海角大神

It鈥檚 a question as old as Donald Trump鈥檚 nearly nine years in politics: How should the public聽interpret the once and possibly future president鈥檚 sharp rhetoric?聽

From calling Mexican migrants criminals and rapists in announcing his first presidential run to using the word 鈥渂loodbath鈥� last weekend in a speech about potential job losses if he were not elected, Mr. Trump has a knack for commanding attention with incendiary language.聽

To supporters, Mr. Trump鈥檚 verbal style is either refreshingly blunt or entertaining. To detractors, it鈥檚 dehumanizing or inciting. Caught in the middle are the news media, criticized for 鈥減latforming鈥� him when they cover his speeches and slammed for normalizing abhorrent language聽when they ignore him.聽

It鈥檚 all taking place within an increasingly polarized environment 鈥� a trend that was developing long before Mr. Trump entered politics, but has grown since then.聽

One concern is whether his tone as the de facto Republican leader is deepening the rifts and making the United States harder for anyone to govern. A related worry is that words can beget actions. In some polls a majority of Americans blame Mr. Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Some observers say he has, if anything, stepped up the use of violent and dehumanizing language in his current campaign.

Now that the longest general election campaign in history is upon us, the challenge in assessing the impact of Mr. Trump鈥檚 language 鈥� on voters, on the campaign, and on the political environment 鈥� will be especially acute. But what鈥檚 clear is that it will be a factor all the way to Nov. 5.聽

鈥淭rump understands that his most loyal supporters are likely to be motivated by what they hear, but he usually 鈥� although not always 鈥� keeps his language broad enough so he can argue that his critics are misreading his intent,鈥� says Dan Schnur, a professor at聽the University of Southern California鈥檚 Annenberg School of Communications and a former GOP strategist.聽

Mr. Trump鈥檚 use of the word 鈥渂loodbath鈥� in a speech March 16 in Dayton, Ohio, is just the latest example. He was addressing challenges to the auto industry, particularly over electric vehicles.

鈥淲e鈥檙e going to put a 100% tariff on every single [Chinese] car that comes across the line, and you鈥檙e not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected,鈥澛燤r. Trump said. 鈥淣ow if I don鈥檛 get elected, it鈥檚 gonna be a bloodbath for the whole 鈥� that鈥檚 gonna be the least of it. It鈥檚 going to be a bloodbath for the country.鈥�

Many聽mainstream news outlets聽reported that Mr. Trump promised a 鈥渂loodbath鈥� if he鈥檚 not reelected. But even some high-profile Trump detractors defended him, saying he was talking about the auto industry and not post-election violence.聽

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who has declined to endorse Mr. Trump, is one.聽On CBS last Sunday, he said that 鈥渢he president was clearly talking about the impact of imports.鈥澛�

Still, Mr. Trump鈥檚 comments were sufficiently ambiguous so that activists on both sides can justify their views. And that鈥檚 how the former president wants it, analysts say, stirring up controversy and leading some to defend him when others won鈥檛.

鈥淗is approach to language is very combative and aggressive,鈥� says Jennifer Mercieca, a professor of communications at Texas A&M University. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about reinforcing division and polarization, and he benefits greatly from having every issue a comment on whether or not you support Donald Trump.鈥澛�

The聽Trump campaign has fundraised聽off the 鈥渂loodbath鈥� comment, a sign of just how much traction the comment got.聽

Commentators question whether the news media can handle the challenge of Mr. Trump鈥檚 rhetorical style. Public trust in the media has declined to a record low,聽according to Gallup, with only 32% of Americans聽saying they trust the media 鈥渁 great deal鈥� or 鈥渁 fair amount.鈥�

This creates a big opening for many political players in 2024, including Mr. Trump. Efforts at 鈥渇airness,鈥� which many mainstream media outlets say they strive for, are likely to fall short in public perception.

鈥淔airness is problematic because it鈥檚 subjective and it鈥檚 hard to even define,鈥� says Matthew Levendusky, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, in an email. 鈥淣o matter what the media does, Trump will say they鈥檙e being unfair. The challenge for the media is to explain to people what is at stake.鈥澛�

Professor Levendusky frames the challenge of covering Mr. Trump in the larger context of his long pattern of norm-busting behavior 鈥� from the launch of his 2016 campaign to his recent rhetoric about immigrants (鈥減oisoning the blood of our country鈥�) to his embrace of those convicted聽for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

鈥淭he danger is that in covering this as just more 鈥楾rump being Trump,鈥� it can become normalized when it is not,鈥� Mr. Levendusky says.

Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, stresses the need for journalists to emphasize聽鈥渘ot the odds, but the stakes.鈥澛營n other words, focus on the consequences for democracy in the 2024 election and not the horse race. But the danger is that the public has become inured to Mr. Trump鈥檚 rhetoric, raising the bar ever higher for incendiary comments to alarm people.聽

Another challenge for reporters is that the public is increasingly avoiding the news 鈥� especially young people 鈥� or just following events in snippets via social media, which strips away nuance.

鈥淲e have crisis levels of polarization, cynicism, frustration, and mistrust in this country,鈥� says Professor Mercieca. 鈥淪o a democratic-oriented political leader, someone who would be using rhetoric for the common good, would use strategies to try to ameliorate all of those negative qualities in the electorate.鈥�

Back in September 2016, conservative journalist Salena Zito urged voters to take Mr. Trump聽鈥渟eriously but not literally.鈥澛燭he press, she said, was being too literal in its approach to Mr. Trump. Now,聽high-profile commentators are saying, the former president must be taken both literally and seriously.聽

And even if much of what Mr. Trump says is performative, the public can鈥檛 be certain that he鈥檚 not being serious about his stated intentions for a second term.聽

鈥淧eople have been using war analogies or military analogies in politics ever since Machiavelli and Sun Tzu,鈥� says Professor Schnur, who was communications director for Republican Sen. John McCain鈥檚 2000 presidential campaign.聽

鈥淭he question is whether we should take his remarks literally or not. If we do, he can argue he鈥檚 being held to a different standard. But if we don鈥檛, we鈥檙e ignoring his political history.鈥�