Why Donald Trump is impervious to fact-checking
When people are told for decades that the mainstream media is constantly lying, what do you expect?
Chuck Todd was exasperated. Interviewing Donald Trump on Meet the Press on Sunday, Todd confronted the Republican frontrunner on his bogus claim that thousands of Muslim Americans in Jersey City gathered together to cheer as the World Trade Center fell on 9/11. Todd pointed out that the rumors of such celebrations had been investigated and were proven false, but Trump insisted that it's true because his fans have sent him tweets saying they remember it. "Well just because somebody repeats something doesn't make it true," Todd said, trying with only limited success to get a word in. "You're running for president of the United States. Your words matter. Truthfulness matters. Fact-based stuff matters."
But maybe it doesn't. It doesn't seem to matter for Donald Trump, and if a politician truly doesn't care how often he's been called out for lying, is there anything the press can do about it?
It's surely one of the press' most important tasks to police the things politicians say for veracity and point out when they lie, whether in the course of everyday reporting or in formal fact-checks. But it turns out that there's an unspoken mutual consent underlying that enterprise. The public accepts that the judgments of the fact-checkers are objective and reasonable (even if they might quibble over things like where the line is between the "False" claim and the "Pants on Fire" claim), and the politicians accept that if something they've said has been proven false, they shouldn't say it anymore.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
But Donald Trump and his supporters have simply refused to offer their consent. Not only does he refuse to be held to any standard of truth, he refuses to act ashamed when he gets caught in a lie, or even grant that he might have been mistaken. And his supporters go right along — if Donald says it, it's true, and no bunch of media jerks are going to tell them otherwise.
Like so much about the Trump campaign, the candidate's lack of concern for the truth is the outgrowth of tendencies that have been present in the Republican Party for some time. For decades, conservatives have argued that the media is hopelessly biased against conservative politicians and conservative ideas. In their attempts to counter what they see as liberal bias, conservatives built an alternative media system all their own — a few newspapers and magazines, but more importantly talk radio and Fox News — that could deliver the news in a way they found more amenable. If you're part of the audience of those outlets, you hear on a daily basis that everything the mainstream media tells you is a lie, and you can only trust the conservative media.
That idea is a leitmotif running through the conservative media's discussion of every issue, foreign or domestic: The media is trying to keep the truth from you. As Rush Limbaugh once told his audience when discussing climate science, "If you know what's good for you, if you know that they're leftists, you won't believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything … So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit."
When people who have imbibed that message thousands of times over see someone like Chuck Todd say that Donald Trump he isn't telling the truth, who are they going to believe? If they're already favorably disposed toward Trump, and he's telling them something they want to believe — in this case, that Muslim Americans are dangerous, untrustworthy terrorist-lovers — then it's easy for them to assume that the media is, just like always, hiding the truth.
So what are journalists supposed to do when confronted with someone who doesn't play by the established rules? It's a question that may not have a good answer. For reasons of professional pride, they aren't going to just stop bothering to correct a lie that gets repeated over and over. As long as Trump repeats that thousands of Muslims were celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, they'll keep pointing out the facts (even if they don't always do it with language that's as emphatic as it ought to be). To surrender would be an acknowledgement that all the power rests with the candidate, and he can say whatever the hell he wants whether they like it or not.
But as Trump is demonstrating, the press' ability to punish a candidate for lying depends in no small part on his willingness to accept that he's wrong and take the punishment. If he refuses to do so, and finds himself rewarded by his supporters for it, then the press doesn't have many options left.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Paul Waldman is a senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for The Washington Post. His writing has appeared in dozens of newspapers, magazines, and web sites, and he is the author or co-author of four books on media and politics.
-
Today's political cartoons - March 17, 2024
Cartoons Sunday's cartoons - history repeating, the Pope's white flag, and more
By The Week US Published
-
The Week Unwrapped: Derelict homes, Welsh mines, and vinyl
Podcast What can we do about abandoned property? Are old mines still doing us harm? And what do LP sales tell us about the economy?
By The Week Staff Published
-
Dresden: on the trail of a Romantic icon in Germany
the week recommends The Saxon city celebrates the 250th birthday of Caspar David Friedrich this year
By The Week UK Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Xi-Biden meeting: what's in it for both leaders?
Today's Big Question Two superpowers seek to stabilise relations amid global turmoil but core issues of security, trade and Taiwan remain
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Will North Korea take advantage of Israel-Hamas conflict?
Today's Big Question Pyongyang's ties with Russia are 'growing and dangerous' amid reports it sent weapons to Gaza
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published