Epstein Coverage Largely Ignores Trump’s Assault on E. Jean Carroll

This seems like relevant context

Image: E. Jean Carroll in 2006, photo by julieannesmo, CC

Thanks to his own enormously bad judgement, and his inability to keep his mouth shut, President Donald Trump’s longtime relationship with financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is finally getting blanket press coverage. The Wall Street Journal published an article about a queasily sexual card and illustration that Trump sent to Epstein on his 50^th birthday. The NYT published a long exposé on the lengthy, close relationship between Epstein and Trump, and then published a follow-up on one Epstein accusers “troubling account” of a meeting with the two men.

—

Everything Is Horrible is entirely funded by readers…which means you! If you appreciate independent journalism and writing, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. It’s $50/year, $5/month.

—

These articles all note that Epstein had been convicted of child sex offenses, and that he died in prison after being arrested on further charges. They note that Trump’s association with him lasted from the late 80s through the early 2000s; they say that the two men had (per the Times) a“common interest in hitting on — and competing for — attractive young women at parties, nightclubs and other private events”. They note (per the NYT again) that the relationship raised questions about Trump’s “judgement and character.” They are also careful to explain that Trump has not been charged or officially accused of any illegal actions related to Epstein.

None of these articles provides relevant, crucial context about Trump’s “judgement and character” though. Specifically, the articles on Epstein do not mention that Trump was held liable for a brutal 1996 sexual assault on E. Jean Carroll—an assault which the judge in the case said could reasonably be characterized as a rape.

The recent spate of Epstein reporting also fails to inform readers that Trump has been accused of sexual harassment and abuse by at least 25 women, from the 1970s through the early 2000s—including the time when he and Epstein were friends. Nor do the reporters mention that Trump was caught on tape in 2005 boasting about sexually assaulting women.

Again, the WSJ and the NYT are both reporting on Trump’s possible relationship with a sexual abuser, and what that says about his own morals and possible complicity. The fact that Trump has been accused of sexual assault, the fact that he boasted about committing sexual assault, and the fact that he was in fact held liable for committing sexual assault, seems like it is relevant context. Why not provide readers with that relevant context?

It's only newsworthy if the right says it is

Left critics of the mainstream media often argue, with some justice, that outlets like the Times and the WSJ whitewash Trump’s actions and history because they like Trump and want him to rule over us as a king.

That explanation doesn’t really hold up here though; the WSJ and NYT articles are very damaging to Trump. Trump took extraordinary measures to try to kill the WSJ piece, and is now suing the newspaper for defamation, presumably in an effort to silence any outlet who would try to follow up.

The story is especially damaging because it fractures Trump’s coalition. Epstein has been at the center of right wing conspiracy theories accusing basically all Democratic leaders (especially Bill Clinton) of being in a cult of abusers. The right has been demanding the release of all files associated with the Epstein case.

Trump initially agreed to release them—but then seems to have realized that, given his long relationship with Epstein, his name is likely to be in those files. Attorney General Pam Bondi (acting presumably under Trump’s orders, or with his interests in mind) said she was not going to release Epstein materials—a decision which is phenomenally unpopular. Only 4% of voters say Trump should not release the files; 70% who say he should.

Faced with that overwhelming pressure, and increasing criticism from many on the right, Trump caved and agreed to release the materials—though how long that will take, and what will and will not be redacted, remains an open question.

This MAGA split is why Trump’s Epstein ties are newly newsworthy—and it’s also why mainstream outlets feel empowered to cover those ties in ways that are aggressively, and fairly openly, anti-Trump. Most of the bad things Trump does are seen by mainstream media through a partisan lens; the papers report that Democrats are angry at Trump, then report that Republicans support Trump.

The Epstein stories are different. Even Republicans are angry at Trump, which means that the media doesn’t have to both sides discussions of Trump’s “character.” They can publish very damaging articles without having to hedge in the ways that they normally do. The mainstream media is constantly trying to find ways to cater to an imagined centrist reader—and constantly trying to find ways to bring in right wing readers who they’ve lost to the conservative media bubble. Epstein is the rare story which allows them to do that while vociferously criticizing Trump.

Objectivity means catering to MAGA

The mainstream Epstein stories, then, are essentially being written for an imagined MAGA reader, even if MAGA readers aren’t the ones most likely to read them. And I think that shapes what details are considered important and which ones aren’t.

Or, to put it another way, the mainstream media is not actually interested in Trump’s character, or in his judgement, or in his fitness for office. They’re not even really interested in whether he is a sexual abuser. If they were interested in those things, they would in their newest slew of articles acknowledge the fact that a jury found him liable for sexual assault, or the fact that he boasted on tape about sexually assaulting women, or the fact that he’s been accused by multiple women of barging into the dressing room of a Miss Teen USA pageant when girls as young as 15 were dressing.

What the media is interested in, almost exclusively, is whether Trump was associated with Epstein, because Epstein, in addition to being a horrific abuser, is also loathed by MAGA as part of partisan conspiracy theories. From this perspective, Trump’s past history of sexual abuse and sexual violence is irrelevant, because MAGA doesn’t care about that. It only cares about Epstein.

Again, the mainstram media coverage here is in fact important, and it is damaging to Trump. But the fact that WSJ and NYT feel like they need to tailor their coverage to the interests of the right—the fact that Trump’s history of abuse is only relevant to the extent that a hardcore Trump supporter would agree that it is relevant—is disheartening, to say the least. Trump’s survivors, and the American people, deserve better than a press that pitches its coverage of sexual violence to the fandom of that rabid misogynist and (adjudicated) abuser, Donald Trump.

Update: Between the time I wrote this and posted it, the NYT wrote another Epstein piece in which it claims that MAGA is no longer divided on the issue and now supports Trump. This seems like an extremely implausible assertion—but it’s in line with my point above, which is that the mainstream media is treating this as a story about a rift in the MAGA coalition, rather than a story about a president with a lengthy history of violent sexual assault and harassment.