‘Rude and nasty’: Unsettling truth about Donald Trump’s disastrous remarks to black journalists

Donald Trump went nuclear after being asked by a black, female journalist about his own comments. The reaction says it all.

Comment

“ABC journalist begins Trump interview with insults.”

“Good for Trump. Her question was a tirade of attacks. Very unprofessional.”

Some of the reaction, there, to Donald Trump’s appearance at an event hosted by the National Association of Black Journalists yesterday.

They teach us not to write in tired old clichés, so I shall refrain from calling the event a “car crash”. It was more like a parade of cars driving off a cliff. And the response, captured in the quotes above, has been quite fascinating.

“The questions were rude and nasty,” complained Mr Trump himself afterwards, using his favourite adjective for women who challenge or criticise him.

Mr Trump standing up to leave the event, earlier than scheduled, after being grilled by three black, female journalists. Pictured is ABC News’ Rachel Scott, who annoyed him the most. Picture: Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP

Let’s examine the key question in question, shall we? Keep an eye out for insults and attacks.

“A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today,” Rachel Scott, a reporter for America’s ABC News, began.

“You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former president Barack Obama, saying that they were not born in the United States, which is not true.

“You have told four congresswomen of colour who were American citizens to go back where they came from.

“You have used words like ‘animal’ and ‘rabid’ to describe black district attorneys. You’ve attacked black journalists, calling them ‘losers’, saying the questions that they ask are ‘stupid and racist’.

“You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort.

“So my question, sir, now that you are asking black supporters to vote for you: why should black voters trust you after you have used language like that?”

My question: when did it become an “attack”, let alone an “insult”, to ask a politician about things he has said and done?

It got testy. Picture: Scott Olson/Getty Images via AFP

Mr Trump did spread baseless “birther” theories about Ms Haley, his rival in the 2024 Republican primaries, falsely suggesting she was not eligible to run for president.

He did spend years claiming America’s first black president, Barack Obama (or as Mr Trump tends to call him, Barack Hussein Obama), was actually from Kenya. Mr Obama was born in Hawaii.

He did tell left-wing Democratic Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came”.

Mr Trump said these women “originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe”. Three of them were born in the United States. Ms Omar alone came from overseas, as a Somalian refugee, in the early 1990s.

He has used animalistic language to describe African-American lawyers and journalists. Ms Scott could also have mentioned the former president’s tendency to question whether Hispanic judges are capable of being fair towards him.

Mr Trump did host notorious white supremacist and anti-Semite Nick Fuentes for dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort. He later claimed not to know who Mr Fuentes was.

So nothing in Ms Scott’s question was anything other than factual. At what point did it become “unprofessional” for journalists, whose fundamental job is to hold those in power or seeking it to account, to make politicians justify their own words and actions?

Donald Trump gestures to the crowd as he leaved. Picture: Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP

“Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner,” Mr Trump said in his response to Ms Scott.

“You don’t even say, ‘Hello, how are you?’ Are you with ABC? Because I think they’re a fake news network, a terrible network. And I think it’s disgraceful that I came here, in good spirit. You were half an hour late. Just so you understand, I have too much respect for you to be late. They couldn’t get their equipment working or something.”

“Mr President, I would love it if you could answer the question,” Ms Scott interjected.

“I have answered the question,” Mr Trump said.

It was not an answer. It was nothing remotely close to an answer. Mr Trump could stand by his previous remarks, or he could repudiate them, but to suggest that even being asked about them is some sort of outrage? Come on.

He thinks it is unfair to be held to the same basic, bare bones, minimum standard of accountability as any other politician.

Donald Trump, not quite reading the room. Picture: Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP

We haven’t even mentioned, yet, his later answers during the same event, suggesting his opponent Kamala Harris isn’t genuinely black.

“I’ve known her a long time, indirectly. Not directly, very much. And she was always of Indian heritage. And she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black. And now she wants to be known as black,” said Mr Trump.

“So I don’t know. Is she Indian or is she black?”

“She has always identified as a black woman,” said Ms Scott.

“I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t,” Mr Trump persisted.

“Because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn, and she went, she became a black person. I think somebody should look into that too. When you continue in a very hostile, a nasty tone.”

There’s that word again, “nasty”. Mr Trump is fulsomely against using a nasty, hostile tone, you see, except when he does it.

Kamala Harris. Picture: Elijah Nouvelage/AFP

Again, the fundamental argument wasn’t that Ms Harris’s policies would hurt the black community. It wasn’t that her record as vice president was disqualifying. It boiled down to: “This woman’s black skin comes from Indian and Jamaican heritage rather than African heritage, and therefore you should reject her as a fraud.”

In seeking to describe the problem generously, I’ll put it this way. Mr Trump did not understand his audience. He did not care enough to try to understand his audience. He resents having to convince anyone that he deserves their support, because he feels that support should be offered up gleefully and unconditionally, like it is at his rallies.

That’s an unhealthy mental space for anyone to inhabit, let alone a potential US president.

Twitter: @SamClench