Any thinking journalist is aware by now that when Donald Trump says something \u2013 especially about the war in Iran \u2013 it may or may not be true. (And probably isn’t.)<\/p>\n
This has been well documented. Consider the April 29 Washington Post article headlined: \u201cTrump\u2019s statements on Iran increasingly contradict each other<\/a>,\u201d or the May 6 Associated Press article headlined \u201cTrump administration sows confusion as it tries to reopen Strait of Hormuz<\/a>,\u201d or the May 18 New York Times article headlined \u201cTrump Threatens Iran and Then Pulls Back, All in the Same Day<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n So why in the hell did we spend the whole Memorial Day weekend being pummeled by news headlines about Trump\u2019s Iran \u201cdeal\u201d?<\/p>\n Trump posted a typically undependable statement on Saturday afternoon<\/a>, full of weasel words. \u201cAn Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization,\u201d he wrote. \u201cFinal aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,\u201d he wrote, adding: \u201cthe Strait of Hormuz will be opened.\u201d<\/p>\n What did our top journalist do? Did they respond with skepticism? Did they push back? Did they demand evidence? Did they warn their readers that Trump has zero credibility on this issue? (To be clear: The man has been saying the war would be over \u201cvery soon\u201d for going on two months now<\/a>.)<\/p>\n No. This is what they did:<\/p>\n Where was anything remotely like a warning to readers that he might be full of it? I found them in places like the 14th<\/sup> paragraph, the 18th<\/sup> paragraph, and the fifth paragraph. It was entirely missing from the Post story.<\/p>\n As the weekend progressed, the coverage became a bit more skeptical. It had to, as Iranian officials confirmed essentially none of Trump\u2019s claims, describing a very different emerging agreement than the one anonymous U.S. officials outlined. The only actual points of agreement appear to be that they are punting the tricky bits until later and that the Strait of Hormuz may be reopened soonish under unspecified conditions.<\/p>\n But even as days passed, with lots more headlines, readers weren\u2019t being told the truth.<\/p>\n What did the Wall Street Journal do when it realized that there was no sign of an actual agreement on the most contentious issues? It published an article on Monday headlined: \u201cIran Talks Bog Down Over Nuclear Program and Sanctions Relief<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n And to add insult to injury, most news organizations treated as serious Trump\u2019s deranged demand that, as part of making peace with Iran, every country in the region must join the Abraham Accords — which would entail making peace with Israel.<\/p>\n Reporters enthusiastically tried to match and beat an Axios article<\/a> which, notably, reported that when Trump announced his demand on a Saturday phone call with the leaders of eight countries in the region, there was dead silence on the phone. \u201cTrump joked and asked if they are still there,” a U.S. official told Axios\u2019s Barak Ravid.<\/p>\n \u201cI am mandatorily requesting that all Countries immediately sign the Abraham Accords,\u201d Trump ranted<\/a> on social media on Monday. And yet the Times<\/a> treated the idea respectfully, noting that it was \u201cunlikely\u201d that any country would agree, but in no way even hinting that the idea is utterly insane.<\/p>\n When the U.S. launched military strikes against targets in southern Iran on Monday, too many news organizations credulously quoted officials who called them \u201cself defense<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n What\u2019s so frustrating about the coverage this weekend is the Charlie-Brown-and-Lucy\u2019s-football nature of the whole thing. How many times will reporters fall for this stuff? How many times must we go through this? It\u2019s painful. Or as Charlie Brown would say: \u201cAAUGHH!\u201d<\/p>\n By now it should be clear that Trump\u2019s assertions about the war in themselves mean nothing. Reporters should demand evidence before broadcasting them. And the coverage should reflect the reality that Trump is saying things that may or may not be true, and that he might contradict himself at any moment.<\/p>\n That\u2019s not the stuff of a sidebar. And a warning to readers that Trump\u2019s statement cannot be taken at face value shouldn\u2019t be in the 14th<\/sup>, or 8th<\/sup>, fifth, or even second paragraph of the main story. That is<\/em> the main story.<\/p>\n So how should Trump\u2019s statements have been covered? I have some ideas:<\/p>\n My message to our major newsrooms is simple: Have some self-respect.<\/p>\n The post Saturation coverage of Trump’s fictional Iran ‘deal’ ruined my weekend<\/a> appeared first on Press Watch<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\n
\n
\r\n
Source link presswatchers.org<\/a>\r\n
Journalists should approach Donald Trump’s statements about Iran cautiously, as they often lack credibility and consistency. Despite this, major news outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, reported on Trump\u2019s claims about an imminent Iran deal without sufficiently questioning their validity. While initial articles included vague skepticism, many headlines failed to adequately convey that Trump\u2019s assertions are often unreliable. As the situation evolved and Iranian officials disputed Trump’s claims, reporters still did not fully address the gap between unlikely agreements and Trump\u2019s rhetoric. The author calls for a more critical approach to Trump\u2019s statements in media coverage.","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Any thinking journalist is aware by now that when Donald Trump says something \u2013 especially about the war in Iran \u2013 it may or may not be true. (And probably isn’t.) This has been well documented. Consider the April 29 Washington Post article headlined: \u201cTrump\u2019s statements on Iran increasingly contradict each other,\u201d or the May 6 Associated Press article headlined…","protected":false},"author":48,"featured_media":2363,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_analytify_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/48"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2362\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2363"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wokeantifa.org\/topics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}