The Race For 2024

[laughing dog]

See also

Sanewashing? The banality of crazy? A decade into the Trump era, media hasn’t figured him out​

‘Sanewashing’ creates an alternative narrative, some say​

Molloy first used the phrase “sanewashing” this fall to describe a tendency among journalists to launder some of Trump’s wilder or barely coherent statements to make them seem like the cogent pronouncements of a typical politician. One example she cites: CNN distilling a Trump post on Truth Social that rambled on about the “radical left” and “fake news” into a straight news lead about the former president agreeing to debate his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.

At its best, polishing Trump creates an alternative narrative, she said. At its worst, it’s misinformation.

During a Wisconsin rally the last weekend of September, Trump talked of danger from criminals allowed in the country illegally. “They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat,” he said. The New Republic writer Michael Tomasky was surprised not to find the quote in The New York Times’ and Washington Post’s coverage, although The Times noted that Trump vilified undocumented immigrants, and there were other media references to what Trump himself called a dark speech.

“Trump constantly saying extreme, racist violent stuff can’t always be new,” Tomasky wrote. “But it is always reality. Is the press justified in ignoring reality just because it isn’t new?”

One likely reason the remark didn’t get that much attention is because Trump — at the same rally — referred to Harris without evidence as “mentally disabled.”

That comment merited quick mention on the ABC and CBS evening newscasts the next day, in the context of criticism from two fellow Republicans, and after stories about Hurricane Helene’s devastation and war in the Middle East. NBC’s “Nightly News” didn’t bring it up at all.

In other words, Trump said something wild. What’s new? More than sanewashing, political scientist Brian Klaas calls that the banality of crazy, where journalists become accustomed to things Trump says that would be shocking coming from other candidates simply because they’re numbed to it.

It's not just Trump. Look at the minifuror of Walz's statement about being in Hong Kong during Tianenman Square. That falsehood pales in comparison to Vance's persistent and copious lies, yet the media continued to ask Walz about it while staying silent about Vance.

 

[Tigers!]

It's not just Trump. Look at the minifuror of Walz's statement about being in Hong Kong during Tianenman Square. That falsehood pales in comparison to Vance's persistent and copious lies, yet the media continued to ask Walz about it while staying silent about Vance.

My goodness. Are you admitting that Democrat candidates lie?
What is happening to the world?

 

[TSwizzle]

Actually, there is a new term out there for the way the media report on Trump: sanewashing. That is, their reporting seldom mentions his incoherent or demented ramblings and paraphrases his content to make it sound more mainstream. Unfortunately, it just isn't all that newsworthy to report that he said something totally stupid or looney. Good for a chuckle, but people are tired of chuckling. You can google "sanewashing" and find a whole host of links pointed directly at stories about news coverage of Donald Trump.

I've never heard the term. There is a wiki page about "sane-washing" which is nominated for deletion. The term seems to have originated in a Reddit forum. I don't think this is a common use term. So what are you saying here, that the MSM are not reporting Trump's incoherent ramblings? That doesn't sound accurate as almost everyday there is a post about one of his ramblings on here and usually there is a link provided. But let's face it, the full weight of the establishment media are right behind dopey Harris.

 

[Tigers!]

Well, my ballot has got here! Time to join in with 150 million ambivalent citizens and do the one thing we can all still agree on: holding our nose and voting for the most tolerable face of wickedness and vice.

Works in Australia too. (except for the 150 million. We have only about 17 million)

You are theoretically obliged to vote. A better system, if you ask me.

You are obliged to get your name marked off the electoral roll, lest you get fined. What you do with the ballot papers given to you is up to you.
You can do the following with your ballot papers without fear of punishment

• Put them unmarked in the ballot boxes
• throw them in the face of polling officials
• throw them on the ground and leave them there
• rip them up and throw them in the air or stuff the pieces into a ballot box
• set them on fire (though that will probably get you in trouble)
• deface them, write rude messages, vote for your mum or the king.

Two (2) things you cannot do with your ballot papers

• Give them to a person who is not a polling official
• take them out of the polling station

I fail to see the point in most of those options. If you're there anyway, why not just, you know, vote?

I know that, you know that.
But there are a lot of wallies out there.

Lots of oeople appear to be under the misapprehension that their ballot paper will be seen by the government, or the candidate(s), and write comments or even manifestos.

My favourite informal vote was a paper with no boxes marked, on the back of which was scrawled "Not everyone should have to vote!"

As I remarked to the Returning Officer, 'Well, he didn't, did he?'.

I did counting for the Victorian senate ballots during the 2016 Aust. Commonwealth elections. Two favourite votes were for the Queen and Mum.
Numerically they were significant. Note, that of course did not mean they were informal, just that people actually scrawled Mum or the Queen on the ballot paper.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Americans are still isolationists at heart.

People don't realize we are running 2 governments. The domestic US, and being 'the leader of the 'free' world'. (the state dept, NATO, etc)
Turning our back on our global responsibilities will bite us in the ass. We have rivals for that role. Russa and China. Who would not leave us alone in our isolation. We never voted on being 'the leader of the 'free' world'. So people think it's just a national hobby. But we're stuck with it.

The longer it takes to put Utin back in his box, and make clear that his expansionism will not be tolerated, the harder and bloodier it will become to do so. But it will have to be done eventually.

If I were Prez, (ha) My response would be to re-establish the blockade of Cuba. And tell Putin "Hay, if we're carving up territory, we'll just annex Cuba. Unless you would care to back off the Ukraine."
And just for safety, position our Pacific fleet around Alaska.

Hell, we could just re-establish relations with Cuba, start up trade, subsidize them a little, and that would immediately end any influence Russia has there.

 

[TomC]

Hell, we could just re-establish relations with Cuba, start up trade, subsidize them a little, and that would immediately end any influence Russia has there.

As I recall,
That black kid from Chicago that kicked McCain's ass in 2008 tried that.
Turned out that too many Americans were opposed to peace and prosperity for all. Like Iran, too many American voters prefer war and poverty to allow decency in US foreign policy.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

All we heard from Harris was a non-answer to an awkward question about ongoing negotiations with Netanyahu. She reportedly has some differences with the way Biden is handling that relationship, but she wasn't about to get into that on national television, especially when the entire Middle East is a powder keg waiting to blow up. So she gave an awkward answer to a difficult question.

Seth Meyers, really?

Anyway, the issue I brought up is with CBS 60 Minutes, a supposedly reputable news program editing dopey Harris' response to make her look not quite so bad as she is. I don't think any establishment news stations are editing Trump videos to make him seem coherent. Quite the opposite where Trump's faults are well, Seth Meyers for example and I understand SNL has been lampooning Harris and Biden of late but these are not news programs, they are comedy shows.

All such interviews are edited and they always have been.

 

[ZiprHead]

Funny the right is complaining about edited interviews while doing this shit.

Debunked: Kamala Harris didn't make an ad about a woman regretting not having an abortion

A manipulated video has re-purposed an old ad to spread a false claim about the US vice president.

www.thejournal.ie

AN OLD AD has been edited and re-shared online to falsely suggest that it is a new campaign ad for US presidential candidate Kamala Harris about a “mother who wishes she had an abortion”.

The ad, which shows a child dance through a house, trashing rooms and spilling paint as they go, was originally for home insurance.

The video was produced for John Lewis Home Insurance, although it was later pulled in 2021 after it was found to be “potentially misleading” after a finding that the company’s standard insurance wouldn’t cover the damage featured in the video.

“DISTURBING: New Kamala Harris Campaign Ad Depicts Mother Who Wishes She Had An Abortion,” a post on Facebook from 2 October reads.

“Please tell me we don’t have a VP [Vice President] wishing this on a pre-teen in a commercial!” says another post with the same manipulated ad, published on Instagram on 2 October.

The video opens on a parent’s bedroom in a state of disarray before panning to show a child wearing their parent’s dress, makeup, and jewellery.

As an instrumental version of the Stevie Nicks’s song Edge of Seventeen plays, the child goes through the house, knocking over lights and decorations, pushing their sister’s paint set off the table and smearing their face with the pigment in their hands, before spilling a drink on a laptop, and gleefully tossing glitter around the kitchen.

In one shot, a woman reading at a table — presumably the child’s mother — looks up at what is happening, dumbstruck.

The video included in the posts has been edited to show a “Harris/Walz” flag in the top left corner. Tim Walz is the current Governor of Minnesota and Kamala Harris’s running mate for vice-president.

The manipulated video also features a voiceover, seemingly belonging to Kamala Harris, talking about abortion bans in the United States and how they have forced women into motherhood when they are not ready.

 

[Swammerdami]

Actually, there is a new term out there for the way the media report on Trump: sanewashing. That is, their reporting seldom mentions his incoherent or demented ramblings and paraphrases his content to make it sound more mainstream. Unfortunately, it just isn't all that newsworthy to report that he said something totally stupid or looney. Good for a chuckle, but people are tired of chuckling. You can google "sanewashing" and find a whole host of links pointed directly at stories about news coverage of Donald Trump.

I've never heard the term. There is a wiki page about "sane-washing" which is nominated for deletion...

The wiki page is  Sanewashing and is worth a read. It sheds light on a very salient fact: The MSM, by its very medium=message nature, will tend to "normalize" Trumpist excesses.

Election of Trump remains highly probable. This dismal aberration can be viewed in several ways but, most generally, it is of course Stupidism which is the major culprit.

I have denounced the spectrum of political ideologies I call "Stupidism" in the past, but unfortunately without offering any practicable remedy.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think almost all of us are either OVER-eager or UNDER-eager to take a close look at Trump's present-day cognition but IF there are exceptions, this might be a good starting point:

 

[TSwizzle]

The wiki page is  Sanewashing and is worth a read. It sheds light on a very salient fact: The MSM, by its very medium=message nature, will tend to "normalize" Trumpist excesses.

I can't say I have noticed. Do you have an example you can link to? (I hardly watch TV news whether online or streaming).

 

[TSwizzle]

I think almost all of us are either OVER-eager or UNDER-eager to take a close look at Trump's present-day cognition but IF there are exceptions, this might be a good starting point:

The "reporter" opens up with "alarm bells are ringing over disgraced, twice impeached, four times indicted etc former president"

Like I say, the full weight of the MSM is behind dopey Harris.

 

[TomC]

The "reporter" opens up with "alarm bells are ringing over disgraced, twice impeached, four times indicted etc former president"

Trump is.

Telling the truth, whether you want to hear it or not, is called journalism.

Sorry if you find truth so partisan.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, there is a new term out there for the way the media report on Trump: sanewashing. That is, their reporting seldom mentions his incoherent or demented ramblings and paraphrases his content to make it sound more mainstream. Unfortunately, it just isn't all that newsworthy to report that he said something totally stupid or looney. Good for a chuckle, but people are tired of chuckling. You can google "sanewashing" and find a whole host of links pointed directly at stories about news coverage of Donald Trump.

I've never heard the term. There is a wiki page about "sane-washing" which is nominated for deletion. The term seems to have originated in a Reddit forum. I don't think this is a common use term. So what are you saying here, that the MSM are not reporting Trump's incoherent ramblings? That doesn't sound accurate as almost everyday there is a post about one of his ramblings on here and usually there is a link provided. But let's face it, the full weight of the establishment media are right behind dopey Harris.

I'm surprised that you never heard of the word. You apparently did not bother to read the Wikipedia discussion page about the deletion, having made up your mind without checking the facts (as usual for you). Darth Stabro, the editor who recommended deletion on the grounds that it was just a neologism, withdrew his nomination for deletion yesterday, admitting that the consensus on the page was against deletion. So you now know about it, and you should actually bother to read the links on it that I posted. They are very informative.

The wiki page is  Sanewashing and is worth a read. It sheds light on a very salient fact: The MSM, by its very medium=message nature, will tend to "normalize" Trumpist excesses.

I can't say I have noticed. Do you have an example you can link to? (I hardly watch TV news whether online or streaming).

I literally quoted an example in my post and posted a link to the full article that it came from. You really don't bother to read articles that you fear might challenge your partisan biases.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's not just Trump. Look at the minifuror of Walz's statement about being in Hong Kong during Tianenman Square. That falsehood pales in comparison to Vance's persistent and copious lies, yet the media continued to ask Walz about it while staying silent about Vance.

My goodness. Are you admitting that Democrat candidates lie?

sure they lie sometimes. And Santa Monica gets hot, but not Death Valley hot! One can have two things while not being of nearly the same degree. It is a common right wing tactic to normalize both sides as being equal in degree.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[TSwizzle]

Actually, there is a new term out there for the way the media report on Trump: sanewashing. That is, their reporting seldom mentions his incoherent or demented ramblings and paraphrases his content to make it sound more mainstream. Unfortunately, it just isn't all that newsworthy to report that he said something totally stupid or looney. Good for a chuckle, but people are tired of chuckling. You can google "sanewashing" and find a whole host of links pointed directly at stories about news coverage of Donald Trump.

I've never heard the term. There is a wiki page about "sane-washing" which is nominated for deletion. The term seems to have originated in a Reddit forum. I don't think this is a common use term. So what are you saying here, that the MSM are not reporting Trump's incoherent ramblings? That doesn't sound accurate as almost everyday there is a post about one of his ramblings on here and usually there is a link provided. But let's face it, the full weight of the establishment media are right behind dopey Harris.

I'm surprised that you never heard of the word. You apparently did not bother to read the Wikipedia discussion page about the deletion, having made up your mind without checking the facts (as usual for you). Darth Stabro, the editor who recommended deletion on the grounds that it was just a neologism, withdrew his nomination for deletion yesterday, admitting that the consensus on the page was against deletion.

I glanced through it, saw that it was up for deletion and moved on. It doesn't matter to me what the made up word is. It's just a silly slang term like "fake news" or whatever. The gist seems to be that the MSM is trying to present Trump's incoherent ramblings as coherent or "sane-washing". I don't watch any of the political news stuff so I don't see it

So you now know about it, and you should actually bother to read the links on it that I posted. They are very informative.

Tried the first one, it was paywalled so gave up. However Swammi posted an example where the MSM didn't try to cover or downplay Trump's nonsense. In fact they went to great lengths to bring it to the viewers attention!!

 

[ZiprHead]

Major Conservative Poll Cited by Media Secretly Worked With Trump Team

Leaked emails reveal the truth about Rasmussen Reports—and the way the Trump campaign is breaking election law.

newrepublic.com

A major polling organization is reportedly giving Donald Trump’s campaign previews of its results before the public sees them.

On Thursday, American Muckrakers posted about emails it received detailing how the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports, which claims to be nonpartisan, shared polling results with Trump advisers and campaign officials like Dan Scavino, Susie Wiles, and John McLaughlin. The advisers, Rasmussen, and the nonprofit organizations that pay it for polling are violating tax and election laws, according to American Muckrakers.
One of the emails details close collaboration between the Trump campaign, Rasmussen, and the Heartland Institute, which calls itself a national free-market public policy think tank. However, it’s also a 501(c)3 nonprofit and is not allowed to engage in political activity benefiting a political candidate.

Even the pollsters cheat nowadays.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, there is a new term out there for the way the media report on Trump: sanewashing. That is, their reporting seldom mentions his incoherent or demented ramblings and paraphrases his content to make it sound more mainstream. Unfortunately, it just isn't all that newsworthy to report that he said something totally stupid or looney. Good for a chuckle, but people are tired of chuckling. You can google "sanewashing" and find a whole host of links pointed directly at stories about news coverage of Donald Trump.

I've never heard the term. There is a wiki page about "sane-washing" which is nominated for deletion. The term seems to have originated in a Reddit forum. I don't think this is a common use term. So what are you saying here, that the MSM are not reporting Trump's incoherent ramblings? That doesn't sound accurate as almost everyday there is a post about one of his ramblings on here and usually there is a link provided. But let's face it, the full weight of the establishment media are right behind dopey Harris.

I'm surprised that you never heard of the word. You apparently did not bother to read the Wikipedia discussion page about the deletion, having made up your mind without checking the facts (as usual for you). Darth Stabro, the editor who recommended deletion on the grounds that it was just a neologism, withdrew his nomination for deletion yesterday, admitting that the consensus on the page was against deletion.

I glanced through it, saw that it was up for deletion and moved on. It doesn't matter to me what the made up word is. It's just a silly slang term like "fake news" or whatever. The gist seems to be that the MSM is trying to present Trump's incoherent ramblings as coherent or "sane-washing". I don't watch any of the political news stuff so I don't see it

Sure, the banner about being "up for deletion" satisfied your bias, and you didn't bother to follow the link to the discussion in which the person who had put it up for deletion admitted he was wrong and retracted the motion. It is not up for deletion, because it has well-attested usage across a broad spectrum of sources. The sources give lots of examples of sanewashing Donald Trump, so the best option for you is to ignore them rather than address them. Nobody here is fooled by that kind of lazy dismissal. Also, I quoted a clear sample of text from the article that you also ignored.

So you now know about it, and you should actually bother to read the links on it that I posted. They are very informative.

Tried the first one, it was paywalled so gave up. However Swammi posted an example where the MSM didn't try to cover or downplay Trump's nonsense. In fact they went to great lengths to bring it to the viewers attention!!

Wikipedia is not paywalled, and that article I linked to was not paywalled. You just didn't bother to 'x' out the pop-up. Nor was the article that I posted in my follow-up paywalled. You're just afraid to read material that challenges your biases.

 

[Tigers!]

It's not just Trump. Look at the minifuror of Walz's statement about being in Hong Kong during Tianenman Square. That falsehood pales in comparison to Vance's persistent and copious lies, yet the media continued to ask Walz about it while staying silent about Vance.

My goodness. Are you admitting that Democrat candidates lie?

sure they lie sometimes. And Santa Monica gets hot, but not Death Valley hot! One can have two things while not being of nearly the same degree. It is a common right wing tactic to normalize both sides as being equal in degree.

I have a dream that one day pollies will not lie about their policies, opponents etc.
I suspect I will be dead long before that happens.