Donald Trump gave a speech in Wildwood, New Jersey, on Saturday, followed by immediate coverage that focused on disputes over the size of the audience. As has been true since the 2016 election, Trump and his supporters just can’t stop lying about crowd size.
But while individuals and news outlets were arguing over how many people wandered down the beach to see Trump, few bothered to note what Trump actually said.
That was certainly true of The New York Times, which breezed through 99% of Trump’s speech: “Mr. Trump’s speech largely consisted of what has become his standard fare.”
This oversimplification of Trump’s speech failed to mention Trump’s comparing himself to Al Capone, praise for fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, or his bizarre series of statements that an unidentified “they” were “emptying out their mental institutions into the United States.”
The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He’s a wonderful man. He often times would have a friend for dinner. Remember the last scene? “Excuse me, I’m about to have a friend for dinner,” as this poor doctor walked by. “I’m about to have a friend for dinner.” But Hannibal Lecter. Congratulations. The late, great Hannibal Lecter.
Instead, The New York Times edited down Trump’s speech to create the candidate they want to exist: one who is romping to victory and threatening to win a solid blue state.
Much of Trump’s speech was devoted to what seems to occupy most of Trump’s attention on any given day: making inappropriate grade-school insults about his perceived enemies. That included talking about Manhattan District Attorney “Fat Alvin” Bragg and former New Jersey Gov. Chris “Fat Pig” Christie. He also called President Joe Biden a “total moron.”
Trump did find time for other things in his lengthy tirade, including cuing the crowd to shout “shit” and discussing his KKK-loving father.
None of that, or Trump’s claim that immigrants were engaged in “the plunder, rape, slaughter, and destruction of the American suburbs, cities, and towns” made it into the Times, though. The Times also failed to report on how thousands of people walked away in the middle of the speech as Trump rambled into praising criminals and serial killers.
What did make it into the article was Trump’s claim that he was "expanding the electoral map" and that "we're going to win New Jersey." And, if that wasn’t enough, the Times added its own emphasis by saying that what stood out about the event wasn’t the content of Trump’s speech but the location of it, pointing to Trump’s past ownership of casinos in New Jersey (without, of course, mentioning that they all went bankrupt).
Through incredibly selective editing, the Times produced a version of the event that omitted the attacks on Judge Juan Merchan, statements that went nowhere, lies, exaggerations, and all of the bullshit—including Trump literally shouting “bullshit!”
Instead, the Times pulled out a few sentences throughout the speech to make it seem that Trump was at least semi-coherent and focused on the election.
As Esquire points out, the Times coverage is a masterclass in how not to cover an event.
“The only story to be written about this event is that a huge crowd gathered to see and hear the presumptive presidential candidate have some sort of episode in public,“ wrote Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce..
Instead, the Times created such an object lesson in normalization that it “ought to be taught in journalism schools as an example of what never to do. “
Unfortunately, it’s an example of how many outlets—but particularly The New York Times—continue to normalize Trump by selectively editing his speeches and statements to make them seem tolerable and at least marginally lucid. The real Trump never makes it off the cutting room floor.
Compare the Times coverage to The Washington Post article on the same event.
Right from the headline, The Washington Post notes that Trump's speech was "filled with vulgar jabs" and reports that Trump called on the crowd to repeat some of those vulgarities and how much of his speech got lost behind "meandering asides." And while the article also mentions Trump's claim that he would win New Jersey, it frames that statement against the facts—that the state is safe for Biden.
This isn't a matter of a New York Times article that leans slightly more favorable to Trump versus a Washington Post article that slants the other way. This was an event where Trump simply lost it in front of a crowd, tossing off one nonsensical statement after another.
There is nothing in the entire two-hour video recorded by C-SPAN that can be considered a normal—or even acceptable—political speech. This is the verbal equivalent of a sewage spill.
The New York Times chose to ignore all of that, creating a lie of omission, taking the real Trump out of their Trump article to create a character who doesn’t actually exist.
And no matter how badly the Times tries to justify this, it goes beyond yellow journalism. It’s orange.
Campaign Action