I have a similar reaction at Baker's anodyne way of characterizing Trump with such carefulness. This was the road to normalizing hateful aberrant presidential behavior, while being aware of it. Saying Trump had a "flirtation" with conspiracy theorists grossly distorts and minimizes in an absurd way his hateful conspirational mindset from birth certificates to the caravan and beyond-- and his superspreader tweets. Talking about his experience as limited to being CEO of a family business, avoids his predatory practices, as well as ignoring his personal behavior. As if becoming president, he earned the benefit of the doubt, and a relative forgetting of his offensive, racist past and present in business and politics.
When Peter Baker said “and that is what makes him appealing to many people, because he’s decisive and wants to get things done.” ...my toes curl. I’ve heard interviews with PB where he prides himself to be objective, but he’s not 100%. What frustrates me is he overcompensates. He often prefaces his analysis with “we can go to far” and “we have to be careful”... What? He can’t say Trump IS AN autocrat (it’s not instincts), that Trump lies and his ideology is “self”? That’s like saying we have to be careful when we (journalists) say climate change is real and racism is a driving force in our society. I had a colleague once when I worked in higher education who always backed out of conversations that were uncomfortable and strongly weighted. She was Catholic and another colleague would clap back and call her “Our Lady of Perpetual Denial”. As a respected and known journalist I wish Peter would shed what he sees as “caution” skin and call out the obvious. I’m not a journalist but know to achieve excellence much training goes into becoming a strong voice in reporting. But, we KNEW Barr egregiously and likely broke laws in covering for Trump. We knew Trump colluded and conspired with Russia and we’ll find out one day he was the puppet master for January 6th. We knew his cabinet, each and everyone was there for self and diminished those departments with their power. So, I don’t think journalists need to be careful about describing what would be in an alternative history if Trump’s insurrection had succeeded.
I agree on the overly cautious, 'we can go too far" comment. That line made my stomach lurch. If we don't go far enough to call out the excesses of Trump and his acolytes, if we don't shine a spotlight on the fraud, the lies, the corruption and hold people accountable, then we endanger our democratic Republic because the rule of law is the understructure of everything. Without that, the country, the very notion of democracy collapses.
To you and Tom- I've been thinking about this interview on and off today and want to add something. PB prides himself in being a good journalist. To me, what he does in this interview and so many others (he was on MSNBC this morning -same thing) is like saying to victims of trauma (all of us) " well, this could be an overreaction". It's like saying to an George Floyd's family for instance- "well, I can't make a comment on what Derek Chauvin was thinking as he looked into the camera" and leaving out that he his knee was on GF's neck! Maybe a journalist that tries to be a purist reveals exactly what the purist is trying to avoid.
I liked the interview, but there's something fishy about Baker. Or maybe he just isn't very good.
I have a similar reaction at Baker's anodyne way of characterizing Trump with such carefulness. This was the road to normalizing hateful aberrant presidential behavior, while being aware of it. Saying Trump had a "flirtation" with conspiracy theorists grossly distorts and minimizes in an absurd way his hateful conspirational mindset from birth certificates to the caravan and beyond-- and his superspreader tweets. Talking about his experience as limited to being CEO of a family business, avoids his predatory practices, as well as ignoring his personal behavior. As if becoming president, he earned the benefit of the doubt, and a relative forgetting of his offensive, racist past and present in business and politics.
When Peter Baker said “and that is what makes him appealing to many people, because he’s decisive and wants to get things done.” ...my toes curl. I’ve heard interviews with PB where he prides himself to be objective, but he’s not 100%. What frustrates me is he overcompensates. He often prefaces his analysis with “we can go to far” and “we have to be careful”... What? He can’t say Trump IS AN autocrat (it’s not instincts), that Trump lies and his ideology is “self”? That’s like saying we have to be careful when we (journalists) say climate change is real and racism is a driving force in our society. I had a colleague once when I worked in higher education who always backed out of conversations that were uncomfortable and strongly weighted. She was Catholic and another colleague would clap back and call her “Our Lady of Perpetual Denial”. As a respected and known journalist I wish Peter would shed what he sees as “caution” skin and call out the obvious. I’m not a journalist but know to achieve excellence much training goes into becoming a strong voice in reporting. But, we KNEW Barr egregiously and likely broke laws in covering for Trump. We knew Trump colluded and conspired with Russia and we’ll find out one day he was the puppet master for January 6th. We knew his cabinet, each and everyone was there for self and diminished those departments with their power. So, I don’t think journalists need to be careful about describing what would be in an alternative history if Trump’s insurrection had succeeded.
An interesting observation about caution and the idea of journalistic balance. To discuss further!
I agree on the overly cautious, 'we can go too far" comment. That line made my stomach lurch. If we don't go far enough to call out the excesses of Trump and his acolytes, if we don't shine a spotlight on the fraud, the lies, the corruption and hold people accountable, then we endanger our democratic Republic because the rule of law is the understructure of everything. Without that, the country, the very notion of democracy collapses.
And then we all lose. Even journalists.
We will discuss this at the live chat today!
To you and Tom- I've been thinking about this interview on and off today and want to add something. PB prides himself in being a good journalist. To me, what he does in this interview and so many others (he was on MSNBC this morning -same thing) is like saying to victims of trauma (all of us) " well, this could be an overreaction". It's like saying to an George Floyd's family for instance- "well, I can't make a comment on what Derek Chauvin was thinking as he looked into the camera" and leaving out that he his knee was on GF's neck! Maybe a journalist that tries to be a purist reveals exactly what the purist is trying to avoid.