Corporate Media Keeps Smoothing Over Trump’s Wreckage

Wed--Kwei

 

A Blaze of Euphemisms

If you’ve been following the mainstream media’s coverage of Donald J. Trump, you’ve probably noticed a strange phenomenon. News outlets that should be calling out blatant lies and destructive policies are instead tiptoeing around with language that paints Trump as “muscular,” “bold,” or “unconventional.” That is a full-on sane-washing of an administration whose actions have repeatedly undermined democratic norms.

To understand why mainstream outlets keep sane-washing Trump’s most destructive actions, we need to look at who owns these media empires. The Washington Post, for example, is controlled by Jeff Bezos through Amazon’s vast influence. The New York Times, while still family-run, relies heavily on billionaire investors and hedge funds that thrive under political stability—meaning their editorial stance often leans toward keeping the establishment intact, even if it means sanitizing an authoritarian.

Corporate media exists to protect the status quo the ultra-wealthy have built. It’s no coincidence that newsrooms increasingly adopt centrist, or even right-centrist, toned-down language when discussing Trump’s policies. Billionaire owners have no interest in radical pushback—whether against Trump’s tariff chaos, environmental rollbacks, or outright democratic erosion—because instability, not justice, threatens their bottom line. That’s why we keep seeing “muscular” instead of “destructive” or “bold” instead of “reckless” and “controversial” instead of “dangerous.”

The legacy press is not failing; it’s functioning as designed—keeping billionaire interests safe while the rest of us deal with the fallout.

 

The New York Time’s Sugarcoating of Trump’s Executive Orders

In his NYT piece, Chairlie Savage wrote, "On Monday, as Mr. Trump took the oath of office to begin his second term, he asserted a muscular vision of presidential power." There’s nothing “muscular” about slamming the door on refugees, rolling back environmental protections, or flirting with outright unconstitutional travel bans. "Punitive” or “draconian,” is closer to the mark. “Muscular,” as if Trump is flexing his biceps rather than acting like a wannabe strongman.

Here’s why that matters: words shape perception. When these moves masquerade as displays of strength, the actual impact—people losing crucial protections, fragile international alliances on edge—gets blurred. It shifts public discourse from “Is this policy ethical or lawful?” to “Isn’t the President showing leadership by being so decisive?” One of these questions holds Trump accountable; the other gives him a free pass.

 

Ezra Klein’s Muddled Arguments in “Don’t Believe Him”

In The New York Times, Ezra Klein penned a piece titled “Don’t Believe Him.” Frankly, the title alone deserves a second look. Here’s the thing: we actually should believe Donald Trump precisely because he’s so bizarrely transparent about his intentions—even when those intentions are harmful or self-serving. He floated punitive tariffs against our closest allies, cozied up to tyrannical regimes like Russia, and took pleasure in upending decades of diplomatic norms. If his statements seem fantastical, that’s because they reflect the very real fantasies he has—and the terrifying part is that he’s got enough power to make some of them real unless the courts or Congress manage to block him.

The real problem with Klein’s piece isn’t that he questions Trump’s honesty. How he hides the urgent truth in a cloud of scholarly-sounding language makes everything feel ambiguous. Instead of sounding the alarm, Klein sometimes slips into academic dissection, as though unable to pin down Trump’s ever-shifting claims. But come on, sometimes Trump’s flat-out lying or steamrolling ahead on yet another misguided crusade. It doesn’t need couching in paragraphs of theoretical framing. We should believe what Trump says because it’s usually a preview of what he’ll try to do for better or (most often) for worse.

 

The GOP’s Lockstep Support, Despite Grassroots Resistance

It’s not just the so-called liberal media that keeps giving Trump a pass. The Republican Party itself has lined up right behind him, no matter how off-the-rails his policies get. Sure, we’ve witnessed some spirited town hall protests in deep-red districts—voters voicing concerns about healthcare, government overreach, and reckless foreign policy. Yet most Republican lawmakers seem more terrified of Trump’s Twitter wrath than they are concerned about representing the very people who elected them. They may occasionally mumble disagreement, but in the end, they fall in line, backing Trump’s judicial nominations and rubber-stamping his executive orders with a shrug that abandons any semblance of checks and balances. The GOP used to pretend at least to care about fiscal conservatism or moral values. Now, they’re backing a president who tears down allies and coddles authoritarian regimes. These are not the principles the party claimed to champion for decades, but apparently, fear of Trump’s ire—and fear of losing seats to primaries—has overridden any sense of principle.

 

Why Language Matters More Than Ever

Let’s be clear: We live in a time when democracy can feel precarious. When influential outlets downplay authoritarian behavior as “unconventional” or “muscular,” they do more than tone-police the conversation—they normalize a political style that shreds democratic norms. Suddenly, the fact that a legally embattled man is the sitting president doesn’t feel alarming; it becomes part of the background noise.

We rely on the press to hold leaders accountable. When that press gets timid—choosing gentle or indirect words to critique blatantly oppressive or illegal policies—it fails in its responsibility. Sure, journalists may harbor bias, and that’s the nature of the beast. But “bias” against authoritarian power grabs isn’t a flaw. It’s called doing your job.

 

How to Combat Sane-Washing

So, what do we do about all this sane-washing? First, recognize it for what it is. Pay attention to how reporters and commentators describe Trump’s actions. If the words “unprecedented,” “chaotic,” or “dangerous” mysteriously morph into “assertive” or “muscular,” call that out. Second, stop trying to parse Trump’s statements for hidden meaning. He usually says what he wants—whether it’s feasible, moral, or even sane. Lastly, remember that democracy works best when we stay engaged. If the media doesn’t ring the alarm bells loudly enough, we’ve got to do it ourselves. Write letters, show up at town halls, and support independent media that call things by their real names.

No, Trump’s policies aren’t “muscular.” He’s vindictive, impulsive, and willing to steamroll constitutional boundaries if it benefits him politically or financially. Without the press using clear, forceful language to describe that, catastrophic actions are too easy to pass as mere “experiments” in governance. Words matter, especially when democracy is at stake—and it sure as hell is right now.

We must do it ourselves if the legacy press won’t do the job. Our democracy might depend on our ability to cut through the euphemisms and speak out about the stark reality. Don’t settle for sanitized headlines and hedged takes. Demand honest, unflinching reporting—and spread the word yourself if that’s what it takes.

 

On Spite and Its Aftermath

Annamaria on Monday

My brilliant and in every way laudable blogmates have given you a bit of respite over the past couple of days.  I interrupt that trend for a rant.  I hate to announce the - for me - unavoidable.  Warning: I am giving my inner pollyanna the day off.  She'll be back, I promise.  But today I woke up to this headline in the New York Times that set my teeth on edge:

 

The ensuing article, written by Michael D. Shear, began like this:

WASHINGTON — Voters have decided that President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. should guide the country through the next four years. But on issues of war, the environment, criminal justice, trade, the economy and more, President Trump and top administration officials are doing what they can to make changing direction more difficult.

Mr. Trump has spent the last two weeks hunkered down in the White House, raging about a “stolen” election and refusing to accept the reality of his loss. But in other ways he is acting as if he knows he will be departing soon, and showing none of the deference that presidents traditionally give their successors in their final days in office.

During the past four years Mr. Trump has not spent much time thinking about policy, but he has shown a penchant for striking back at his adversaries. And with his encouragement, top officials are racing against the clock to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, secure oil drilling leases in Alaska, punish China, carry out executions and thwart any plans Mr. Biden might have to reestablish the Iran nuclear deal.

In some cases, like the executions and the oil leases, Mr. Trump’s government plans to act just days — or even hours — before Mr. Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20.

 

At a wide range of departments and agencies, Mr. Trump’s political appointees are going to extraordinary lengths to try to prevent Mr. Biden from rolling back the president’s legacy. They are filling vacancies on scientific panels, pushing to complete rules that weaken environmental standards, nominating judges and rushing their confirmations through the Senate, and trying to eliminate health care regulations that have been in place for years.

I couldn't read further.  What came immediately to my mind was pictures of the spiteful behavior of the Nazis when they were driven out of Florence during World War II.  They destroyed beautiful medieval buildings and a bridge graced with sculptures by Michelangelo.  Out of spite. There was no other possible explanation.

With the connection between Trump's behavior and that of defeated and irate fascists taking hold in my mind, I went straight to my Webster's Second Edition, unabridged, which sits on its stand near my computer.  Here's what I found:

"Spiteful" means malignant - the word we use to characterize a disease that can kill a person.  I fear that the intended victim here is not an individual but American democracy.  Nerd that I am, I went to research the behavior, hoping for insight.  And as usual, I found some.

Confucius warned "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

Spite almost always hurts the person who doles it out, as well as its recipient.  Such Pyrrhic victories must promise some kind of reward or they would not be so often undertaken.  Said rewards are precisely the ones that would best obtain for our case in point today.  Spiteful people in general - and this one in particular - see themselves as having been "victimized."  Psychology Today defines this sort of rancorous behavior as "an act of gratuitous malice, undertaken by a morally bankrupt sociopath."  My reading tells me that such an emotionally charged person, knowing that he will also be hurt, convinces himself that his target will suffer more than he will. He gets the emotional relief of knowing that he has inflicted pain on the person who has "hurt" him.

But what about all those people who are supporting Trump in his efforts to undermine his inevitable successor?  Some of them, quite obviously, care only about their ends: opening up precious old growth forests for oil drilling, keeping those uppity back and brown people in their place, making sure that money will prevail over the ballot box, and so on and so forth.  Others are merely cowardly.  Over time, a knee-jerk avenger acquires a reputation for hitting back harder - a long-term benefit for the wielder of the vengeance axe.  He inspires fear in anyone who contemplates challenging him.  Without having to speak the threat, habitual dishers of revenge, especially those who keep around them only cowardly sycophants, can expect their allies to pass the ammunition the minute they start shooting. It's how their supporters avoid becoming targets.

The beat goes on....

On our sacred planet, we can find even vindictive bacteria.  They release toxins against other bacteria nearby.  In many cases, however, those avenger creatures end up poisoning themselves.

We can only hope. 

Cutting to the Chase: 36 Questions to Ask on a First Date

Zoë Sharp

Being at the CrimeFest convention in Bristol this weekend has provided a lot of food for thought, mainly about our relationships with other people, how we perceive ourselves, and how we develop our characters.

It was perhaps some form of karma, therefore, that I came across a link online to a blog on EmAndLo.com which referred to a piece in the New York Times from January this year. The article claimed that anyone could fall in love with a stranger by asking them certain questions and then staring into their eyes for four minutes. The blog suggested that it could be used as a means of cutting through the does-he/doesn’t-he, will-she/won’t-she uncertainty of early dating.

It would be an interesting exercise not only to try on a first date, but also to a character. In my case I think it will prove very useful for filling in those awkward pauses that sometimes occur during social occasions with comparative strangers. Try ’em and see what you think:

1. Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2. Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3. Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?

4. What would constitute a “perfect” day for you?

5. When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?

6. If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?

7. Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?

8. Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.

9. For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

10. If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?

11. Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.

12. If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?

13. If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

14. Is there something that you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?

15. What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

16. What do you value most in a friendship?

17. What is your most treasured memory?

18. What is your most terrible memory?

19. If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?

20. What does friendship mean to you?

21. What roles do love and affection play in your life?

22. Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.

23. How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people’s?

24. How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

25. Make three true “we” statements each. For instance, “We are both in this room feeling …”

26. Complete this sentence: “I wish I had someone with whom I could share …”

27. If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.

28. Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.

29. Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.

30. When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?

31. Tell your partner something that you like about them already.

32. What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?

33. If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven’t you told them yet?

34. Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?

35. Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

36. Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

And if you haven’t actually bludgeoned the other person to death by this point – or had an almost overwhelming urge to do so – then the final stage is to stare into each other’s eyes for four full, SILENT minutes. They suggest that after this you kiss, but a firm handshake and rapid departure may also be the order of the day …

This week’s Word of the Week is catafalque, a wonderful word I found in Kate Griffin’s book. It means a decorated wooden framework, bier or box supporting the coffin of a distinguished person during a funeral or while lying in state.

I'm Hereby Claiming Today as My Own.

Today is the umpteenth anniversary of my Bar Mitzvah, but that’s not the reason I’m claiming it as my day.  Nor am I doing so because Tim Hallinan’s new book, The Fear Artist, comes out next month and every day after that day will be his. :) 

I’m also not doing this because I need a break from writing about what’s going on in Greece.  Yes, too many of my conversations these days literally end with friends in tears as they struggle with their frustration at the array of leaders they’re offered in the upcoming June 17 election.  You can cut the sense of utter helplessness in this country with a knife.  No one seems to have any confidence whatsoever in any of the proffered leaders to bring the country through its crisis.

My reason is different.  On Monday I’m off to the U.S. for my daughter’s wedding next Saturday. That’s an upbeat event, and starting today I intend to be and remain that way...at least until June 17^th.

And what better way to do so than by celebrating this Tuesday’s release (June 5^th) of my new Chief Inspector Andreas Kaldis adventure, TARGET: TINOS, from Poisoned Pen Press. (It’s my day, Tim, so I get to use ALL CAPS).

As some of you know, I had to write two books to come up with just one.  I wrote the first one in 2010 and it was scheduled to come out in January 2012, but along came the Arab Spring, initiated by a Tunisian ending his life through self-immolation in an effort to change the world, while on the other side of the Mediterranean my antagonists were employing the exact same method for precisely the same purpose.  Then my principal bad guy character decided to come to life in the form and behavior of Dominique Strauss-Kahn.  What I’d put forth as an original story line now seemed hopelessly derivative and my publisher and I agreed to kill it.

I can assure you that writing the novel that replaced it was not a pleasant experience: I always had one eye on the headlines, worrying that events I imagined would again be overrun by reality.  As things turned out they were.  But by then I was smiling ear-to-ear for the first reviews of Target: Tinos were in!

I guess I should tell you a little about the story line but as I’m the bashful sort, rather than using my own words, permit me to crib from Publishers Weekly’s starred review:

Set on the Aegean pilgrimage island of Tinos, Siger’s superb fourth procedural featuring Chief Insp. Andreas Kaldis (after 2011’s Prey on Patmos) cleverly integrates the ancient with the modern. When Andreas looks into the mysterious immolation of two gypsies on Tinos, apparently a hate crime against immigrants, he faces formidable pressures from his fiery fiancée, Lila, whom he’s to marry in six days on nearby Mykonos—and from his wily boss, Spiros Renatis, who abruptly orders him to close the investigation. While the Greek government can’t afford bad publicity during the country’s current financial crisis, Andreas, aided by his feisty chief assistant, Yianni Kouros, and his friend Tassos Stamatos, chief homicide investigator for the Cyclades, pursues this eerie case, which soon involves ruthless Albanian mobsters, the history of Greek independence from Turkey, and a Tinos-based esoteric cult. A likable, compassionate lead; appealing Greek atmosphere; and a well-crafted plot help make this a winner.

Then came praise from Library Journal, “Fast-paced, this thriller also serves as a kind of modern travelog and mini-history lesson on Greece rolled into one…interesting and highly entertaining;” Kirkus Reviews, “A crisp style with a complex portrait of contemporary Greece to bolster another solid whodunit;” and Booklist, “throbs with the pulse of Greek culture…engaging series.”

But little did I know the best was yet to come.  In tomorrow’s Sunday New York Times Marilyn Stasio writes, “Target: Tinos is another of Jeffrey Siger’s thoughtful police procedurals set in picturesque but not untroubled Greek locales,” and at the core of the story “the ‘immigrant issue’ figures very much…as it has throughout Greece’s history.”

My joy at the Marilyn Stasio understanding the purpose of my work is hard to top.  But, Irish mystery writer Sam Millar sure got my attention at the following excerpt from his upcoming review in the New York Journal of Books:

Mr. Siger is one of those rare writers whose finger is always on the pulse of modern day upheavals. He is never afraid to tackle and expose uncomfortable subjects—subjects most writers avoid.

Target: Tinos not only captures the fragrance of Greece and the ambience of its fascinating history, but also the souls of its inhabitants.

An authoritative and compelling voice, Mr. Siger is a master storyteller and Target: Tinos is a mesmerizing novel, authentic in its rendering of places and tongues. All this and a terrific, memorable protagonist. Great summer reading.

Then there are the interviews.  There should be Miranda warnings accompanying the questions.  Whatever.  Award winning Irish mystery writer Declan Burke posted my answers to his tantalizing questions on Crime Always Pays and The International Thriller Writers sent ex-cop Rick Reed to get me to say a lot more than I probably should have for The Big Thrill.

This is all pretty heady stuff and I can assure you it puts a real smile on my face.  But as you’ve probably already guessed, my biggest one will come a week from today…I love you KD and Terry.

Jeff aka Dad—Saturday