Media: We Didn’t Talk Enough About Donald Trump

United States President Donald Trump
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Media: We Didn’t Talk Enough About Donald Trump

They are still lamenting the Trump presidency, 18 months on.

A group of journalists and media personalities recently came to a remarkable conclusion. Although many commentators think the media covered Donald Trump too much during the presidential campaign, giving him too much exposure and too much legitimacy, this group said they actually didn’t talk about him enough.

That’s surprising: Over the last two years, is there anyone in this country that the media has discussed more than Donald J. Trump?

I talked about this on my April 23 radio program, which you can listen to here:

This belief came out in an April 22 roundtable discussion during George Stephanopoulos’s television show, This Week. It included abc White House correspondent Jon Karl, Democratic Party strategist Stephanie Cutter, New York Times reporter Amy Chozick and Republican Party strategist Alex Castellanos. They were discussing how in the world Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump. Eighteen months after the fact, they are still trying to figure it out.

It was a revealing discussion. The reporters said that perhaps they were a little too hard on Clinton during the campaign while reporting on her being under investigation for hiding and destroying e-mails when she was secretary of state. Amy Chozick, for example, said that she had written a really complimentary piece on Clinton just days before the election. However, because the fbi announced that it was reopening its investigation, Chozick’s article didn’t make it into the newspaper.

This is just one of many examples of journalists continuing to look back on the presidential campaign coverage and wondering what they could have done differently to help Hillary Clinton win.

Stephanopoulos said, “[Y]ou look back and say, listen, there were things done wrong with e-mails. There’s no question about that. But there’s something structurally in the media where we have to equalize everything. If you point out a wrongdoing on one side, you have to point out a wrongdoing on the other. And they automatically become equivalent. And that isn’t always fair.”

“I think the problem might have been not enough equalization,” Jon Karl said. “I don’t think it’s a problem of how much we covered or how much the press covered the e-mails. How much investigative work was there done on Donald Trump? Particularly during the primaries?” (emphasis added throughout).

Stephanie Cutter agreed: “Not enough.”

“He was portrayed more as a phenomenon,” Karl continued. “The excitement, the attacks, the latest outrageous thing he said or whatever. There wasn’t much investigative reporting going, frankly, until it was too late.”

Too late for what, exactly?

Do these sound like unbiased, objective opinions of men and women who seek to bring the truth to the American people? Do these sound like people who want to let the American people decide? These are the same journalists who label Fox News as completely biased. Some Fox commentators might well be biased, but here are “mainstream” journalists and news commentators openly discussing how they should have done more to portray Trump negatively before it was “too late” for their candidate to win. We should have gone after him earlier so that Hillary would have won!

First of all, that’s ridiculous. Secondly, these are the same people who didn’t vet Barack Obama and chuckled about it! Consider the exchange between Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose that broadcast a few days before the 2008 election. (A video is available here; please excuse the uncouth title cards.) When discussing Obama’s worldview, these two big-time journalists said that they didn’t really know much about it! On the brink of “what may be the most historic election of our time,” as Rose put it, he and Brokaw admitted that the journalists covering Obama mainly got their understanding of him from the two autobiographies he wrote. Brokaw admitted that the bloggers covering the presidential campaigns lacked intellectual rigor and discerning minds. But journalists actually knew a lot more about Barack Obama than they were willing to broadcast or print. It was not difficult to discover Obama’s troubling associations with extremists like Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers and others, for example, but the media carefully concealed those facts for the benefit of Obama’s campaign.

This is an intriguing double standard. With President Obama, they were trying to conceal his troubling associations with Marxists and rabid leftists. With President Trump, they have been attacking him from day one. They portrayed him as a joke, unfit for the presidency, and absolutely destined to lose the Republican primary and certainly the presidential election. Eighteen months after Trump’s election victory, they are still looking back on 2016 and openly saying that they should have used different tactics and gone after him harder to make sure that he lost the election.

This explains a lot about what’s going on today.

The media see themselves as the ones who determine what is supposed to happen in the government. They say, “Well, we must have done something wrong, because Donald Trump won. This stuff should have come out earlier.”

When you get to the end of the conversation at Stephanopoulos’s roundtable, it gets even more bizarre. New York Times’s Amy Chozick said, “Donald Trump would not be president in a different media environment—100 percent!” That’s a flat admission that the media can and does manipulate the knowledge, beliefs and even the votes of its viewers and readers. Chozick later said, “I think particularly a candidate like Hillary Clinton who is so incredibly cautious and distant from the press—it was just sort of the perfect storm.” Stephanopoulos interjected that Clinton was “known,” and Chozick agreed.

Hillary Clinton was known, so that means Donald Trump was unknown? The Donald Trump who has lived in the eye of the Manhattan media his entire life? He has been a well-connected, well-known, often-televised personality for decades. He is a very rich man who has friends in high places, one of whom was Hillary Clinton. For 14 years, he hosted a popular reality television show on nbc, the same network that is now among those furiously attempting to dismantle his credibility, block his agenda, and possibly end his presidency.

You could argue that Trump was the best-known candidate in the history of presidential elections! This man ran for president, survived the media attacks, and won the election. And the voters’ decision left the media openly humiliated for its brazen support of Clinton and its brazen bias against Trump. Americans had lost trust in the media, and it was obvious. Even the media reported that Americans had lost trust in the media.

Fast-forward less than two years: Are the media leaving behind their liberal bias? Are they listening to the “heartland Americans” and “Main Street Americans” they openly despised during the George W. Bush administration, the Obama campaign and the 2016 campaign? Or are they doubling down on their bias—and their lies?

These particular journalists are creating a new narrative to explain their failure and to maintain their resistance against President Trump—and the Americans who support him.

The journalists at Stephanopoulos’s roundtable were revising history on the spot—history from less than two years ago! Here we had a real-estate tycoon who was a public figure in the media capital of the world in Manhattan—for decades. He worked for nbc for 14 years. He was a household name and an instantly recognizable face. He was admired by some, grudgingly respected by most. Then he decided to run for president.

Trumpet managing editor Joel Hilliker wrote in his recent article “Why You Should Follow the Trump Scandals”:

Virtually overnight, [Donald Trump] was declared to be a joke, a buffoon, a clown. And once he started to win, and especially when he won the Republican nomination, the attacks against him turned far more malicious.

Since he won the presidency, Trump’s enemies in the media and in the government have done everything possible to depict this man as deranged, stupid, unstable, incoherent, senile, corrupt, immoral, chauvinist, misogynist, bigoted, racist, jingoistic, nationalist, white supremacist. Just two years ago, nobody accused him of any of these things.

Now the media says that they should have been harder on him in the run-up to the election. Maybe then they could have kept him from being president. (The idea that the media should objectively report facts to the people is not even part of the discussion.)

Have you ever seen a presidential candidate—or anyone else, for that matter—faced with such a relentless media firestorm from the moment he began his candidacy? Mr. Hilliker wrote, “Now he is supposedly such a threat to global stability that any and all means to discredit and overthrow him are considered acceptable, even noble and patriotic.”

That’s what you hear coming out of the media megaphone. There wasn’t enough investigative reporting until it was “too late.” What does that mean? It means that the mainstream media now admits it will do whatever is necessary to discredit and even overthrow the sitting president of the United States. This is something that the mainstream media sees as noble, even patriotic—and it is ripping the country in half.

Jordan Peterson made some interesting comments on this subject during a recent discussion on Real Time With Bill Maher. The others at Maher’s roundtable were talking about how President Trump needs to be overthrown. Maher painted the Trump presidency as a “cult of personality not unlike dictatorships we’ve seen in the past” and even compared him to Saddam Hussein.

That’s when Peterson asked: “Imagine [President Trump is] impeached, just for the sake of argument. Then what?” Supposing the Democrats get what they want—how does it end for the U.S.? Peterson said that he has been watching the situation as a Canadian observer, and he has never seen America so divided. He said, “I’m concerned about the dialogue in the United States around the presidency pulling people farther and farther apart.” He talked about how this presidency has dangerously polarized the people of the United States.

How will this end? It’s a good question. It’s a question none of these reporters seem to give much thought to. They just have to get President Trump out, by whatever means necessary. That’s why these relentless condemnations are happening. In their minds, they have to do everything they can to unseat this president—to reverse the result of the last presidential election—to undo the “wrong” they did by not attacking him enough before it was “too late.”

To understand more on this subject, please read my father’s booklet Great Again. It gives you more understanding about why these events are happening in America, and what it will ultimately lead to.