall, and I know we are not alone. Podcasters talk about it all the time. You all at TPM have noted it as well, but I think it deserves repeated hammering: to treat Trump’s instability and mental state as a problem of messaging and not a basic measure of his fitness for office is damning and wrong. It should be a central topic of substantial reporting, not a peanut gallery convo.
Exhibit 1000: Yesterday’s NYT liveblog yesterday of the Great Cereal Disquisition. The team was unsparing in saying it went off the rails and was dishonest and rambly. Yes. But there was no real reflection on what that means about Trump’s basic health and mental/emotional condition relative to holdoing the office again. A liveblog is not commentary per se, but they do editorialize in those, so excusing it on formal grounds would be a dodge to me. Instead it was all about his lack of focus as a campaigner, not what that means for the office he wants to hold.
The obvious question from his “performance” is: Perhaps he cannot be given ANY responsibility if he cannot manage to make one point and stick to a basic press gaggle format. Presidenting is much harder than that.
His performance is the measure of his fitness, not a choice or just a strategic blunder.
