The New York Times is almost quaint, in the era of Trump. It always speaks politely and uses referents like “Mr.” Trump, and it comes up with euphemisms for his lies and racist speech — probably because to tell the plain truth in a headline or sentence would make them sound exactly like the National Enquirer. “Trump Lies Again” or “More Racist Hate Speech From White House,” are words that the editors at the Times cannot bring themselves to write. And it’s understandable, considering that they’ve never dealt with anyone like Trump before, and 187 years of tradition is 187 years of tradition.
Unfortunately, what used to be hyperbole or clickbait on the part of the Enquirer is now, quite frankly, simply the way it is. Be that as it may, the Times previously referred to Trump’s racism as “racially infused speech” and their latest euphemism is “racially tinged.” They’re not the only ones with a Victorian sense of delicacy, NPR and the BBC are using “racially charged.” Maybe we should have a contest, what to call racial invective since we can’t bear to call it by it’s true name? ELLE:
After the president tweeted incendiary, racially flecked things at three congresswomen of color, the international press descended upon Thesaurus.com en masse. Their goal? To figure out how to describe something we all can see but some refuse to say because there is nothing more impolite than calling someone a racist. Not even racism itself is more impolite than calling someone a racist. Can you imagine? As Dr. King wrote in his letter from the Birmingham jail, “Do things seem a little racially sprinkled here lately? No offense.”
The New York Times used “racially tinged,” as if race were the shade you had to dye a pair of pumps to match your bridesmaid’s dress. They also claimed that Trump “fans the flames of racial fire,” like he’s the villain in Backdraft. Excuse me, Blackdraft. NPR and the BBC have used “racially charged” as if Trump was an Energizer bunny stuffed with white supremacy.
Maybe these are headlines we’ll soon see, in this world of correctness over plain truth:
“Drove the AmeriKlan made car that needs to be racially charged every couple of hours.”
“Decorated his bouquet of hatred with a pleasing spray of freshly picked racial.”
“Amazing! This brave, no makeup, unretouched photo gives a glimpse of the president’s racial freckles!”
“President waved to old friend, Racismo Racisterman in the street.”
“Molecular gastronomy! The President’s submission to the final challenge was a race foam atop a tweet that had been sous-vided in racial juices and paired with a dehydrated dog whistle.”
“The president competed on the popular reality show The Amazing Racist.”
“Category is: Racially Reminiscent. 10s across the board.”
None of these media outlets are doing themselves, or us, any good by dancing around the truth. What is the problem with calling a spade a shovel here? Isn’t accuracy the first tenet of journalism?
Et tu, NPR? Good journalism is supposed to describe events accurately and plainly. It's impossible to see how telling congresswomen born in the United States to go home is anything more than one word: racist. pic.twitter.com/9gWjCUaqWs
— Barry Malone (@malonebarry) July 15, 2019
It’s time to wipe the lipstick off this pig and tell the truth. If Trump was some regular Joe, a man in the street, talking this way, the news would report the plain truth, that a racist spewed invective in public. Trump doesn’t deserve to be treated deferentially. He hasn’t earned it, and in point of fact, other adults behaving with decorum and backing off merely enables him to be more outrageous. The era of Trump is not business as usual, and that’s been evident from the very beginning. The press needs to act accordingly, tear up all the style books, and tell the truth.
You are 1000% correct. The cowardice shown by some in the media and too many politicians is the reason why racism is in the DNA of the USA. So today trump is separating Central American migrant families, denying them the right to seek asylum here, treating them in all manner of dehumanizing ways, sexually abusing their children, all under the guise of discouraging them from coming to America; yet they are being detained instead of sent back to their home countries. Tomorrow he will come for African Americans and other people of color just like in the the good old days during the 1600s through 1900s, and continuing into the 2000s. Some in the media can be cowardly about calling trump and his cohort of racist-fascists out, but we people of color will NEVER be and WILL NOT go quietly.
I’m so very sorry you missed taking classes in US history before 1865. Racism has been part of the US since about 1690, when slavery was made hereditary in many colonies. It was there in 1787, with the “3/5 person” for slaves (of any color) but not indentured servants.
The NY Times in this era is weird, I agree. When I studied American history, there are all of these moments where the press goes to war against bad political leaders. Those are the clashes that stand the test of time and make papers legendary, right? Who remembers those times when a paper did nothing but write puff pieces during a bad presidency?
As for the language itself…I know I’ll get flak…but I understand the journalistic thinking around the word racism.
journalists have a responsibility to help a reader inform their opinions…not to make an opinion and force it on readers. (They do, but in the op-Ed section). If Trump does something that seems racist, their role is to report the facts in a way that would allow a reasonable person to understand and assess racism as a factor. But racism is often in the eye of the beholder, and I’m not sure we need or want newspapers to define what is and is not racism. That should be the purview of society, not a commercial product.
Of course, Trump really, really tests the boundaries of journalism ethics. He is so clearly a racist (I’m allowed, this is op-Ed, lol), and a sexist, and an idiot. It’s hard to pull back on the word when it’s so dang obvious.
But here’s the good news, either way. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say Trump is racist. Whether we think the media should show refrain on the word or not, the same message is getting across. That number likely wouldn’t move much even if the Times put racist in every headline.
By the way, the current headlines on the digital NY Times:
Trump condemns Pelosi as she calls for action to condemn xenophobic tweets.
Trump defends tweets widely viewed as racist.
Trump’s racist idea of citizenship (op-Ed)
Trump fans fan the flames of racial fire.
(Barf…horrible writing)
The president is a raging racist (opinion)
Trump’s slurs against four congresswomen
Scaling wokeback mountain
(Yes, you smell the trite cynicism of down there).
Biden’s plan focuses on shoring up the ACA
(This is why we don’t get traction on anything…Trump tweets trump policy).
Journalists have a responsibility to report facts.
If someone says it is raining heavily outside and someone else says,’ No it’s sunshine, no rain’, it’s not the journalist’s job to report on ‘the rain controversy’.
It’s the journalist’s job to look out of the window and report on the actual fu#*ing weather.
Yes…I understand. But that’s where a journalist who is really concerned with their duty will encounter problems.
It is hard to establish racist intent as a fact. In the case of these recent tweets…which I take to be racist, you take to be racist, and most reasonable people take to be racist…to say that it’s a fact they they’re racist requires a burden of proof that we’d have a hard time getting verification of from trump and his allies. Trump knows what he’s doing, and he creates the wiggle room he needs that prevents people from making outright accusations.
Nonetheless, I think responsible reporting on this has led most to the conclusion this was racist. Like I pointed out – the front page of The NY Times today used “racism” four times, xenophobic once, and “slurs” once. How much more handholding would the Times need to do to get the average reader to understand that everyone thinks there’s a racism issue here?
What do you need to prove about them?
Journalism ethics are not dissimilar from the law – both need standards that are followed regardless of whether it’s convenient or not, because both depend on consistency to remain useful.
Journalists have very specific (and evolving) standards for using the terms racist or racism to describe something. Interestingly, these standards were updated in May because the AP felt that the dog-whistle nature of the way that racists speak was preventing journalists from being able to use appropriate wording. They reached out to minority journalist groups (like the Asian American Journalist Association and African American Journalist Association) and over the course of a year obtained feedback, held forums, and developed the updated style guide.
Under the new guidelines, the AP has opened up the words racism and racist for use, but has guidance on when they’re appropriate:
1. Use of these words is to be reserved for describing hatred of a specific race, or
2. to describe the assertion of the supremacy of one race over another.
The section goes on the caution journalists about including race in the conversation if its not clear that its a central factor to their reporting.
In the case of Trump’s specific Tweet, he makes denigrating comments toward a group of people based on their perceived national origins. They’re bigoted comments, but it’s not entirely clear whether the bigotry is racism or xenophobia. Under the current AP guidelines, because he very specifically speaks to national origin, it would be more appropriate for a journalist to speak to xenophobia than racism.
“journalism organizations have an obligation to “embrace direct language and clear framing of important issues.”
Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan
And so, as our own Murf has pointed out, we have hit the escalation point of this sordid drama. Trump is getting louder, creazier and meaner with each Tweet. Sadly, some of our fellow travelers are reflecting that back in response, mostly, I think, out of fear. Yet nothing has been said that we don’t already know chapter and verse.
I get the impression that everybody, Trump included, is wanting time to hurry up and get to the end of this wretched chapter in our history. It’s up to us to make next year the “darkest before the dawn” moment.
While the entire show is a train wreck, I’m kinda looking forward to the episode where he runs out onto the White House lawn in his underwear, tossing KFC at protestors from a greasy bucket cradled in his arms.
(Sadly, I don’t think any of us would be THAT shocked if this occurred.)
My mother keeps looking forward to all that KFC and McDonald’s to clog his arteries in juuust the wrong spot near his heart or brain (assuming he has either organ).
If Tr*mp really wants out of the job, he could resign.
A man with his Stage 4 Narcissism? Do be serious, P J. Anything that makes him look bad is automatically off the table. He no more thinks about resigning than you or I would think about downing some food if we got too hungry. He’s going down with the ship, sadly, and we get to watch.
he said he didn’t want it; he hates it now, except for the “fun” stuff that’s not the most important part. He can do a reality show about it – somewhere else – and get the adulation without the headaches…and we can get a sane president.
Hey, that’s all true, P J. But trust me on this much…whenever you’ve got a condition like this, only what will satisfy the condition matters. Everything else, including what is ACTUALLY good for the person with the condition, is secondary. And the only “reality show” I want to see him in after this is state and federal court.
I’m of the opinion, that since the fascists/torchbearer’s groups have shown their appreciation for all the drivel Trump just spewed about our 4 Congress people, in feral comments of their own, the implication that these are personified statements of racism by our POTUS, RINGS ABSOLUTELY TRUE …
Trump’s true feelings are expressed everyday … PR/nonwhites, Border problems/nonwhites there as well … attacking our people of color ANYWHERE, especially OUR Representatives is criminal racism, simply because he IS the POTUS, and his words continue to carry his vile messages to the ears of children everywhere ….