Corporate media’s focus on Trump’s racist comments about Harris over his new pledge to pardon Jan 6 cop killers is dangerously wrong
Trump is getting more dangerous
The corporate media has once again proven the point I’ve been writing about for years: They will always choose to amplify drama over protecting our democracy because drama sells.
We are seeing another example of this play out before our eyes after convicted felon Donald Trump’s comments Wednesday at National Association of Black Journalists convention. There, Trump said two things that demand media coverage—but the problem is the media has chosen to primarily focus on one of these two issue because it deals with race (which always sells) while just about ignoring Trump’s new promise to pardon the Jan 6 attackers who brutally beat up police officers. (Trump never before said he would pardon those who beat up police officers.)
To be fair—and I always try to be—Trump’s despicable remarks about Vice President Harris “turning Black” absolutely deserve media attention. This is Trump’s new iteration of his racist birther campaign he used in an attempt to undermine President Barack Obama but this time he’s questioning whether Harris is truly Black. That is why Trump stated, “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black.” He added, “So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”
Obviously, Trump began this new line of attack—which he doubled down on in a social media post—because he believes it helps him politically by attempting to paint Harris as a phony and also to make the white bigots of his base happy by demeaning a successful woman of color.
CNN actually did a very good fact check on Trump’s claim that Harris suddenly “turned Black” that details how Harris—who is of both Indian and Black heritage—has long publicly identified with being Black. For starters, she attended and graduated in 1986 from Howard University, a historically Black institution where she was a member of a historically Black sorority. In law school, she was elected president of the association of Black law students. And since she ran first for office district attorney in the early 2000’s onwards to today, she always very publicly identified as Black—as well as noting her South Asian heritage.
Where corporate media is failing us is extensively covering this topic while just about ignoring an issue that goes to protecting our democracy. That happened when ABC News anchor Rachel Scott asked Trump on Wednesday these vitally important questions about exactly which Jan 6 prisoner he would pardon if he won this election:
Scott: “140 police officers were assaulted [on January 6]. Their injuries included broken bones, at least one officer lost an eye, one had two cracked ribs, two smashed spinal discs, another had a stroke. Were the people who assaulted those 140 officers, including those I just mentioned, ‘patriots’ who deserve pardons?”
Trump: “Oh, absolutely, I would.” He added, “If they’re innocent, I would pardon them.”
Scott: “They’ve been convicted.”
Trump: "They were convicted by a very tough system."
Prior to that moment, Trump had never pledged to pardon those who savagely beat up police officers. Instead, his promise to pardon people was always couched in terms of non-violent offenders who as Trump put it, “All they were doing is protesting a rigged election.” And Trump has repeatedly called those he was intending to pardon “innocent” people who were literally “invited” into the Capitol by the police who Trump claimed were told, “Go in, go in, go in.’”
In fact, Trump loving GOP Sen Tom Cotton in June on NBC’s Meet the Press explained that the pardons Trump was discussing—and that he supported—was for those “who did not attack a law enforcement officer, [and] who did not damage public property.” Even Trump’s own VP pick JD Vance in May while on CNN made that same distinction, explaining, “you shouldn't have the Department of Justice letting violent offenders walk scot-free.” But then Vance slammed DOJ for prosecuting “misdemeanor trespassing case from January the 6th” that he claims “ruined” people’s lives.
That all changed on Wednesday. Trump is now vowing to pardon the hundreds convicted or who pled guilty to attacking police officers in service of Trump’s coup attempt. People like Albuquerque Cosper Head who dragged Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone into the mob of rioters. During the attack Head—who has been sentenced more than seven years in prison--grabbed Fanone around the neck and told the crowd around him, “I got one!” He then forcibly hauled Fanone down the Capitol steps and into the mob, where Fanone was beaten, kicked, robbed of his badge and radio, and attacked with a stun gun.
Robert Scott Palmer, of Largo, Florida, who was sentenced to 63 months in prison for assaulting law enforcement with a dangerous weapon including throwing a fire extinguisher at police. As the prosecutor noted, Palmer engaged in “repeated violent assaults on law enforcement for the purpose of overturning a democratic election.” And Christopher Joseph Quaglin, of North Brunswick, New Jersey, who came to the Jan 6 rally wearing “a hard-sided helmet, full-faced gas mask, and carried a large backpack.” He then went to the Capitol where he brutally attacked numerous officers, tackling one to the ground and spraying others in the face with a “chemical irritant.” Quaglin was convicted of 14 crimes and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
But if Trump wins, people like these people and many more who brutally attacked police officers—along with the Trump loving Proud Boy and Oath Keepers leaders—would be freed.
As authoritarian expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat explained to me back in May, Trump saying he will pardon the Jan 6 attackers is to incentivize future criminal conduct on his behalf. Trump’s message to his followers is, "If you commit crimes for me as we get closer to the election, I will do the same for you,"—namely pardon them. That is why Trump’s new pledge to expressly pardon even those who committed violence is so alarming—it is specifically designed to encourage violence by his supporters to help him win the 2024 election.
Trump’s racist attack on Harris does deserve media coverage. But Trump’s new promise to pardon violent felons who brutally attacked police officers on his behalf demands more. There should be countless news stories detailing the severity of their attacks. Every Republican officeholder appearing on TV should be called to respond to this. And we must press the media to do just that. Our democracy depends on it.
Dean, the corporate media is never going to cover J6 and Trump's promise to pardon the terrorists the way they should. They've had almost 4 years to condemn Trump as the coup plotting insurrectionist that he is and they have failed to do it. Heck, most of them still call him "President Trump" rather than the correct but still offensive "Former President Trump". (I prefer Racist, Rapist, Convicted Felon Fraud Trump, but that's just me). His meltdown yesterday has created a crisis for them. They will struggle mightily to keep him relevant and in the game. It might no longer be possible, and if they actually covered the pardon promise, the race would be over.
I was screaming this on socials yesterday: the press cannot allow him to frame the next 96 days in racial terms. That is fertile, comfortable ground for him-and lazy, unnecessary malpractice, if MSM decides this election is about race. Shame on them if they do it.