We did not need more proof that Donald Trump tells lies, that Fox News is a national joke, or that the base of the Republican Party eats up right-wing media and is deeply and sickly involved in a partisan cult. Yet, this week we are being treated to more examples of why all three statements are fact-based.
David Pecker gave highly-interesting testimony during the second day of Trump’s porn sex hush money trial in New York. Certainly, Calvin Coolidge never thought that phrase would be used for someone who formerly sat in the Oval Office. The former publisher of the National Enquirer described how he gave directions to implement an agreement with Trump to help his 2016 campaign. Pecker said the Enquirer “embellished” stories about some of Trump’s opponents at Michael Cohen’s request, including a piece about Sen. Ted Cruz’s father being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The publication had “mashed the photos” together of Lee Harvey Oswald and Cruz’s father, Pecker said, conceding that an article Trump cited repeatedly on the campaign trail was a lie. No, say it is not so!! Trump a liar?! As we know Trump accumulated 30,573 lies and willfully repeated glaring misstatements during his presidency — averaging about 21 lies and erroneous claims a day. All of them were recorded and detailed by the Washington Post.
The news of the so-called “catch and kill” operations is not news, in and of itself, as the actions were known about for years. It is the details of the political and legal chicanery that Pecker provides in a New York courtroom that makes his testimony insightful and meaningful in a legal fashion about Trump. Pecker gave details about buying exclusive rights to a story for the express purpose of never publishing the information. Such as when just days before the election former Playboy model Karen McDougal was paid $150,000 for the rights to a story about her sexual affair with the Republican presidential nominee. Poor Dick Nixon had to use a cute dog to secure his place on Eisenhower’s ticket in 1952. What could he have scored with Pecker-type cash? Well, clearly something other than a Republican cloth coat for his wife, Pat!
During a Fox News interview in 2015 with Trump about the lies surrounding Cruz’s father, the hosts of Fox and Friends are heard saying “yeah” to the sewage being spewed. “What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death?” That is when “yeah” can be heard from one of the hosts on the Fox set. Wow. ABC News played that recorded segment on Tuesday’s evening broadcast. When it comes to the testimony about the unseemly side of the National Enquirer, with more in-depth insight into their tawdry tabloid ‘journalism’, let us also keep focused on the deplorable side of Fox.
Monday was a prime example of how Fox operates and how journalism is never their mission. Which leads to the viewers of that network being clueless about the day’s events. Following the court session, Trump took to his position outside the courtroom to rail against the judicial system, aim his caustic remarks at the judge and future witnesses, and every vile accusation he could remember to utter. The New York Times reported his rant lasted ten minutes. I have issues with media outlets allowing for the airwaves to be knowingly filled with lies, the very kind Trump was noted for in his term in the Oval Office. So, I was not in favor of CNN taking the entire word salad of Trump live, but they did follow it up by taking down each one of his lunacy sentences with a panel of reporters and lawyers. It was reported that MSNBC also took most of the rant but then added the needed on-air fact-checks to weed out the lies. What, you ask, did Fox News do? They aired the entire Trump tantrum but instead of running a fact-check, they praised the GOP frontrunner.
Is it any wonder those who watch Fox News are undereducated and easily led? The base of the GOP is in a cult and that is even more obvious given the facts presented to the jury about the lifestyle of their leader. And how the base has to then go out of their way to defend that lifestyle! If not for a cult how does one reason that evangelicals continue to support such a despicable person? We are living in a period where a large segment of the nation is duped, and worse still, willingly so. Those of us watching this play out are left to ponder how it has been such an easy job to pry otherwise stable people into giving up morals, common sense, and fact-based reasoning? Had Charles Dickens not already penned the line it could be written for the Trump base, who demonstrate continuously how adrift they are from the shores of sanity.
Please, Sir, I Want Some More.
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 
I checked out the Washington Post’s list of Donald Trump’s most common lies. Given all the legitimate reasons not to trust him, I think they’re padding it a bit. For example, while some of his instances of claiming credit for accomplishments should definitely be called out as lies, some of it is vague bluster (e.g. his “greatest economy” line). To be sure, vague bluster also ought to be called out, because we want politicians who can do better than that.
Unfortunately, labeling vague bluster as a lie undermines the Post’s credibility with a lot of people that the Post might want to persuade. To inspire more people to abandon Trump, I would suggest that the Post put more emphasis on his actions rather than his words. They can highlight bad decisions, explain the context for those decisions, and present alternatives that might have been more constructive. That would convince more people than counting Trump’s falsehoods and mixing in his exaggerations and claptrap. Trump’s words are empty and create distraction and confusion, which is bad for a politician but unfortunately not far enough from what people are used to to be a serious concern.
Moreover, many people also have doubts and concerns about Trump’s competitors. People would likely be more comfortable accepting criticism of Trump if they were presented with some alternatives that inspired their confidence. It’s one thing to tell people that they should be distrust Trump. It’s another thing to be able to produce a politician that they feel they can trust, one who addresses their fears constructively.
Of course, the Washington Post isn’t responsible for creating politicians from scratch, but if people who support Trump could hear about what other politicians are doing to help them, it would do more to draw people away from Trump than fact-checking the noises he makes.
Thoughts?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I really appreciate the views expressed and the seriousness you gave to the issue at hand. As a subscriber to the digital daily copy of the Washington Post, having done so since 2017 when Trump was sworn into office, I can attest to the daily coverage and examination of issues far and wide, and in depth. One of the ways they covered his time in the office was to keep a daily log of his lies and utter distortions. The reason for doing so was that no other president had abused the issue of trust in the manner ad degree that Trump did. While I well understand political rhetoric, and in my time wrote some of those types of lines for my boss to use at public events, the statement of “greatest economy” while employed once and before a rally is one thing, but a repetitive use of the line then becomes a lie that then requires reporters to call out—-the economic data in many cases shows that it was not the “greatest”. I mention one more thing as you noted a different way of coverage of news “would do more to draw people away from Trump”. As a former radio news broadcaster, I do not think a news operation is seeking to be anything other than informing and educating people on the news of the day. For example, Watergate reporters were piecing the various aspects of the crimes into a larger story, but I do not think they were seeking—or even dreaming—that a presidential resignation would result. Let the facts lead the reader, not a reporter or news operation. Thanks again, and have a nice weekend.
Thanks for your response, and I hope you have a nice weekend as well!
Thank you for clarifying the significance of the “greatest economy” claim. That does seem to be more serious than I thought, and worth challenging using statistics about people’s ability to buy what they need and how it’s changed over the past decade.
I concur that Trump doesn’t seem to care about the accuracy of the statements he makes, and I wish his supporters would recognize this as a problem. To that end, I think the Washington Post could establish broader trust if they were to keep track of falsehoods and factually inaccurate statements from politicians on both sides of the aisle. It’d make comparing politicians easier as well.
After a few minutes of research, I did find their fact checker database on Biden, so that’s a good start. Now I wonder if people just don’t realize it’s there. It says it only shows his first 100 days in office, though, so it might be a good idea to bring it up to date and refer to it where appropriate.
On a more optimistic note, people might like to see a research study of the promises that politicians have kept over their careers. Does the Post have one of those? I found an article on Trump and a brief podcast on Biden, but a running database would be helpful.