Neo-Nazis love media attention. But ignoring them isn't an option | Bob Garfield

There is a genuine conflict of two public interests: the collateral damage of publicity versus the right to know. But one must prevail

charlottesville
‘It is easy to chalk the wall-to-wall coverage up to ratings and cynical business interests, because TV especially is so corrupted by these very things.’ Photograph: AP

This is about the media’s role in the rise of grassroots fascism, but first a quick review of the week in tele-sociopathy is in order.

First there was the violence Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia, where crowds of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists and assorted alt-right mouthbreathers were televised chanting racist and antisemitic slogans and roughing up counter-protesters, culminating in the death of one woman.

That evening, we were treated to the president at his New Jersey golf resort finding fault on “many sides.” This didn’t play well, so on Monday, he was obliged to mouth teleprompted words explicitly condemning rightwing extremists. But then, Tuesday, in an unhinged Trump Tower press conference, it was back to “very fine people on both sides”.

Yep, some of the finest neo-Nazis this great country has to offer. You can watch TV 24/7 for the rest of your life, but you may never again see a comparable presidential display of moral depravity. I cite as proof the real-time reaction on cable news.

“A gathering full of white supremacist Nazis doesn’t have good people in it,” sputtered news host Kat Timpf. “Those are all bad people, period. And fact that that’s controversial, I don’t know if i should just laugh. I have too much eye makeup on to start crying right now. It’s disgusting.”

That wasn’t from MSNBC, or CNN or Al-Jazeera. That was from Fox News Channel. (Sure, given some time to regroup, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson descended to the bunker to defend their besieged leader. Carlson, for instance, cautioned against knee-jerk denunciations of slavery.) But nonetheless: we saw spontaneous revulsion and incredulity from propaganda organ of the Trump White House.

And I do not say “incredulity” lightly.

“I’m still in the phase,” Timpf said, “where I’m not sure if it was actual real life I just watched.”

How could she be sure? Mere reality offers no modern precedent for this level of presidential malice and unreconstructed id. Paddy Chayefsky, of “Network” fame, couldn’t have created a more absurd and bizarrely truthful moment – truthful, that is, in that Trump couldn’t help himself from revoking the hollow, scripted words of condemnation that a day earlier had been forced on him.

It was quite the media moment. Some really good TV. Less good TV is the latest iteration of the last-straw question: was this a turning point for the Trump presidency? I dunno. Was bragging about molesting women a turning point? Was insulting a Gold Star family a turning point? Attacking a federal judge? Firing Comey? Trump still has 34% approval – which is historically low but still a third of the country.

The better question is: was this whole media spectacle a turning point for the alt-right? Answer: yes, unfortunately.

The vile spectacle of deplorables in action is free advertising for deplorables in action. Under the theory “I don’t care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right,” this loose affiliation of racists, nationalists, antisemites and Gamergate misogynists is now the beneficiary of attention such as it could scarcely have dreamed of.

Or maybe they dreamed of exactly this: baiting the media to portray a few fringe creeps as a movement. To understand the power of creating a media spectacle, we need look no farther back than the demagogic candidacy of Donald Trump. He suckered the press he so despises into lavishing on him a priceless attention bonanza.

And it’s still working. Something like 85 million adult Americans still approve of their president. So how many millions of them, now awash in images of a Trump militia, will want to actually sign on? It’s a chilling thought, especially in a culture so riven by identity politics and grievance, and one that has long since stopped distinguishing notoriety from fame.

So what are we to do, knowing that every story about the alt-right serves as a recruitment tool for the alt-right? Back off? There are precedents. The press does have a short list of reasons not to cover certain otherwise compelling events: military/police/intel info that could put people in harm’s way; personal scandal divorced from overriding public interest; the names of juvenile suspects and adult victims of sexual assault.

Notably missing from that list: giving oxygen to sociopaths. Never mind the Trump campaign, what about Isis? They brandish no weapon so dangerous as their video cameras. Every atrocity is itself a publicity stunt, and yet we suppress almost nothing. Because terrorism, and violent death, are unequivocally news.

It is easy to chalk the wall-to-wall coverage up to ratings and cynical business interests, because TV especially is so corrupted by these very things. But this conundrum is about far more than greed. It is about genuine conflicting public interests: the collateral damage of publicity versus the right to know. But one must prevail. And while the question of inflating an evil cabal is indeed a better one, the answer turns out to be not so elusive.

When it is possible to see what Nazis are, and what this president is, and how life can imitate even the most exaggerated art, I do not want either the media or the audience to even think of turning away.