I. Trump’s Authoritarian Risk
Donald Trump is not like any other Presidential candidate in the last 100 years, or perhaps ever. He is allied closely with racists and anti-Semites, identifies with authoritarian rulers and threatens violence. The only remote analogy is Sarah Palin as Vice-Presidential candidate or Pat Buchanan’s 1992 run (per Molly Ivins, the “Better in the Original German” candidacy).
The Poll below asks you to quantify the risk of a Trump Presidency. Zero being no risk and 10 being the worst dictator imaginable or in history. (Or as the late John McLaughlin would say, the worst to a metaphysical certainty.)
Before voting, here are 25 factors to consider. I easily came up with them in less than an hour, without needing Google.
Proposing ethnic cleansing of Mexicans and other undocumented workers.
Proposing a ban on Muslims.
Retweeting of anti-Semitic tweets.
Welcoming support from White Nationalist, Racist and Neo-Nazi groups.
Threatening violence and Intimidation at rallies.
Hiring the head of a White Supremacist site as CEO of your campaign.
Praising an authoritarian ruler’s tactics, which have included poisoning opposition figures.
Charging current leadership is in league with or “founded” terrorist groups.
Boasting about being smarter than generals.
Threatening to abrogate alliances with Democratic countries.
Having a history of racism in business dealings.
Charging that an election is rigged because of Court rulings against voter suppression laws.
Threatening to interfere in alleged “rigged” election through volunteer thugs.
Enthusiastically endorsing torture, including water-boarding and worse.
Disguising likely illicit business activities by not releasing tax returns.
Intimidating the judiciary by charging ethnic bias.
Using exaggerated and violent rhetoric
Lying without conscience every day
Intimidating the press verbally and through limitations on access
Trying to escape legal problems through bribes of public officials
Seeking to inhibit a free press by threatening to ease libel laws
Rejecting science by saying global warming is a hoax.
Supporting quack science through anti-vaxxing.
Demonizing and humiliating opponents through mocking and crude name-calling.
Using staged appearances to appear “Presidential.”
Note this assesses only Trump’s authoritarian risk. There is an entire other risk based on Trump’s incompetence, ignorance and arrogance.
II. How should this affect media coverage of the election?
Trying reading that list and imagine how anyone can say with a straight face Trump can “pivot.” The idea you can “pivot” after hiring Bannon is ludicrous. You cannot “pivot” when your campaign is based on lies, bigotry and threats.
Even if your Authoritarian Risk Assessment is 3 to 4, the Media, including the New York Times, is ignoring this risk and treating 2016 as though it was just another election.
The Media is failing because its coverage does not use the lens of Trump’s true menace as its touchstone. It fails to report the dimensions of Trump’s deceit, threats and authoritarian proposals. It elevates mistakes, at worst, by Hillary into stories worthy of as much and more attention than Trump’s daily dose of lies and threats.
They can do this without surrendering objectivity.
Earlier this week a Times headline was Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun. This headline was a milestone. Just a few years ago, the Times was running stories like “Meteorologists differ with Climatologists on Global Warming.” More recently, articles would say “Most scientists believe climate change causes extreme weather.” Now, the Times is comfortable stating as fact Global Warming causes floods.
Media Coverage of Trump
The extreme threat of Donald Trump is as self-evident as the threat from global warming. Yet the media is treating the election like every past election — covering both candidates in the same way and trying to achieve “balance,” e.g., by juxtaposing Trump’s withholding tax returns with publication of Hillary’s speeches; or Trump’s abject business failure with Hillary’s email practices.
Trump requires a paradigm change in media coverage. By all standards, he should not be President of this country. That's not simply an opinion for the Op-Ed pages. It is true by any objective standard. That truth should guide all political coverage, including which stories are covered and what is on the front page.
Trump lies every day. That should be a front page story every day. Trump hasn't produced tax returns. Variations on that should be a front page story every day. Trump’s mob ties are explored in David Cay Johnston's book. How much have they been explored?
There's direct evidence of Pay for Play re Trump and Bondi and Abbott, as well as abuse of a Foundation and tax abuse. Investigation of that should be a front page story.
The Times has not done this -- They have under-covered Trump.
Media Coverage of Hillary Clinton
Hillary’s coverage presents a different question. She is being unfairly covered even by the standards of a non-authoritarian-risk election. They over-cover her on the Foundation and email stories. (Even up to tonight’s Matt Lauer email-gasm). They have not put these stories in perspective compared to Trump's much greater threat. They put gossip and innuendo on the front page. They even make alliances with professional haters of the Clintons such as Peter Schweizer. They fail to cover her policy speeches as front page stories.
They need to highlight her policy proposals and speeches instead of email and Clinton Foundation obsession. They should consider these issues closed and have no obligation to keep chasing non-issues. They need to show the extreme differences in policy and organization between Hillary and Trump.
They need to make people aware of Trump’s danger to the Republic. It’s not hard to do that — All the material is there from the record of the last year and the ongoing circus.
They can do all of this and still report the campaign objectively. Trump is objectively a terrible threat and (at the very least) Hillary is objectively not.
Unless the Media changes, they will bear responsibility if a dangerous authoritarian threatens the United States and the World as President.