Karl Fogel at
Anyone else notice how Trump says that "we can't let the cure be worse than the _problem_" (emphasis mine)?
The stock phrase ends with "disease". Trump avoids the stock phrase because he doesn't want someone quoting it back at him sarcastically at the peak of the death toll. /1
So in order to avoid reminding his hearers that it is, in fact, *literally a disease* we're talking about here, he twists a common saying. Since his use of language is often so odd anyway, journalists don't call out the misdirection or try to explain it. A dramatic example:
On #TheDaily recently (with @mikiebarb), @maggieNYT plays audio of Trump saying "I don’t want the cure to be worse than the problem itself" (note that he *alway* phrases it this way -- he has never said "disease" in that phrase), and she does a really interesting thing:
She repeats it back for us, with the phrase corrected to its standard form:
"— in his words, the cure can’t be worse than the disease."
(reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/podcasts/the-daily/trump-coronavirus.html?showTranscript=1)
I think this deserves closer attention, as an example of a widespread phenomenon among journalists.
.@maggieNYT wasn't adding any information there. She wasn't summarizing a longer or more complex thing Trump said. She wasn't providing needed context that the listener might not have. She just repeats Trump, with one important fix, and calls her fixed version "his words".
What is going on? It's not a simple accident. The day before, @mikiebarb did the same thing. He quotes Trump using same odd phrasing another time, and follows it up by fixing the President's words (albeit w/ "illness" not "disease").
(reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/podcasts/the-daily/coronavirus.html?showTranscript=1)
It's like the journalists *know* something is wrong, and have an instinct to fix it, but they do so by generously cleaning up the President's deliberate mis-phrasing, instead of exploring *why* the President consistently mis-phrases a traditional saying in the first place.
I'm not suggesting that reporters should indulge in speculation about the President's motivations (even when those motivations are pretty clear). Instead, I'm suggesting that journalists simply point out when something odd is going on -- just help the audience see patterns. As reporters, they've heard Trump use this odd phrasing multiple times; they know full well what is going on. But any given audience member might not have heard all those quotes, and might not spot the pattern.
Instead of unconsiously correcting Trump, just report on him.
The stock phrase ends with "disease". Trump avoids the stock phrase because he doesn't want someone quoting it back at him sarcastically at the peak of the death toll. /1
So in order to avoid reminding his hearers that it is, in fact, *literally a disease* we're talking about here, he twists a common saying. Since his use of language is often so odd anyway, journalists don't call out the misdirection or try to explain it. A dramatic example:
On #TheDaily recently (with @mikiebarb), @maggieNYT plays audio of Trump saying "I don’t want the cure to be worse than the problem itself" (note that he *alway* phrases it this way -- he has never said "disease" in that phrase), and she does a really interesting thing:
She repeats it back for us, with the phrase corrected to its standard form:
"— in his words, the cure can’t be worse than the disease."
(reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/podcasts/the-daily/trump-coronavirus.html?showTranscript=1)
I think this deserves closer attention, as an example of a widespread phenomenon among journalists.
.@maggieNYT wasn't adding any information there. She wasn't summarizing a longer or more complex thing Trump said. She wasn't providing needed context that the listener might not have. She just repeats Trump, with one important fix, and calls her fixed version "his words".
What is going on? It's not a simple accident. The day before, @mikiebarb did the same thing. He quotes Trump using same odd phrasing another time, and follows it up by fixing the President's words (albeit w/ "illness" not "disease").
(reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/podcasts/the-daily/coronavirus.html?showTranscript=1)
It's like the journalists *know* something is wrong, and have an instinct to fix it, but they do so by generously cleaning up the President's deliberate mis-phrasing, instead of exploring *why* the President consistently mis-phrases a traditional saying in the first place.
I'm not suggesting that reporters should indulge in speculation about the President's motivations (even when those motivations are pretty clear). Instead, I'm suggesting that journalists simply point out when something odd is going on -- just help the audience see patterns. As reporters, they've heard Trump use this odd phrasing multiple times; they know full well what is going on. But any given audience member might not have heard all those quotes, and might not spot the pattern.
Instead of unconsiously correcting Trump, just report on him.