All the disinformation that’s fit to print
We sometimes lose sight of how downright weird so much news reporting has become. Imagine you’re the New York Times. Donald Trump might return to the presidency so you report, as the paper did on April 12, on the “distrust" that exists between him and the U.S.
intelligence agencies. But you leave out the part about top Obama intelligence officers going on national TV to call Mr. Trump a Russian agent.
You leave out the part about FBI counterintelligence leaders knowingly trafficking in fabricated evidence about him. You leave out the part about 51 former intelligence officials lying to voters to influence an election and help his opponent. How should we cover Mr.
Trump, the Times famously asked on its home page in 2017. The answer might have been “fairly." Don’t lie about him or anyone else. This fogey advice has now evidently given way to the psychology of “splitting," a defense mechanism that involves editing out facts and realities that cause emotional dissonance.
For a Times reader who wants to think the worst of Mr. Trump, after all, it can be painful to realize, yes, Mr. Trump is awful but his enemies did lie about him, intelligence officials did abuse their powers in shocking ways.
Times readers aren’t babies, you respond. They can this handle emotional complexity. Difficult truths aren’t going to turn them into MAGA supporters.
On top of everything else, you add, a world in which Donald Trump is Donald Trump, and the intelligence agencies are trying to thwart him, is an interesting world. Exactly. The Times isn’t serving its readers, it’s serving itself.
Read more on livemint.com
