Fits to print

Trump derangement syndrome

THE PRESIDENT doesn’t make things easy. Even when the news is good, he might complain about not getting enough credit. A national columnist recently pointed out that he seldom, if ever, makes things better.

But the same can be said for some of Donald Trump’s critics, including, yes, the news media.

This past weekend the news pages were blistered all over with a story that originated in The Washington Post. Or maybe it originated with the niece of the president, who apparently—according to the articles—secretly recorded conversations with the president’s sister, who used to be a federal judge. Then said niece gave the recordings to a reporter at The Washington Post.

The paper ran with the story. And the wires picked it up. Which almost made it impossible for other news organizations to ignore, lest they be targets of the conspiracy theorists out there

First—and this shouldn’t be waved away as just a part of modern life—the Post reported the exact words used, including profane language, without the usual cover that journalists usually use, such as asterisks. These days the ends apparently justify the means, so when you set out to damage the president and his family, use the whole words, even profane ones, even when breaking the Second Commandment.

Remember when a president could be criticized by using “expletive deleted”? Or even when family newspapers would use “s***” to spare the kids and clergy? Even though the kids and clergy knew exactly what was going on, it was a sign of respect for Gentle Reader. Some of us long for the days when presidents were depicted in movies only from the back, as a sign of respect for the office. Those days are long gone, but are curses now as unfiltered in the public prints as they are in the modern movies?

And this reporting wasn’t limited to The Post. CNN ran with the story, and exact language, too. The New York Times seemed to pick and choose which words to avoid and which to include. Sort of like cleaning a stable, but leaving half the droppings.

CNBC, of all places, at least cleaned up the cursing with asterisks. CNBC!

But aside from our starchy prudishness—if wanting decorous reporting is now prudish—there was the larger matter of breaking the story in the first place. Is this really news?

The president’s niece, who’s selling a book, releases secretly taped recordings of the president’s sister, who apparently talked freely about her thoughts, and the president didn’t come out looking good for it—although the sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, hasn’t criticized her brother publicly. And the press had a sizzler. We wonder: If somebody had secretly recorded the thoughts of, say, Billy Carter, would that have made the papers? What about Roger Clinton? Or Neil Bush? Would editors have approved? Or would somebody have brought up the whole idea of journalistic integrity instead?

We have been used to this sort of reporting for years now, but it’s mostly been limited to the papers you see in the checkout line at the grocery. But such journalism has apparently made the jump to the “serious” papers. More’s the pity.

This sort of thing shows that Trump Derangement Syndrome has overwhelmed some of our friends in the press. And it’s eroding the public’s confidence in the national media. Has this president not provided enough ammunition for serious journalism already? Or are some papers frustrated enough that virus, economic, political and foreign policy news hasn’t done the trick yet, so maybe National Enquirer-style tactics are acceptable ways to be rid of this guy. Ends, means, and all that.

The Washington Post’s story over the weekend shows a sibling of a president who considers her brother not overly smart, not much of a reader, and above all, a selfish person. The article fits the template of the reporting by the media over the last four years. So the this weekend’s story fits.

It fits, yes.

But is it fit to print?