There is a numbing sameness to the reports:
- “Listen to what he just said!”
- Subtext: “Isn’t that outrageous? But we can’t say that ourselves, or express an opinion, so…”
- “Here’s what others are saying!”
- “Here is what fellow candidates are saying!”
- “And look, he is not even apologizing!”
- Subtext: “Clearly it is a travesty, and that is why…
- “We bring you this exclusive interview with [said candidate]…”
Look, I know the media thrives on controversy, and covering this buffoon is an easy way to get attention for your stories and newscasts.
But wouldn’t you be doing us all a tremendous favor by focusing on something else? At some point it is a little like chasing ambulances and watching train wrecks.
There is a way to make him shut up and go away, and that involves depriving him of the air and sunlight he so desperately seeks. Yes, I am talking about your coverage, which translates to his PR. Then, the orange-haired bridge troll would suffer the same fate as the green-faced Wicked Witch.
(One could argue that I am feeding into this too, but at least I am not mentioning his name. I am writing with the hope that others will also stop mentioning his name and covering him).
Ah, well, I know it will never happen. But the New York Times wrote today about how the candidate’s momentum is the result of a “media driven bump”, which they predict will subside.
We can only hope.