Even six pages of loony ranting can’t bring journalists to question Trump’s mental state

The livid, unhinged six-page rant full of lies, hyperbole, wild accusations and self-pity that Donald Trump put on White House letterhead on the eve of his impeachment — “for the purpose of history,” he said — was an extraordinary gift to news organizations that have hesitated until now to address Trump’s mental state.

To everyone but the willfully blind, it was effectively a confession of the president’s unfitness for office — a view straight into the mind of a mad king unable to grasp basic facts, control his emotions or acknowledge any restraints on his behavior.

But after more than three years of applying the normal approaches to covering a profoundly abnormal presidency — and refusing to “take sides” on what they consider purely partisan disputes — our top political journalists are evidently unable to change course and consider that there is something deeply, psychologically wrong with the man.

So instead of writing that the letter was nutty, they called it “extraordinary.” Instead of identifying it as a sign that Trump is falling apart in plain view, one reporter — Ashley Parker of the Washington Post — actually wrote that it showed how “resilient” he has been in the face of adversity.

Some folks, like Democratic political strategist Jamison Foser, wondered what exactly Trump could do that would incite the mainstream media to forthrightly address his stability:

Indicating to readers how profoundly unhinged Trump’s letter was — and doing that right up there in the headline and the lede — was essential. That was its only real significance.

But our major news organizations have all failed the test.

Some had strong words, but they were still not sufficient.

The New York Times headline called the letter a “diatribe.” The Associated Press described it as “furious.” The Los Angeles Times called it “a screed that veered from grievance to grievance.” “ABC World News Tonight” described Trump as “ranting tonight in a scathing six-page letter.” “CBS Evening News” reported that the letter “had the seething, ranting hallmarks of a long-form presidential tweet.”

On CNN, Jake Tapper initially called the letter “a stunning and scathing stream of consciousness” and “something of a dictated 2,700-word rant,” before saying, “Honestly, this is almost like a letter that Kim Jong-un wrote, like, in terms of just, like, the hyperbole.” Getting warmer!

One of the harshest descriptions from a reporter came from John Roberts, who called it “visceral, angry seething” on Fox News’ “Special Report.” Even warmer.

But then there was that Washington Post story, so clueless, so brazen in its defiance of reason that it made brains explode all over Twitter.

Parker wrote that “Trump remains remarkably resilient” on the eve of his impeachment. She called the letter “fiery and freewheeling,” and wrote that “Trump’s ability to exist — and even thrive — amid historic tumult has worried Democrats.”

In short, as Trump came apart at the seams, Parker marveled at how he’s keeping it together.

A Mother Jones editor responded:

Unfortunately it was the entire media — not just the Post — that badly misled the public.

Long-time political observer Norman Ornstein tweeted:

Here’s Quinta Jurecic, an editor at Lawfare:

New Yorker writer Susan Glasser responded to Jurecic’s comment by tweeting that it “captures a real challenge for those of us writing about the President.” She’s right. And that’s sad.

This tweet from former Obama official Ben Rhodes went viral:

And here’s the thing: The letter really is nuts. As Washington psychoanalyst and author of “Trump on the Couch” Justin Frank tweeted:

Several news organizations offered fact checks of the letter: CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post among them. But that didn’t make it OK for them to quote Trump’s bizarre, irrational and flatly wrong assertions in their main stories without any kind of rebuttal. (This is another example of fact-checking arguably making overall coverage worse, rather than better.)

I found Colorado photographer Ben Klaus’ tweet particularly poignant:

Commentators on cable weren’t constrained by reporters’ self-imposed limits. Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson said on MSNBC that the letter was “six pages of pure crazy, weapons-grade nuts.” CNN political analyst Gloria Borger said: “I think if I’m a senator, a Republican senator, and I’m looking at this and this landed in my lap like a grenade today, I would wonder about the president’s fitness for office.”

But arguably the most honest coverage of the letter came in the New York Times summary of the late-night comedians:

“And this might be the most deranged letter to Santa ever. It is a long, stupid, disingenuous and incoherent defense, signed by an angry gorilla with a Sharpie. I mean, is this a signature or a seizure? This is why you don’t snort Sudafed on an empty stomach.” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“I don’t even know how to describe the tone of it. I guess if you took the most privileged white lady ever and gave her a whole bottle of wine and then asked her to write a Yelp review of a restaurant that made her wait 40 minutes for a table and then got her order wrong twice.” — SETH MEYERS

An Inflection Point?

There is precedent for major events fundamentally changing the way our elite press corps covers a president. After a vacationing George W. Bush whiffed on Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, reporters were suddenly emboldened to acknowledge the profound weakness and incompetence they had covered up for since 9/11. George H.W. Bush’s coverage suddenly went south after he lost his lunch on the lap of the Japanese prime minister in January 1992.

Some images are indelible.

The Associated Press’s Nancy Benac and Calvin Woodward wrote a somber, hugely effective scene-setter for Wednesday’s proceedings on the House floor, putting Trump’s impeachment in its full historical and factual context.

Reporters are complaining bitterly that the proceedings lack suspense. But they cannot be stripped of their drama.

It’s past time for the Washington press corps to see Trump for who he really is — and level with their public. Perhaps impeachment will offer them the inflection point they so desperately need.


  1. Only one person I heard correctly described it for what it was: a threat.

    ” you are declaring open war on American Democracy”
    “you are offending Americans of faith”
    “The second claim… is preposterous and dangerous.”
    “attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. ”
    “You view democracy as your enemy!”
    “radical far-left theories of law and justice”
    ” constant partisan obstruction of both common sense and common good.”
    “You are the ones interfering in America’s elections.”
    ” You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy.”
    ” You are the ones Obstructing Justice. ”
    “You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.”
    ” illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton and the DNC”
    “deranged and radical representatives of the far left.”
    “Do not take our country down with your party.”
    ” illegal, partisan attempted coup”
    (and on and on)

    This is declaring Democrats to be the enemy of the State. But the tell as to his intentions is this: “it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.”

    This looks to me like a warning that Trump will use DoJ to charge political enemies with (fabricated) crimes for daring to call Trump out. It would not be surprising. Trump is a student of Nixon, and is repeating all of Nixon’s errors, including handing the smoking gun to the Congress.

  2. i wonder if a corollary question also needs to be asked – what is ‘our’ mental state? every family that has had a mentally ill member can tell you how it distorts the family dynamic and reality itself. and here we have the media injecting the lunacy into our very heads by presenting choppertalk as news, by doing what you did in the column – retweeting the middle school twitterized food fight. (request: please, stop – that’s no more analysis then one thing considered’s audioclips of choppertalk.)

  3. Here is one piece of journalism that gets it just right, from George Conway in the Atlantic:
    After reading it, I thought it quite reasonable to propose a third article of impeachment: The President of the United States of America, who has a least two severe mental disorders, malignant narcissism and anti-social disorder (he is a sociopath), is mentally unfit to execute the duties of his office, and given that his cabinet will not intervene, it falls on Congress to exercise the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.

  4. It’s partly a business decision. The establishment media see Trump as something that attracts an audience while its in decline (literally).
    Too, the same establishment media have been supporting and the GOP since Reagan.
    A lesser problem is the press’ addiction to access which requires being nice to sources no matter what. (The legendary reporters, the gold standard, pretty much don’t care about the kind of sources the establishment loves.)
    The press isn’t just failing the nation here but is doing actual harm.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.