The New York Times along with most US media, spent 2016 interviewing “working class” supporters of Trump. Results showed Trump’s support was clustered at the higher end of the income scale (as it is for all Republicans).
It seems like they’re keen to repeat this experience, this time seeking “Women for Trump”. The Times will publish a story tomorrow titled: At Trump Rallies, Women See a Hero Protecting a Way of Life. In it, the paper prominently features a woman named Rachell Marks. The article carries a picture of her in a fur coat and designer handbag. The photo carries the caption: “Rachell Marks, 59, who works in car sales in Billings, Mont., said she would continue to support Mr. Trump because she believed he told the truth.”
The Times thought Ms. Marks was so important, they gave her the last word in the lengthy article:
Rachell Marks, 59, who works in car sales in Billings, Mont., said she would continue to support Mr. Trump because she believed he told the truth.
“I have an infatuation and a love for this man that’s not normal,” Ms. Marks said. “I give the highest respect when people are telling the truth and giving their political power. If anything, I have a deeper respect now.”
Of Mr. Trump’s previous visit to Montana, when in the wake of a Saudi journalist’s killing he praised a congressman for body-slamming a reporter, Ms. Marks said with a shrug: “People tend to get on people’s nerves.” — www.nytimes.com/…
Alas, NYT reporters and editors failed to do a google search on Ms. Marks. If they had, they would have discovered that she was arraigned for fraudulently using other people’s credit cards to purchase the items she’s flaunting in the picture.
— Will????Menaker (@willmenaker) November 4, 2018
Thankfully, someone did. So tomorrow’s “paper of record” will run an article that closes with a profile of a “woman for Trump”, without mentioning the fact that she’s accused of defrauding at least two men, apparently by feigning a romantic interest.
In one sense, this is amusing and fitting. It stands to reason that fraudsters would support Trump, who is also a con-man and has bilked employees, customers and contractors in many of his failed businesses over the years. But in another, it’s an enormous waste of resources that could be better utilized elsewhere.
Instead of sending reporters to cover these inane rallies, perhaps the NY Times could, I don’t know, report on the various ways in which Republicans are trying to suppress votes across the country? I guess that isn’t in the public interest as much as reporting on “Women for Trump” is. Montana has a significant Native American population, as does North Dakota next door. North Dakota has seen an egregious attempt to suppress Native American votes. Maybe the Times could do some work on that before Tuesday, instead of printing puff-pieces on Trump fans?
If they are covering these rallies, perhaps they could do a cursory investigation to figure out who they’re interviewing. Is that too much to ask?
We’ve got 48 hours till polls close. Let’s Get Out The Vote!
This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.