The Trump sanewashing hall of fame gets a new entry

A look at the Big Media outlet that normalized the Trump rant about trophy wives, Al Capone and short golfers.

Every single time Donald Trump gives a speech, it’s a chaotic mess. He always rants about his personal grievances. He makes up accomplishments that do not exist. He veers into bizarre fantasies that end up becoming reckless American policy. He also regularly tells lies and spreads conspiracy theories.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, the news coverage rarely portrayed the jarring reality of the Trump gibberish accurately. Instead, the odd bits about fictional movie characters were ignored, the long-winding answers to questions about economic policy sanded down to a cogent few words. Even his nazi-style threats were glossed over. Now four+ months into Trump’s second term, the New York Times has given us a new entry for the Trump sanewashing hall of fame.

This past Saturday, Trump gave the commencement speech at West Point. As usual, Trump repeatedly veered away from his prepared remarks. Speaking for nearly an hour, Trump’s ramble included comments about trophy wives, yachts, Chicago mobster Al Capone, a ‘stolen’ rocket, short golfers, male models, drag shows, trans women, and the size of his election victory. All while wearing the most prominent political symbol of his campaign, a red MAGA hat.

The New York Times headline writers decided all that (including the 6-minute trophy wife diatribe) was not worth mentioning. The headline in the paper of record is “Trump Gives Commencement Address at West Point, Stressing a New Era”. Wow. That is some incredible sanewashing. It almost sounds like Fox, Trump’s state-tv network, wrote it. In the Times story itself, you have to read all the way to the 20th paragraph to get the slightest mention of Trump’s trademark rambling:

“Mr. Trump also rambled at times as he took shots at his opponents and told stories about his famous golf buddy Gary Player and how the real-estate developer William Levitt came to have a “trophy wife.”

Compare the New York Times headline to this from The Independent: “Trump gives rambling speech about trophy wives, golf and the ‘great late’ Al Capone in politically-charged West Point address.” That headline describes what actually happened. The Independent’s article about the speech also did a better job of including many of the weird comments including Trump’s odd fascination with late real estate developer William Levitt and his wife.

Climate scientist David Ho was so struck by the huge difference between the two headlines that he put them side by side in a social media post that’s now gone viral with the comment “Hard to believe they’re talking about the same event.”

I reached out to Ho to ask him about his post. He told me:

“I shared it because it's absurd. I had seen a clip from the event, and when I saw the headline in the NY Times, I wondered how others reported on it so I Googled "Trump West Point speech."

The headlines jumped out to him because “one was objective, and the other was trying to be neutral and finding meaning where none existed.”

About the New York Times, Ho added:

“people use the term "sanewashing" and I think they're right. There's nothing normal about our time, and our President, and I think newspapers should report them accordingly.”

You can watch the entire Trump West Point speech here or see the low-lights from Aaron Rupar’s clips on Bluesky. Once you see and/or read what Trump said, it’s hard to credit the Times with good faith reporting when they ignore the absurdities and the blatant politicization that were such a big part of the West Point speech.

Esquire political writer Charlie Pierce called the Times out saying the paper was a Trump 'normalizing machine.” Longtime Chicago journalist Mark Jacob, who has written a lot about the Times' penchant for misleading headlines and sanewashing, was also critical. Jacob told me:

“It’s remarkable how often a New York Times story will state the facts clearly and the story’s headline will twist itself in knots to avoid telling that same truth in a clear manner. I’m convinced that it’s an intentional tactic to avoid accusations of being slanted. After all, if you’re reporting on a lawless criminal in the White House and you state the facts plainly, you’re going to come off as anti-Trump. That’s why the Times likes to call Trump “maximalist” instead of “authoritarian.” Most people don't know what “maximalist” means.

In any case, the problem is worse with the headlines because that’s what most people read. And what the Times says – and avoids saying – is especially important because some journalists view it as a standard for how they should behave.”

Fortunately, there were fewer news outlets than usual joining the Times’ sanewashing effort. Instead, many offered more accurate,fact-based reporting:

• Mother Jones called the speech bizarre and included fact checks of some of the biggest falsehoods. It also determined that the ‘trophy wife’ comments were ‘too bizarre for a fact check.’

• The Daily Beast said Trump had “hijacked the graduation to rant about drag shows.”

• AP’s headline and lead paragraph tackled how Trump was “veering sharply into a campaign-style recitation of political boasts and long-held grievances.”

• USA Today led with the trophy wife comment and also wrote that Trump was politicizing the event.

• Politico did an entire piece on Trump playing politics, writing “Trump MAGAfies West Point” with a speech that “sounded at times like a rally speech.”

See, it’s not that hard to report fairly and accurately about what Trump is saying. More news outlets are doing just that with some very impressive, fearless reporting on Trump 2, even his bizzaro speeches.

Last fall, when sanewashing seemed to be at its peak, journalist Parker Molloy called for journalists (& the public) to recommit to the pursuit of truth. She wrote:

“Instead of contorting themselves to find rationality in incoherence, journalists should simply present politicians’ words and actions plainly, complete with fact-checks. This might mean rethinking traditional notions of “objectivity” that often lead to false equivalencies and misrepresentation.”

I’m glad that some news outlets are taking this advice to heart. The New York Times should do the same.

Jennifer Schulze is a longtime Chicago journalist. She’s on Bluesky @newsjennifer.bsky.social and Substack at “Indistinct Chatter.”