Sanewashing

Sanewashing is the act of minimizing the perceived radical aspects of a person or idea in order to make them more acceptable to a wider audience. The term was initially coined in online discussions about defunding the police in 2020, but has come to greater prominence in critique of media practices of sanewashing in the 2024 US presidential campaign. Journalism organisations and media commentators have suggested actions both readers and writers can take to stop sanewashing.

History of the term

The expression originated in a Reddit forum in 2020 and was used in discussions about defunding the police.

Journalism school and research organization the Poynter Institute defines it as "the act of packaging radical and outrageous statements in a way that makes them seem normal", and suggests it is analogous to greenwashing or sportswashing.

Columbia Journalism Review reported Urban Dictionary's definition as "attempting to downplay a person or idea’s radicality to make it more palatable to the general public".

In 2024, journalist Aaron Rupar was credited with being the first to use the term in the specific context of media reporting of Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. Its usage soon spread to international media outlets.

The Week reported Matt Bernius, writing at Outside the Beltway, as asking "Where's the line between paraphrasing and 'sanewashing'?", ultimately concluding that it's "a dangerous form of bias".

Sanewashing in the 2024 US presidential campaign

Paul Farhi wrote in The Atlantic, in reference to the term, that reporters have a "tendency to render the Republican candidate’s most bizarre and incoherent statements into cogent English, shearing off the crazy in a misleading manner". Kelly McBride, in discussing whether NPR is guilty of sanewashing, wrote that the news organisation has been criticised for what it describes as "packaging Trump’s ideas into news stories as if they are sensible suggestions".

Some examples of behaviour described as "sanewashing" include:

• The Hill reported that Nate Silver asked whether Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz was sanewashing JD Vance by saying "nothing about the Republican ticket’s conspiratorial claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets, for instance” in their debate.
• MSNBC suggests The New York Times' coverage of an answer Trump gave to the Economic Club of New York was sanewashing: "After one member asked Trump a very specific question about the rising cost of child care, the Republican presidential candidate responded with a two-minute rant about tariffs, the deficit and fraud. Yet The New York Times chose to cover Trump's comments [by] headlining their piece on the event, 'Trump Calls for an Efficiency Commission, an Idea Pushed by Elon Musk.' The Times' deliberate choice to lead with that detail and only mention the former president's incoherence briefly in the article drew sharp criticism from media pundits." The Week criticized Associated Press and CNN over their coverage of the same answer at the event, saying that they had attempted to "impose sense where there is none" with headlines such as "Trump Suggests Tariffs Can Help Solve Rising Child Care Costs in a Major Economic Speech".

Stopping sanewashing

Rob Tornoe wrote in Editor & Publisher that one technique journalists can use to avoid sanewashing is the truth sandwich technique. Kelly McBride, writing for the Poynter Institute, listed various approaches, including to "let the quotes stand", to "point out the lies and also the purpose they serve", and to "identify the journalistic purpose" of a quote.

Parker Molloy wrote in The New Republic that readers, not just journalists, also have a role to play in stopping sanewashing. According to her, they should "seek out primary sources", and "support news outlets that prioritize accuracy over access or the appearance of 'balance'."

See also

• Reputation laundering
• Whitewashing (censorship)