Trump Attacks Don’t Need to be True

The volume of media attacks against Donald Trump, his campaign, and his companies is so unprecedented there is absolutely no way anyone (inside or outside of the campaign) could possibly fact-check them much less respond to them. Given this reality attacks need not be based on facts — but on sentiments. If you believe (as much of the media does) that Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy it is your duty to use the pen to destroy his candidacy — you can deal with your journalistic integrity later.

Traditional and new media outlets from across the globe have assigned hundreds, if not thousands, of reporters to dig into every aspect of Donald Trump’s life, campaign, and business. The investigative coverage is unprecedented in size, scope, and investment. The new standard of “truth” is that if the Trump campaign does not respond to an allegation it must be true — the reality is that the campaign simply doesn’t have enough staffers to answer their emails/calls and there aren’t enough hours in the day for them to talk to Trump to get a response. Hence stories about Trump simply need to be damning and not necessarily true.

Once Donald Trump secured the nomination for president the Washington Post assigned 20 full-time journalists to dig into every aspect of the candidate’s life. Other media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and the New York Times have done the same. There are likely several hundred journalists who are working full-time on uncovering dirt on Donald Trump and his business interests. In traditional campaign cycles far fewer reporters would be assigned and half of them would be digging for dirt on Hillary Clinton. The media has all but abandoned inquiry into Hillary Clinton — they’re focused on Trump 24/7.