Home | About | Donate

Euphemism as Journalism: Distracting the Audience by Focusing on Trump's Skill at Distraction


Euphemism as Journalism: Distracting the Audience by Focusing on Trump's Skill at Distraction

Norman Solomon

Euphemism isn’t journalism, but conflating the two can be irresistible for mainline journalists when candor might seem overly intrepid.


Thank you Mr. Solomon. This is a perfect example of why MSM is useless and a waste of time. I don't go to the news channels anymore with their immature yakking back and forth and nothing being said. They are as bad as Trump. In fact worse, because we expect it from Trump.
This is why this country is so ill informed. They should be ashamed of calling themselves news. They are no better than Fox.


PBS has become Pure Bull Shit .


Sorry, but I don't see this article doing any better.


Don't listen to his words or those of his appointments. They depend on their words to distract us while like a magician they steal our hard fought rights and freedoms. Fight ferociously without remorse or regrets to keep our rights.


I guess this is how you dance between being a journalist and keeping your job..."Ersatz journalism." Journalism "light." Critique a la mode...so no-one gets offended. And America listens and thinks it is informed.


PBS is, and has been for many years, a corporate tool. When they sold out they became no better that the rest of the MSM. I stopped listening.


Right on, Mr. Solomon. And NPR did this shallow, distracted dithering throughout the campaign--plenty of free media coverage for Trump's bombast and fake stories--miniscule about background, non-release of taxes, policy positions etc. Another thing NPR regularly did was to refer to Bernie Sanders as "the challenger" to Clinton--even early in the campaign season, before many primaries (thus helping wire the meme that the nomination SHOULD be Clinton's). NPR also did minimal coverage of the discovery that Wassermann-Schultz's work was admittedly for Clinton throughout, rather than for the Democrat's whole candidate field--and NPR seemed to have no interest in following up what effect that bias of the DNC had regarding Clinton's nomination.
I've been cutting my contributions to the local station, and getting my real news from The Guardian. Too bad--I'm old enough to remember when NPR actually cared about doing real, in depth reporting.


The role of the MSM isn't to speak truth to power, it's to speak (scripted) truthiness to power.


Trump won't be a friendly, and there's nothing wrong with knowing this or with Solomon saying this up front.

But all this "normalizing" hooey alarms me, especially because it seems that the authors who use the term hide its meaning.

It seems way past time for someone to step out with a definition, but it seems that the polemic value of the word may come from its being undefined, as though we all might know surely what normal is.

But we had a Trojan horse heading the Democratic executive for eight years. If that's normal, I am all for weird. What about the previous president, the CIA scion and Saud partner? Unless that's better, normal must be fairly odd. Does Solomon mean to imply that presidency normally descends through families, from Bushes to Bushes and Clintons to Clintons, or that this would be normal with some sort of gender-updated primogeniture? Probably not--it does not fit well with his ideas in general.

Solomon and others should have at, I guess. But I sure would like to see someone include the Democrats in this: there are reasons that Clinton did not win, and they are awfully dark. If we have an electoral option worthy of the name by 2018 or 2020, it will be because some pretty sharp changes have gone down in the interim.

Que se largan todos.


As for Press conferences building, one upon the other, questions from an inquisitive Press, I once had a communication with the late Helen Thomas, as she appreciated my noticing the fact that follow up questions had now become virtually non-existent.