CHRIS CRUCIAL: Is the media 'sane-washing' Trump?🤪

PLUS: Sen. Larry Hogan?

Welcome to Chris Crucial. Check out my mission statement on why you should invest in me. I am now just 75(!) paid subscribers away from 3,500!! Help me make that goal! It’s $6 a month/$60 for the year. Do it today!👇

1. On ‘Sane-Washing’

The criticism of the media in 2016 was that in pursuit of ratings and clicks, they platformed every word Donald Trump spoke — handing him billions in free advertising and catapulting him to the presidency.

While I don’t totally buy that — if only the media had that sort of power! — there is no doubt that following that election the press did a whole lot of soul-searching. And arrived at the conclusion that when Trump ran for reelection in 2020 he couldn’t be given unlimited air time to spew his increasing number of falsehoods.

The 2020 campaign wound up being, well, weird. It was conducted amid a global pandemic. Neither Trump nor Joe Biden could really campaign. And so the issue of how best to cover Trump sort of disappeared — or at least took a back seat to the pandemic.

Which brings us to this race. And, in a reversal, the main criticism of the media — especially from Democrats — that has emerged is that they aren’t showing enough of Trump’s raw appearances.

Instead, goes the allegation, the press plucks a single quote or two from a 90-minute Trump campaign speech — entirely overlooking the rambling, nonsensical things he says with regularity.

Aaron Rupar, a liberal journalist who often provides video clips of Trump speaking at campaign rallies, has dubbed the process “sane washing.”

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, has written about this phenomenon eloquently:

Trump overwhelms us with nonsense. This is the “banality of crazy,” as the Atlantic contributor Brian Klaas calls it. By “us,” I mean, of course, the voting public, but I especially mean the editors and headline-writers of my industry, who sometimes succumb to one of the most pernicious biases in journalism, the bias toward coherence. We feel, understandably, that it is our job to make things make sense. But what if the actual story is that politics today makes no sense?

It works like this: Trump sounds nuts, but he can’t be nuts, because he’s the presumptive nominee for president of a major party, and no major party would nominate someone who is nuts. Therefore, it is our responsibility to sand down his rhetoric, to identify any kernel of meaning, to make light of his bizarro statements, to rationalize. Which is why, after the electric-shark speech, much of the coverage revolved around the high temperatures in Las Vegas, and other extraneities. The Associated Press headline on a story about the event read this way: “Trump Complains About His Teleprompters at a Scorching Las Vegas Rally.” The New York Times headlined its story thus: “In Las Vegas, Trump Appeals to Local Workers and Avoids Talk of Conviction.” CNN’s headline: “Trump Proposes Eliminating Taxes on Tips at Las Vegas Campaign Rally.”

Regular readers of my work know where I land on this question. I dedicate hours every week to going through transcripts of Trump’s speeches and interviews — highlighting the often-bizarre things he says.

I do it because a) I think it’s important and b) the mainstream media isn’t really doing it.

Do I think they don’t do a close reading or airing of Trump’s remarks because they are purposely “sane washing” him?

Not really. I think they are still fighting the last war — the criticism that the media gave Trump too much attention — and are very wary of dedicating too much air time or column inches (or whatever we are calling writing on the Internet) to him.

I also think that mainstream media is VERY set on one way of presenting news content. TV, for example, will send a reporter out to a Trump rally. They will go to that reporter for 3-5 minutes a few times a day. In that very-short time frame, the reporter is unlikely to simply repeat all of the wacky things Trump says. Because they have been told by their bosses to give viewers a short summary of what Trump said that was newsworthy.

I get it! I really do. And, if I am being totally honest, the lack of attention by the mainstream media to everything Trump says a has created a real opportunity for me! If they went through every Trump transcript, a lot of you wouldn’t have turned to me to do it!

But, it is a CHOICE. And I have chosen to go in the other direction. Rather than pick snippets of what Trump (or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris) say, I am going to show you the whole thing. Or damn near all of it.

Because the words our politicians use to communicate their plans to voters are the most important primary source document we have. Their words tell us who they are and what they will do.

So I will keep reading all (or at least most) of the words politicians use. And bringing them to you each day here.

If you want to support that effort, I would greatly appreciate it. A monthly subscription to this newsletter is $6. An annual subscription will cost you $60.

2. Is Larry Hogan for real?

A new poll conducted by the AARP shows that the Maryland Senate race is a dead heat; former Gov. Larry Hogan, the Republican nominee, and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks are knotted at 46%.

Which, if I am being honest, surprises me a bit.

Yes, Hogan is a popular two-term governor of the Old Line State. But, he is a Republican in a very Democratic state. And Alsobrooks gets rave reviews as a candidate — and was even given a prime speaking slot at last week’s Democratic National Convention.

Most non-partisan handicappers have largely dismissed Hogan’s chances. The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates the seat as “likely Democratic.” Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales sees it the same way.

The reasoning is simple. In 2020, President Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in Maryland by 33 points. Vice President Kamala Harris will, at least, match that margin come November.

Which means that to win, Hogan will have to over-perform the Republican top of the ticket by more than 30 points. He may be the perfect candidate for the GOP in the state but that’s a virtually impossible task for ANY politician.

By the way, that same logic is why I am pessimistic about Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester’s chances of winning reelection and (slightly less) pessimistic about Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown too.

Stay tuned for a BIG Senate rankings piece tomorrow! It will be for paid subscribers only — so become one!

Despite the poll then, I still see Hogan as having a hugely uphill climb. Which doesn’t mean the race doesn’t matter — even if Hogan loses. If he can stay close enough to Alsobrooks into the fall that the national Democratic Senate committee has to spend money in Maryland (and the pricey DC media market) that would mean less money spent on some other race.

And, given the clear Republican tilt to the Senate map, that would give the GOP an even bigger edge.

Again, much more on the full Senate playing field tomorrow!

3. Kamala’s media strategy

On Tuesday afternoon, CNN announced that Dana Bash, who co-hosted the 1st presidential debate this year, will sit down with Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz for the first interview since they became the Democratic ticket.

In so doing, Harris makes good on a promise she made earlier this month to do one media interview before the end of August. The interview is set to air Thursday night at 9 pm eastern.

It is not clear whether Harris has plans to do as more interviews — and when.

Which brings me to a piece Jonathan Chait wrote Tuesday. I don’t know Chait, who writes for New York magazine, personally. But I’ve always admired his brain about politics. He’s an original thinker — and that’s very rare in political journalism these days.

Chait makes a convincing case (that I agree with!) that rather than have one BIG interview, Harris should schedule a whole lot of interviews in the coming weeks and months.

He writes:

The campaign’s evident fear of exposing the candidate to interviews stems from a handful of bad experiences during Harris’s first couple years as vice-president. Harris’s role was poorly defined, and President Biden had saddled her with an impossible job (sometimes described, inaccurately, as “border czar” when she was attempting to work on root causes of the migration surge).

Harris had a poor interview with Lester Holt, in which she failed to provide a convincing answer for why she hadn’t visited the border (it was not her job). That interview had an inordinate impact on her public persona because there was little else to shape it.

The correct takeaway from this experience shouldn’t be that Harris needs to avoid interviews. It’s that a dearth of interviews creates a situation in which a single interview has an outsize effect on her public image. That creates the vicious cycle in which she still seems to be mentally trapped: Fear of interviews makes every interview far more important, thus raising the cost of giving a bad answer, thus making her more hesitant to do interviews.

The opposite approach would be to flood the zone with interviews. Not all of them have to be brand-name national reporters. Local news stations have real journalists who ask questions their audiences care about. But, yes, getting Harris out into the news several times a week is actually a much safer strategy. If she gives a bad answer, there will be a news cycle about it, but she will be back in the news a day or two later talking about something else.

As proof of his flood-the-zone media strategy, Chait rightly cites John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” campaigns in 2000 and 2008 in which reporters were given unfettered access to the Arizona Senator. The press McCain received in those campaigns was overwhelmingly positive.

Read the whole thing. It’s terrific — and compelling.

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

“I've heard that for [Kamala Harris'] debate in just a couple of weeks, she's going to put on a navy suit, a long red tie, and adopt the slogan, Make America Great Again.” — Comedian Vice presidential nominee JD Vance

ONE GOOD CHART

We now live in two Americas in which the political party you identify with determines what you believe the values of the country are — and should be. This chart, via Pew, paints that picture in bold colors.

SONG OF THE DAY

If you don’t know the band Friko, you should. Their 2024 album “Where we’ve been, Where we go from here” is terrific. They also recently released a cover of Radiohead’s “Weird Fish/Arpeggi” that is un-missable.

Thanks for reading! This nightly newsletter brings you ALL of what you need to know from the world of politics. Think of it as a daily cheat sheet! If you want to get it in your email inbox every night at 7:30 pm, become a subscriber today!