Merrick Garland’s Playing It Right

Hey,

Here’s a general rule of thumb (it’s not an iron law or anything, just a good practice when it comes to media consumption): If a headline counts as a bombshell, ask yourself whether it would still be a bombshell if the opposite were true.

For instance, “Scientists Invent Faster Than Light Travel,” or “NASA Discovers Intelligent Life on Mars” would be big news. But “Scientists Still Can’t Crack Faster Than Light Travel” or “NASA Mission Reports Lifeless Rocks Found on Mars” wouldn’t be that big a deal.

Now consider this headline that popped up pretty much everywhere:

• Axios: “Merrick Garland: DOJ won't rule out prosecuting Trump”

• National Review: “Merrick Garland Won’t Rule Out Prosecuting Trump over January 6”

• Fox News: “AG Garland refuses to rule out prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6”

• CNN: “Merrick Garland does not rule out charging Trump and others in January 6 probe”

(Full disclosure: The Morning Dispatch didn’t use the “doesn’t rule out” formulation in a headline, but it does appear in a small item.)

Ask yourself: What if it was the opposite headline? “Garland Rules Out Criminal Charges of Trump,” or, “AG Refuses to Consider Criminal Prosecution of Trump.”

I would argue—heck, not only would I argue it, I’m literally arguing it right now—that this would be a much bigger story. In other words, if Garland said that he would not even consider pressing charges against Trump regardless of what his investigators found in a still-ongoing inquiry, that would be a huge deal. “Yes, yes, we found a video of him bludgeoning a nun with a frozen Trump steak and eating her pancreas, but we already ruled out pressing charges regardless of what evidence we turned up.”   

In other words, Garland said exactly what he was supposed to say. In fact, he had no choice but to say it.