A Lot of Trump Supporters Are Deplorable—and a Lot of the Media Are Too

A Lot of Trump Supporters Are Deplorable—and a Lot of the Media Are Too

A Lot of Trump Supporters Are Deplorable—and a Lot of the Media Are Too

The frenzy over Clinton’s warning about bigoted Trump backers, along with her minor health scare Sunday, is just more media malpractice.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Maybe Hillary Clinton is happy that her “overheating” at a September 11 event knocked her much-maligned remark about the racist, xenophobic “deplorables” who back Donald Trump mostly off the cable airwaves. But the media freakout over both Clinton events shows what she’s up against in this 2016 cycle: reporters who are convinced that she’s a condescending elitist with a penchant for secrecy who won’t play by the rules other candidates do—and who are doing their best to convince voters to share this view.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: There is, in fact, one candidate in the race who is a condescending elitist with a penchant for secrecy who won’t play by the rules other candidates do. And that’s Donald Trump, the first candidate in 40 years to not release his tax returns, who shared a typo-ridden one-page letter from his “doctor” that reads like it came from Hunter S. Thompson’s physician, who’s known for boasting about his wealth and calling people “losers.” My favorite Trump quote about the poor comes from a 1999 column by his friend Maureen Dowd:

“My entire life, I’ve watched politicians bragging about how poor they are, how they came from nothing, how poor their parents and grandparents were. And I said to myself, if they can stay so poor for so many generations, maybe this isn’t the kind of person we want to be electing to higher office. How smart can they be? They’re morons.”

But it’s Clinton who’s being attacked as an elitist (c’mon, Barbara Ehrenreich!) for her supposedly awful remarks about Trump’s “deplorables,” and as a secrecy-obsessed, transparency-rejecting politician for the way she handled her Sunday health scare. Double standards, anybody?

On Saturday, she walked back her claim that bigots make up “half” of Trump backers, but not her charge about the role of bigotry in his rise. But she needn’t have. Journalists like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jamelle Bouie, and Judd Legum have shown that Clinton was right. Two-thirds of Trump supporters believe President Obama isn’t an American (Trump’s first political crusade, you’ll recall.) Sixty percent have “unfavorable views” of Islam, while more than 40 percent believe blacks are “more violent” and “more criminal” than whites. My personal favorite data point: Twenty percent of Trump backers think Lincoln was wrong to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

What’s really unfortunate about the media pushback, besides its unfairness to Clinton, is that it shows reporters as well as Republicans—even some Never Trump Republicans—are still uncomfortable facing the huge role race plays in animating the party’s bigoted anti-Obama, anti-Clinton base. And as long as our best reporters and commentators, along with moderate Republicans, ignore that uncomfortable truth, they’re showing us how they both aided in the rise of Trump, and why Trumpism won’t go away, even if he loses. Even after Donald Trump Jr. and Trump adviser Roger Stone shared a “Deplorables” poster that included them, Trump’s father, and the racist “alt-right” Pepe the Frog meme, the media was still flogging Clinton. One of the nation’s two major political parties is morphing into a white-nationalist party, but Clinton is the boor for talking about it.

On Clinton’s “overheating” incident, in broiling humidity at the 9/11 memorial on Sunday, the media failure to calmly report facts and avoid hot takes (no pun intended) is just as remarkable. It turns out Clinton, who’s been suffering from a bad cough, was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. Apparently, respiratory illnesses have felled others in her tight-knit, overworked Brooklyn headquarters. The candidate made a decision to continue campaigning nonetheless and had seemed fine until stuck for 90 minutes in bright sunshine and sweltering humidity in a blue suit with a high-necked shirt. (If only she could rock a sundress, but she’d probably be shamed out of the race.) Feeling ill, she left without a media pool, to rest for an hour at daughter Chelsea’s apartment.

First reporters squawked that she’d left without a pool. Mind you, Trump doesn’t have a pool, so when he left the event early, too, nobody even noticed. Then they squawked about her failure to produce a doctor’s report explaining what was wrong; when she produced a doctor’s report of her pneumonia diagnosis, they squawked “Secrecy!” Even David Axelrod, who’s turned into a lamentable concern troll this cycle, tweeted:

But that made me wonder: What other sorts of maladies must she immediately disclose to us? Sure, voters ought to know about a diagnosis of cancer, Parkinson’s, a heart attack, a stroke; anything that signals major health problems that could interfere with doing her job. But what about hemorrhoids? A bladder infection? Stomach flu? Clearly, Clinton chose to go on with her campaign and had done so successfully until Sunday morning. Why did we need to know about her bout with pneumonia the minute she got it? What brand-new standard is that?

The truth is, reporters have been primed to freak out about Clinton’s health by the right-wing sludge factory, which has managed to pollute the waters of mainstream discourse with phony rumors about her supposed maladies spread by Dr. Sean Hannity, the dumbest man on cable news. This had already led some in the media to call for Clinton to release more of her medical records—even though the four-page letter from her doctor she produced earlier this year shared far more information than the farcical, typo-ridden one-pager produced by Trump, which called him “the healthiest man to ever seek the presidency.”

I think questions about Clinton’s health are legitimate, and we needed to know what felled her Sunday morning. By afternoon, we found out—and for a lot of reporters, it still wasn’t enough. This is a dangerous game. The so-called Clinton rules won’t only hurt Hillary Clinton this time; they could elect Donald Trump, and destroy the country. Maybe some of our nation’s finest media figures should go see a doctor and get treatment for their chronic inability to see the big picture in this race.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x