The "Bloodbath" Nothingburger

A storm of controversy erupted on X today about a speech this weekend in Ohio in which former president Donald Trump used the word “bloodbath” to describe what would happen to the automobile industry if Biden wins the upcoming election in November. The controversy arose because several prominent right-leaning commentators accused several mainstream media sources of misrepresenting Trump’s words to create the impression that he was literally calling for a bloodbath if he loses, rather than metaphorically suggesting that the automobile industry would be a big loser if Biden wins.

For example, X owner Elon Musk reposted (https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1769347889392730271?s=20) a post by Ian Miles Cheong (https://x.com/stillgray/status/1769346786408497358?s=20) which claimed that “[t]he media is lying about Donald Trump with this narrative about a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses the election.” Cheong explained that Trump “was very clearly talking about the car manufacturing industry—before and after he used the word.” Cheong further elaborated: “You have to be extremely disingenuous to take what he’s saying out of context, and that’s exactly what the media is doing. They’re all running with the same lie.” Cheong posted a screenshot of headlines from the New York Times, CNBC, and CNN that, according to Cheong, created a “narrative about a ‘bloodbath’ if [Trump] loses the election.” Musk reposted Cheong and put it in his own words: “Legacy media lies.” Several other commentators, such as Ben Shapiro and Konstantin Kisin among others, rang the same tune.

The swift reaction from prominent figures on the Right is not to be dismissed so easily or immediately. First, all the usual MSM suspects - the NYT, Washington Post, Politico, NBC, CNBC, etc. - are gatekeepers of news by simple virtue of the reality that they have editors and staff that must choose which stories are worthy of print, and how to write the stories that go into print. Second, they are all human who can expect to make mistakes or to exhibit bias in their story selection or in their writing, and there has certainly been no shortage of right-wing commentators and media outlets ready at the helm to highlight the instances of when mainstream media goes awry, particularly with respect to progressive media bias. Third, the inherent ambiguity that naturally can arise in language itself gives rise to all manner of opinion about how a story succeeded or failed in explaining what, in fact, happened.

The “bloodbath” story pertains to the third case. That is, the titles announcing the stories contained in these articles seem to depict Trump as predicting a bloodbath if he loses the election, insidiously failing to provide the relevant context that Trump was using a colorful metaphor to claim that the automobile industry will suffer if Biden wins the election in November. Given that the MSM is perceived as irredeemably compromised by “Establishment” left-leaning biases, the headlines can understandably provoke the ire of Trump supporters who think the headlines were lying by omission.

This strikes me as the strongest claim that could be made, except that one of the headlines posted by Cheong, from CNN, explicitly says “Trump warns of ‘bloodbath’ for auto industry and country if he loses the election.” That is, the headline does, in fact, mention that Trump was referring to the auto industry (and country). Moreover, all the other articles - from the New York Times, from CNBC, from CNN, and even other articles such as from NBC News - all report that Trump was predicting the effect that a Biden victory would have on the manufacturing industry. It was these clickbait titles that induced me to read the articles and discover that they were all providing the relevant context that right-wing commentators complained was missing. It’s worth noting that New York Times also factually reported that Trump opened the speech by describing convicted January 6 criminals as “hostages” and “unbelievable patriots”.

It’s almost as if these prominent figures in right-wing media expect that their followers don’t bother to read articles, thus providing the opportunity for these commentators, rather than the media outlets they are complaining about, to become purveyors of misinformation. One does not need an unhealthy dose of cynicism to suggest that not only is this brouhaha much ado about nothing, but also is instead a revelation about how disingenuous commentators such as Ian Miles Cheong, Elon Musk, and others in their right-wing orbit can be.

All this said, however, Trump is not the only public official to face scrutiny about his rhetoric. Examples abound, as when Mitt Romney said “corporations are not people” or when Barack Obama referred to right-wing voters as “clinging to guns and religion”. Trump may be a special case if only because he so frequently rips up the script and employs words that can only be understood as inflammatory. From the moment he announced his first presidential campaign by singling out Mexican immigrants as “rapists”, he has never been especially careful or scrupulous about the words he chooses.

As a public figure, he should be well aware that even the context in which his words are deployed is going to be subject to interpretation, not only with respect to the immediate context, but with respect to the history of a man caught on the Access Hollywood tape implying that it was ok to “grab ‘em by the pussy”, or telling the January 6 to “fight like hell” before they marched to the Capitol violently disrupted an official proceeding of Congress. In other words, the irony of the Right’s complaint about context in this case is that a primary reason for highlighting the word “bloodbath” becomes clear in the context of a man with a history of inflammatory rhetoric and, of course, who was the instigator of a plot to overturn the 2020 election result and a speech that incited a mob to attack the Capitol on January 6, 2021.