A day or two ago, the NYT published comments from General John Kelly, Trump’s former Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Secretary, that were truly remarkable. He said, “Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law.” Prior to Trump this would have ended a presidential candidacy, especially since General Mark Milley said similar things (i.e., Trump, at heart, is a fascist) At the same time, for anyone following the news closely since 2016, Kelly’s remarks (and other comments in the article) are not surprising or necessarily revelatory (but the starkness of the language is noteworthy).
But here’s the thing: The following day’s NYT‘s front page had no big headlines of Kelly’s troubling comments, no follow up stories. It’s as if the story disappeared. Are Kelly’s claims accurate? Do other members of the Trump White House agree with Kelly? What about Congressional Republicans? How can the NYT not be interested in answering these questions? After all, if Kelly is correct, almost nothing else should matter to voters. Surely, Republicans and Democrats can agree that if Trump is a fascist, would rule like a dictator if he could, and really doesn’t understand the Constitution, no American should vote for him–regardless of his policy positions. Who would disagree with this? Therefore, answering these questions should be a top priority for the press.
The crazy thing thing is that the press already has mounds of evidence that support Kelly’s claims–not just from other officials who worked with Trump, but from Trump’s own words and actions. Indeed, the NYT’s editorial board recently provided a list of examples. (Also, see this Bulwark article.) And yet the story has largely vanished from the front pages. Yes, the press has done the reporting over the years–the information is out there. But by not featuring it prominently and regularly (like Hillary’s emails) the press signals that the story is not important (or, at best, or par with other issues, which ultimately weakens the seriousness of those claims). The treatment of these claims allows voters to view these claims as opinions that need not be taken seriously—allowing some voters to explain away the remarks (e.g., Kelly just doesn’t like Trump, etc.) In the Times editorial board piece above, here’s what they say,
Donald Trump has described at length the dangerous and disturbing actions he says he will take if he wins the presidency.
His rallies offer a steady stream of such promises and threats — things like prosecuting political opponents and using the military against U.S. citizens. These statements are so outrageous and outlandish, so openly in conflict with the norms and values of American democracy that many find them hard to regard as anything but empty bluster.
We have two words for American voters: Believe him.
Believe him? If they want voters to believe him, they should be running big headlines on the front page.The layout should signal that this story is more important than any other with regard to the election. The story should dominate the news cycle up until the election. But that’s not happening, and it seems like a dereliction of duty by the press.
(On a related, chilling note, the LA Times and WaPo were going to endorse Harris, but both papers (owners) have decided not to do this. This is not just a failure of the press, but also suggests that both owners are taking Trump’s authoritarian threats seriously.)