Random musings on the so-called defamation of Trump

“Rigged.” It’s the word bandied about irresponsibly by the Trump camp to describe the election. Yet when you look at some of the specifics of the claim, all you find is Trump himself.

They want to say the media is covering him unfairly, but don’t seem to realize that most of the media’s coverage has just involved handing Trump the microphone and letting him speak. Make no mistake, there’s no quote-mining or cherry picking. All one has to do to “defame” Trump is quote him in his entirety.

Which just means his status in the polls reflects that most of us realize how fucking awful he is. The New York Times pisses me off routinely with some of their ignorant editorial choices regarding trans folk, but I think they had a point when they countered Trump’s lawsuit threat by pointing out he has no reputation to defame by virtue of his own words. And indeed, this was one of Clinton’s attack ads. She simply strung together what Trump himself has said, and Trump, in a stunning lack of awareness, said it was “nasty.”

No shit, dude.

Trump wants to engage in the incredibly dangerous act of suggesting the media is “rigging” the election. All the media has to do is plug in a microphone and hit record. Trump will take care of the rest. If that’s “rigging,” then the election is rigged by none other than Trump himself.

I’m sure this will be of small consolation to the first journalist to be murdered by one of his unhinged fans.



  1. samihawkins says

    Objectively reporting the facts about what a right-winger says and does: liberal bias

    Defending, making excuses for, or refusing to even aclnowledge something awful a right winger said/did while relentlessly bashing left-wingers based on flimsy pretexts or outright lies: Fair and Balanced

    Trump is probably the worst offender, but this trend has gone on for a long time.

  2. mesh says

    It is truly amazing to behold. Trump repeatedly brings the media frenzy upon himself with his own statements and his apologists take this to indicate a biased system.

    One must wonder what an unbiased media would look like. Would it simply ignore the unhinged rantings of a major presidential candidate and repeated condemnations of the country’s electoral system? Or would it seek to portray their opponent as equally unhinged in all instances no matter how lucid they are by comparison?

    As much as Republicans would no doubt prefer the media instead blare “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi” infinitely, the people who handle the news earn their keep by reporting the latest, and there’s only one candidate consistently embarrassing themselves by demonizing the media and declaring conspiracy because they aren’t getting their way.