The New York Times Missed the Fucking Mark on Trump's Immigrant Lies
Trump’s baseless claims about Haitian immigrants sparked bomb threats and harassment. So why is the New York Times playing it down as ‘stoking fears’?
On September 24, 2024, the New York Times ran a headline that read: "Trump Stokes Fears About Haitian Migrants in Charleroi, Pennsylvania."
To the average reader, it might seem like a straightforward description of events.
Unfortunately, it’s utter bullshit.
Beyond Stoking Fears: The Manufacturing of a Crisis
Don’t let the New York Times’ respectability journalism fool you.
Trump’s racist blathering in Charleroi wasn't an isolated event. It was part of a larger narrative the bargain-bin autocrat has been crafting for weeks, a narrative built on demonstrable falsehoods and inflammatory bullshit.
Let's rewind to September 10. During the presidential debate - likely the only one we’ll see between Trump and Harris, unless the former President finds his way to a spine - Trump made a shocking claim about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio: they were "eating the dogs" and "eating the cats, they're eating the pets of the people that live there."
This wasn't a case of stoking fears; it was the creation of an entirely new, suddenly mainstream and absolutely baseless fear, out of the wisps of an internet meme.
Springfield officials quickly confirmed that there had been "no credible reports" of pets being harmed by immigrants. A spokesperson went further:
"Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents' homes. Furthermore, no reports have been made regarding members of the immigrant community deliberately disrupting traffic."
Trump wasn't merely amplifying existing concerns.
He was creating a crisis by consuming racist rumours and internet fear mongering and shitting out a campaign of fear-mongering and rabble-rousing.
The Ripple Effect of Lies
The impact of Trump's false claims was immediate and far-reaching. Springfield faced bomb threats, leading to evacuations of schools and government buildings. Haitian residents reported experiencing serious threats and harassment. Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a Haitian immigrant, expressed a sentiment echoed by many:
"Previously, I was not afraid. But now, I can honestly say I feel fear. I worry that a mass shooting might occur. That would be devastating."
This fear wasn't confined to Springfield. Haitian community leaders across the United States reported feeling vulnerable in the wake of Trump's remarks. A lie told in Ohio had rippled across the nation, touching lives far beyond its origin point.
Despite the swift debunking of his fuckery, Trump didn't back down. He doubled down. At a September 13 rally, he reiterated his false assertions and pledged "large deportations from Springfield, Ohio," vowing to "get these people out."
This persistence in the face of contrary evidence goes beyond "stoking fears." It’s a deliberate effort to ignite something, anything, to create a narrative of danger and lawlessness where none existed.
The Pattern Repeats: Charleroi in Context
By the time Trump arrived in Charleroi, Pennsylvania on September 24, this wasn't a new story. It was the continuation of a pattern. When he asked the crowd, "Has your lovely town transformed? It's filled with lawless gangs," he wasn't responding to local concerns or amplifying existing fears. He was spreading a viral disease.
Once again, local officials found themselves in the position of having to refute baseless claims about their community. State Rep. Camera Bartolotta pleaded for reason:
"They are here legally. Verify the facts before sharing information that could endanger the safety of decent, hard-working individuals."
The New York Times' Missed Opportunity
Back to that New York Times headline: "Trump Stokes Fears About Haitian Migrants in Charleroi, Pennsylvania." The use of the phrase "stokes fears" suggests that Trump was merely amplifying or exacerbating existing concerns. But that’s just not fucking true.
Trump wasn't stoking fears; he was creating them from whole cloth. He wasn't responding to a situation on the ground; he was fabricating a situation and then responding to his own creation. The New York Times' characterization fails - fucking dismally - to capture the deliberate, manufactured nature of this crisis.
This isn't semantic nitpicking. It matters. The language we use to describe political actions shapes how we understand and respond to them. By understating, downplaying, and damn-near excusing Trump's role in this fucking shameful affair, the New York Times inadvertently normalizes behavior that is far from normal.
The Dangers of Understatement
When a major news outlet like the New York Times cannot bring itself, cannot deign to accurately characterize Trump’s behavior for what it is, it has dangerous consequences:
- It minimizes the agency of the political actor. "Stoking fears" is a passive amplification of existing concerns, not than the active creation of new, baseless fears.
- It lends credibility to the fears being discussed. If these fears are merely being "stoked," it implies that they have some basis in reality, rather than being completely fabricated.
- It fails to hold the actor accountable for the real-world consequences of their actions. The bomb threats in Springfield, the harassment of Haitian residents, the nationwide climate of fear among immigrant communities – all of these are direct results of Trump's lies, not merely his "stoking" of existing fears.
- It misses the opportunity to highlight a dangerous pattern of behavior. This wasn't an isolated incident, it was part of a repeated strategy of manufacturing crises for political gain, regardless of the human cost.
The Role of Journalism in Democracy
The New York Times, like all journalistic institutions, plays a crucial role in our democracy. Its role is not just to report the facts; it's to provide context, identify patterns, and help readers understand the full implications of political actions.
The New York Times has once again fallen fucking short of this responsibility.
Imagine, for a moment, a different headline: "Trump Fabricates Crisis with False Claims About Haitian Immigrants in Charleroi." Or perhaps: "Trump Continues Manufacturing Immigrant Threats in Pennsylvania Town."
These alternatives would more accurately capture the reality of the situation. They would signal to readers that this wasn't a case of a politician responding to or even exaggerating existing concerns, but creating them independent of reality itself.
It would signal that these aren't just controversial statements, they’re demonstrably fucking false.
The Responsibility of Truth-Telling
For all my shitposting and trolling, established journalistic institutions like the New York Times are more crucial than ever.
But with their power comes great responsibility. I mean, fuck it, any responsibility would do.
Every word matters. Every characterization shapes perceptions. When we’re dealing with political figures who deliberately spread falsehoods, it's not enough to report what they say. We have to accurately describe what they do.
Trump didn't stoke fears about Haitian immigrants in Charleroi, Pennsylvania.
He stoked a raging fire that he fucking started.
A crisis based on admitted lies and fabrications, a crisis that has real and harmful impacts on real people.
By refusing to capture this reality, the New York Times has missed an opportunity to fulfill its most fundamental duty: to tell the truth, in all its uncomfortable complexity.
We have to demand more from our journalistic institutions. We have to insist on language that accurately captures the nature of political actions, especially when those actions threaten lives.
Because in a world where bullshit shapes reality, the precise truth matters more than ever.
