President Trump has designated the press as the enemy of the people; an echo off the iron walls of totalitarian states and dictatorships. In response, the senate has engaged in the surreal response of passing a resolution essentially stating that the first amendment is still valid and that the press is not the enemy of the people.
As far as why Trump has made this claim, part of the explanation lies with his psychology. He regards hyperbole as an essential component of communication and has an instinctual and unfiltered reaction to criticism, especially valid criticism. Trump, by accident or design, has also proven an able tactician when it comes to influencing people. By attacking the press this way, he poisons the well of the press for his supporters. This is a classic and effective fallacy in which an irrelevant attack is made against a source with the intent of discrediting in advance what it might claim. By labelling the press as the enemy of the people, Trump hopes that his followers will simply reject any negative claims by the press about Trump. This attack on the press also pushes them to use up resources to defend themselves, which takes away from what they can bring to bear on news stories—especially ones relating to Trump. Finally, Trump seems to clearly grasp that even people who do not fully accept his hyperbole can be influenced by it—this is a standard tactic used in rhetoric. So, while some people might not buy that the press is the enemy of the people, they might be more inclined to see the press negatively. This tactic also works for positive claims—Trump is also well known for using positive hyperbole about himself and the few people and things he likes.
While it is tempting to simply dismiss Trump’s claims as hyperbole or an outright lie, such a charge made by the President does seem to require a response. Were Trump still a third-rate reality TV show star, this claim could be dismissed as mere angry and empty ranting.
On the face of it, Trump’s claim seems false. Being critical of Trump is not the same thing as being the enemy of the people. Unless, of course, Trump is the people made manifest. Which he is not. It is fair to note that some members in the press have been unprofessional in their coverage of Trump—although it must also be noted that Trump is a paradigm of unprofessional behavior and tries very hard to goad others to joining him in the mud.
When Trump tries to give some evidence that the press is the enemy of the people, he points towards what he claims is fake news. While the press does make errors, the professional media generally gets the facts right. There is also the obvious irony in Trump accusing the media of saying untrue things, given that falsehoods are one of his basic tools.
Trump also seems to allege that the press is harmful to the people. While there are journalists, to use the term very loosely, who peddle harmful untruths (typically as part of peddling other items) most professional journalism is not harmful to the people in general. There is, to be fair, bias in the news: Fox is essentially a Trump news agency and MSNBC swings hard left. By this bias does not make Fox or MSNBC the enemy of the people. As such, Trump is wrong in his claim about the press. This leads to the matter of whether Trump’s attack on the press is harmful.
One obvious concern is that Trump is engaged in a sustained attack on an already damaged press. A large part of the damage has been inflicted by the long-term Republican campaign against the supposedly liberal bias in the media. This sustained attack had already corroded American confidence in the media, thus weakening it for Trump’s attacks. Most Republicans, however, do seem uncomfortable following Trump as he heads ever farther down the road that they built. Part of the damage has been self-inflicted, with various problems in journalism (such as Dan Rather’s career ending escapade). And, of course, the press has been weakened by their response to the economic situation created by the internet. Because of the existing vulnerabilities of the press, Trumps attack from the White House is especially worrisome.
In terms of why the press matters, I will go back to the time of Socrates. In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for corrupting the youth and various other crimes. As part of his defense, he claims that he is the gadfly to the horse that is the state. In this role, he pesters the horse when it shirks its duties. As such, Socrates claims that he has played an important role in motivating the leaders to do their jobs well—for otherwise they must endure his stings.
The press, at least in the ideal, has this role as well. It is supposed to pester and sting those in power when they are not doing as the should, so that they will do their jobs well. While those in power, such as Trump, generally prefer to be left alone to commit their misdeeds in peace, this would be bad for the people. After all, the misdeeds of the powerful generally hurt the people. By calling the press the enemy of the people, Trump hopes to swat the troublesome gadfly so he can do as he wishes. This would, obviously enough be bad. Lest anyone think that this only applies to Trump, it applies to all those in power or with hopes for power. Surely, one would think, Hillary Clinton would have preferred if the press had not brought her email server to the light of day. As such, while the press can annoy people, they are not the enemy of the people.
Here is some context for Trump’s statement.
President Donald Trump on Thursday said only “Fake News,” not the entire media but a “large percentage” of it, qualifies as an “enemy of the American people.”
“They asked my daughter Ivanka whether or not the media is the enemy of the people. She correctly said no. It is the FAKE NEWS, which is a large percentage of the media, that is the enemy of the people!” he tweeted.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ivanka-media-is-enemy-of-the-people-2018-8
That is still terrible. It is a bit like someone saying they are not sexist because they hate only the bad men, who are a large percentage of men.
I disagree. It’s more like saying, “I only hate the criminals that come up here from Mexico” – which, whether a large or small portion of illegal immigrants, certainly qualifies the statement.
It’s also like saying, “There are press outlets who will lie outright with the sole purpose of undermining your confidence in the government – and those are the ones whom I believe are the enemies of the people”. I would agree with that statement.
Regardless of what the President says, I am free to make up my own mind. When Obama waged his “war” on Fox News, I still had a choice, as you do now.
One problem with that analogy is that criminals are generally bad, so disliking them makes sense.
Sure, I’m fine with the idea that “press” who lie with malign intent are enemies. But Trump does not seem to mean that. What he seems to mean is that any press that criticizes him is the enemy of the people. I’m not fine with that.
What about private citizens who criticize the press? Are they enemies that need to be crushed with the full force and power of a multibillion dollar corporation? You don’t like multibillion dollar corporations, do you Mike?
All over a silly little video parody of a pro wrestling match that made fun of cnn.
Donald Trump has been in the public eye for decades. We know him, we know who he is, we know what he says. As you say,
“He regards hyperbole as an essential component of communication and has an instinctual and unfiltered reaction to criticism, especially valid criticism. Trump, by accident or design, has also proven an able tactician when it comes to influencing people. “
Simply knowing this, as we all do, ought to provide enough context for what he says. We can criticize his hyperbole, we can criticize his tendency to engage his mouth before his brain, we can criticize his offensive behavior, but do we actually believe it?
The press and liberals and others have jumped all over this as they have jumped all over everything else he says. if there is a way to characterize his statements so as to paint him as a brutal dictator, a xenophobe, a racist, a misogynist and more, that’s the route that is taken. My response to that is, “Ho Hum”.
Does anyone really believe that what Trump meant when he said that was the same as when Stalin or Hitler said it? Is that where we really believe he is taking us? To undermine the credibility of the press to insulate himself from criticism and increase his singular power so he can take over as dicator of this country? Internet commentary on this single statement jumps immediately to comparisons to Hitler. Talk about Godwin’s law!
Or do we believe that, following his tendency to exaggerate and speak in hyperbole, he really was talking about the purveyors of “fake news”, who try to use the same hyperbole and exaggeration in their description of him?
Of course, this panicky response on the part of the press and the American people is not unexpected, nor is it without precedent. In all of his proclamations about illegal immigrants – it is patently obvious to anyone with a brain that he is talking about the very illegal immigrants who do come here to commit crimes, yet the press, social media, and blogosphere conveniently leave off the word “illegal”, and parse his words so that it seems like he is simply anti-Mexican. I’m sorry, but I think that’s patently absurd, and a totally understand where he is coming from. It’s not the “Immigration” problem, it’s the “Illegal Immigration” problem.
And the same is true with this statement. Liberals don’t get it, because they agree – but there is a serious lack of critical thinking and unbiased analysis in the media of Trump and his activities. I’ve said this before – I listen to the news on NPR every morning, and I hear all about Stormy Daniels, all about Paul Manafort, all about the latest thing that Trump has tweeted, I learn all about what a horrible guy he his .
Then I read the Wall Street Journal and I learn about how his tax cuts are affecting the economy, the latest developments in North Korea, how Canada and Mexico are trying to re-negotiate NAFTA, and I see his point. I know he’s not talking about “The Press” as an institution, as the “fourth estate”, as being protected by the first amendment of our constitution – and I also know that he’s right – that the segment of the press that is devoted to his destruction is not working for the benefit of the people – who deserve to hear unbiased and complete reportage.
Sadly, so do you – and so does the press that he is actually talking about – but rather than change their ways and take a more responsible view of the world, the US, our political system and Donald Trump, they jump all over this statement like they do everything he says and use it in their effort to destroy him.
“By labelling the press as the enemy of the people, Trump hopes that his followers will simply reject any negative claims by the press about Trump.
This is possible – but how is this any different from saying,
“There is, to be fair, bias in the news: Fox is essentially a Trump news agency”
While you did soften this by saying that MSNBC swings hard left, the left-wing assault on Fox News is no different than what you said – that the left wing media and its follwers will simply reject anything that Fox reports. It works both ways.
Unlike Trump, Barack Obama was a gentleman, he was reserved, he was cautious – and he chose his words more carefully when he waged his own personal war against Fox. Here’s an excerpt from an article in the July 7, 2017 issue of Newsweek magazine:
“Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic,” says media critic Brian Stelter, but “to an unusual degree,” this administration has “narrowed its sights to one specific organization,” which it has deemed “part of the political opposition.”
Stelter quotes a top White House staffer: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” she says. “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
Stelter didn’t write those words about President Donald Trump, and the rogue media organization isn’t Stelter’s current employer, CNN. Nor is the White House aide defending the strategy of open hostility from Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Kellyanne Conway.
Stelter wrote those words in 2009, for The New York Times, and he wrote them about President Barack Obama, who was then in the midst of furious battle with Fox News. In many ways, it was a protracted fight that presaged the one Trump is now waging against CNN and the rest of the mainstream media.”
Is there a difference? Is it because we loved Obama and we hate Trump? Is it because Obama’s delivery was smooth and honey-like, and Trump’s is rough and unpolished? It is exactly the same thing – except for the words they used. The war was the same, the pushback on detractors was no different.
So how do we deal with it? Don’t let ourselves get caught up in the war. Listen to Trump, and don’t let our instincts be swayed by those who would bring him down. Be reasonable, be intelligent – understand that his speaking style is what it is and realize who it is that he is criticizing, and that he is not the modern incarnation of Mussolini.
When a Barack Obama identifies Fox as an enemy, we should immediately go to Fox and hear for ourselves what they are saying. When a Donald Trump identifies purveyors of “Fake News”, we should immediately go to those sources and make up our own minds. We should be giving ourselves context and using our intelligence to sort out what’s true and what’s not, instead of going back to our caves and allowing our tribes to tell us what to believe.
We are in a very difficult time in this country – we are at each others throats with anger, hatred, and a refusal to try to understand others. A perfect example of this is with the Russian “meddling” in our elections. What do we do with this?
What we should do is unite as a country and put the blame on Russia, and not stand for it. What we do instead is blame each other, and try to bring the other side down with that information.
The right claims that all of this meddling took place during the campaign – during the Obama presidency, when Susan Rice, a Democrat, was the National Security Advisor; the Homeland Security department was run by Democrats. The left also points to security breaches in Hillary Clinton’s email server and her association with Russia in dealing with Uranium sales.
The left points to Trump’s Russian business interests, approaches made by Russian operatives to try to provide the Trump campaign with information about Clinton, and has been trying to make the case for collusion since the election.
The issue should be uniting us – that NO foreign power should have any ability to infiltrate American elections, that NO foreign power should have any sway over what happens in the US – yet we allow this whole incident to do exactly what the Kremlin intended – it is getting us to fight amongst ourselves, to hate each other with greater intensity, to divide us even further, and to throw this country into chaos so that we cannot operate effectively as a nation.
And if there is any collusion in this effort, it is the purveyors of “Fake News” who are the guilty ones.
And we can derive a pretty good idea of who they are – they’re the ones who are protesting the most loudly.
It is getting more and more difficult for me to imagine the future of this country – as I’m sure it is for you – but I don’t believe that it is Trump that is the problem. I tend to agree with him on this one.
It’s different when they do it. They’re to good people. Of course you know this but I still think it needs to be said. So we know who the good people are.
And China and the UK and Israel and pick any country vested in our politics. And we do the same to them. This “meddling” thing is so terribly weak. They bought some Facebook ads, whatever. To what degree that is meddling to be taken as a serious threat and do we apply that standard across the board, including to ourselves? It’s a free speech issue. A natural rights issue. Governments do themselves no favors by impinging on the basic, inalienable rights acknowledged by our founders and most philosophers of the enlightenment. The Dems raised a big stink in the past when prominent communists and other agitators were not issued visas to come here and speak. How can they now whine about Russians (and only about Russians) publishing a few innocuous ads? Are the minds of the American public so weak that they can’t sift this stuff out? This whole thing is a witch hunt. Future historians (big assumption assuming there will be future historians) will likely look back on this period in our history with the same bewilderment and contempt we show for Joe McCarthy, the French Revolution, etc.