Normalizing Trump And Undercutting Democrats: All In A Day's Work For Corporate Media

An op/ ed in HuffPo the other day discussed the phenomenon of neo- fascist demagogue Donald "Rump" Trump's rise, thanks in no small measure to a media obsessed with appearing above the fray not challenging the torrent of lies, racism, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc., coming from Rump and his Stormtrumpers. It concludes with the hope that the spirit of legendary journalist and "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy- slayer Edward R. Murrow will prevail in this election cycle:

You can feel the press itching to normalize Trump, and relieve them from having to reluctantly abandon the safe shelter of “balance” and “objectivity,” and call Trump out. But Trump is a candidate who has broken so many rules of the political process, so the press can use this opportunity to break, and discard, the obsolete rules of political coverage that are clearly not working this cycle. What we need is not just a Murrow moment but a sustained Murrow mindset.

That mindset has yet to show up on the pages of at least one major newspaper, our hometown once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle where, aside from a strongly anti-Rump editorial board, the "reporters" seem determined to "normalize" Rump and, conversely, flog  "Democrats in disarray" and "crooked Hillary" narratives.  Here's what we're talking about, just from the last few days.

Normalizing Rump:   A news piece this morning written by Robert Costa and Philip Rucker (with the print edition headline "Trump favors Christie, Pence and Gingrich as he closes in on VP pick" -- very normal, objective and balanced, fellas!) discusses Rump's mulling over of vice presidential options in a most matter- of- fact way, as though this dangerously unfit buffoon were Cincinnatus:

Trump’s preferences have evolved in recent days as he contemplated what could be one of the most consequential decisions of his campaign. 

He was intrigued late last week by retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, telling friends that a military pick would signal strength and steadiness — and even testing out how “Trump-Flynn” sounded as a brand name. 

But Flynn’s stock fell after a shaky interview with ABC News on Sunday in which he stated his support for abortion rights, a position sure to spark a revolt at the Republican National Convention. On Monday, however, Flynn told Fox News Channel that he is a “pro-life Democrat.” 

By Monday, Trump suggested that he was moving away from the idea of a general. 

“I do like the military, but I do very much like the political,” Trump said in an interview Monday with The Washington Post’s Fix blog. “I will make my mind up over the next three to four days. In my mind, I have someone that would be really good.”

 "[T]esting out how 'Trump- Flynn' sounded as a brand name."  Sounds like a serious, presidential approach to us (and apparently also to Costa and Rucker)!

"I do like the military, but I do very much like the political."  "I do like the Gerber's strained peas, but I do very much like the chicken and chicken gravy." Also, see above.

"In my mind..."  That's just too easy.

Undercutting Democrats:  On the opposite page in the print version comes this piece by John Wagner and Abby Phillip, headlined "Sanders and Clinton to lock arms, but suspicions persist in both camps." Think about that emphasis for a moment.  Have you seen any three column articles recently about Republicans who ran for their party's nomination that have yet to endorse Rump (Cruz, Kasich, etc.), and the "suspicions" that remain?  Perhaps, but only in the general sense that there's a "stop Trump" mini- revolt among a handful of delegates.  Where's the headline, "Cruz, Kasich and Bush refuse to lock arms with Trump, and suspicions persist in every camp"?   The article, by the way, quotes one Clinton supporter who thinks Sanders may not campaign as vigorously as some think, and one Sanders delegate who thinks he should go all he way to the convention and fight it out.  That's it for "suspicions persist."

Even more egregiously, valuable front page space was provided on Sunday to Clinton scandal sleuth Rosalind S. Helderman (Haldeman?) to dredge (Drudge?) up the decaying skeleton of Whitewater to smear Hillary Clinton.  It took a rebuttal this morning from Clinton lawyer David E. Kendall to set the record straight:

As a matter of historical fact, it may be correct, as The Post reported Sunday, that Whitewater prosecutors now say they came “close” to filing charges against then-first lady Hillary Clinton in the 1990s. As a matter of legal and factual analysis, from one who observed this investigation at every step: Never . . . a . . . close . . . call . . . at . . . all.

Kendall goes on to show that, regardless of the "opinions" of the partisan crew running the Whitewater investigation in the 1990's (eight years long!), there was never any reasonable doubt that the "investigation" would lead exactly to what the e-mail investigation led .... nothing.

Meanwhile, our elite corporate media scratches its itch to normalize Rump and weaken the only adult, sane person in the race to hold the most powerful office in the world.