Here’s the fact check of the century, courtesy of The Washington Post’s Amy Gardner: ‘”Donald Trump says he will refuse to accept the election result if he loses again,” Biden said. But that’s not true. Trump just hasn’t said that he would accept. And he previously said the only way he loses is if the Democrats cheat.’
“Henry II called for Thomas Becket to be killed,” Biden said. But that’s not true. He just asked why no-one would rid him of this turbulent priest. And four of his nights traveled to Canterbury and hacked him to death.”
Walk the logic through. If the only way he loses is through cheating, and he won’t say he’ll accept the result, is it “not true” to say he’ll refuse the accept the result? Do the grammatical ambiguities make Trump’s intent unclear? Did we forget he refused to accept not only the 2020 election result but the 2016 one that he won? I think the tell is quoting Trump on why he won’t accept the result, which doesn’t need to be there unless you’re anxiously lampshading the fact that yes, he’s obviously making clear he isn’t going to accept the election result.
We hate his guts but we’ll never let him go. He’s a character as well-defined as any in literature. Not a pleasant character: a smasher of norms, a disgrace to civility, a serial misstater of facts. But when the real Trump says or does things that exceed that character or betrays its fabrication, we’re faced with a problem. Do we ignore it, edit him into coherency, or simply write technically-correct gibberish in denial of it? No-one put it better than Margaret Sullivan… for The Washington Post: “If Trump Runs Again, Do Not Cover Him the Same Way.” Ah well.
Come, friendly AI, and fall on news: it isn’t fit for humans now, there isn’t grass to graze a cow.