‘A bloodbath’

I don’t know if anyone saw today’s Roca Instagram post about this, but I thought I’d start what I really hope can be an objective conversation about it, on here.

Roca rightly pointed out that the media went bananas about Trump saying ‘it would be a bloodbath’ if he didn’t get elected, claiming it was a call/threat of violence. The post includes a video of the speech, showing very clearly that it was not a threat. He was using arguably dramatic language but in context it isn’t violent.

That said, I also thought Roca’s characterisation was objectively inaccurate. The post goes on to suggest Trump meant only that the US automotive industry would experience a metaphorical bloodbath (an economic one). But Trump says ‘if I don’t get elected it’ll be a bloodbath… a bloodbath for the whole country’. Given his cadence and addition of that phrase, my interpretation (which surely no one can deny is very openly Trump’s position) is that he meant that if he doesn’t get elected both the car industry and, separately, the whole country is, for want of a better word, fucked! I’m not suggesting Roca did that intentionally, to be clear.

Regardless of your political beliefs, I find it really interesting that even in a post about objectivity in media, one of the most objective news outlets can still provide (what I see as) an inaccurate interpretation of a speech made to millions.

Or am I hearing it wrongly?

Discuss… (nicely ;))