Conscience-washing
It is a term that describes how the media softens or rationalizes erratic and inconsistent statements by public figures to make them seem more sensible than they really are. Rather than report controversial or nonsensical statements as they are, journalists often sanitize the material, reframing it in a way that diminishes the extremism or absurdity. In politics, this practice can give voters a false sense of normality, especially with people like Donald Trump, whose often outrageous and conspiracy-laden rhetoric is “washed” to look like traditional political speech.
This phenomenon has become particularly noticeable in the case of Trump, who has made countless inflammatory, bizarre, and outright false statements during his political career. Below are five examples where the media has mischaracterized Trump.
Conscience-washing
There has been a huge disconnect between Trump’s words and actions, blurring the lines between his extreme rhetoric and mainstream political discourse.
1. Trump visits CDC during the COVID-19 pandemic
In March 2020, Trump visited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and used the occasion to talk about Fox News’ ratings, insult political leaders, and downplay the severity of rising COVID-19 cases. Instead of focusing on these disorganized and off-topic comments,
the new York Times
The event was presented with the headline: “Trump says, ‘People need to stay calm amid coronavirus outbreak.’” This headline completely ignored the erratic nature of Trump’s comments, giving readers the impression that his remarks were balanced and focused.
2. “Plea Agreement”
In August 2023, Trump posted on Truth Social that he had agreed to a debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, which included personal insults and conspiracy-laden rhetoric. The post was baseless and filled with inaccuracies, but major media outlets such as CNN limited it to Trump’s announcement of participating in the debate, and removed the erratic tone and misleading claims.
3. Support from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Trump endorsed anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and praised his ideas to create a panel to investigate rising health problems, including the unfounded link between vaccines and autism. While Trump’s endorsement was based entirely on debunked conspiracy theories,
the new York Times
It was presented as a general policy proposal to address long-term health problems, completely abandoning the dangerous trend that anti-vaccine rhetoric has tended to point to.
4. Freedom Speech for Mothers
Speaking at the Moms for Liberty event, Trump promoted a conspiracy theory that suggested schools were performing transition-related surgeries on children without parental consent. Instead of highlighting this baseless and extreme claim, media coverage often focused on his appeal to “conservative moms” and omitted the misinformation, giving the impression that Trump’s speech was a standard political address, not a forum for fringe conspiracies.
5. Shark Electrocution and Hannibal Lecter Comments
During a 2023 speech in Las Vegas, Trump touched on a variety of bizarre topics, including preventing shark attacks with an electric device and referencing Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism. Rather than acknowledging the absurdity of these statements, outlets like
The Associated Press
And
CNN
He focused the speech on local labor issues and avoided discussing his own legal troubles. This understatement led readers to believe the speech was more coherent than it actually was.
Why does conscience-washing matter?
The problem with sanitizing Trump is that it distorts reality. By sanitizing Trump’s more extreme or nonsensical statements, the media normalizes his erratic behavior and insulates the public from the full scope of his rhetoric. This can mislead voters into thinking that Trump, while controversial, operates within the boundaries of normal political discourse. In doing so, the media not only fails to inform, but also participates in the erosion of shared reality, where truth becomes harder to discern.
To combat this, journalists must present politicians’ words as they are, without twisting them into palatable versions. Informed democracy depends on the public receiving an accurate portrayal of the truth, even when it is uncomfortable. Discretion is detrimental to this goal, encouraging dangerous rhetoric by making it seem like a normal day in politics.
