By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a question about Jeffrey Epstein, former President Donald Trump verbally attacked a female reporter, referring to her as a “piggy.” The White House defended Trump’s behavior, claiming his actions demonstrate transparency and openness with the press, despite his history of making sexist remarks. This incident is compounded by the ongoing fallout from the Epstein scandal, which has seen Trump’s approval ratings decline, with scrutiny intensifying over his past associations. Furthermore, this recent occurrence is indicative of Trump’s increasing frustration with negative news coverage, particularly surrounding the Epstein case and other controversies.
Read the original article here
Leavitt says press should be grateful Trump called female reporter ‘piggy’, which, let’s just say, sparked a whole lot of immediate reactions. The internet, as it often does, exploded with a mix of disbelief, anger, and a healthy dose of satire. It’s difficult to wrap your head around the idea that being called a derogatory name is somehow a positive thing, but that seems to be the message being delivered here.
This sentiment raises some seriously uncomfortable questions. How far are we willing to go in the name of loyalty or political maneuvering? If “piggy” is considered “frank and open,” then what words are off-limits? And more importantly, how does this kind of rhetoric impact the women and men who are supposed to be covering the news? Is this how we want to encourage political dialogue?
The responses online ranged from suggesting the reporter should have simply said “thank you” to proposing that Ms. Leavitt herself should be addressed with equally “frank and open” nicknames. Many people have a natural reaction to use the same disrespectful language that was being defended. The fact that many people thought about calling her by disparaging names is a testament to how frustrating this defense is. It’s hard to imagine anyone genuinely believing that being called a derogatory name should be met with gratitude. The whole situation feels like it’s been lifted straight from a dystopian novel, where truth is relative and respect is a forgotten concept.
It seems to be lost on some that this isn’t about being “tough” or “honest.” This is about the very basic respect that should be afforded to anyone, regardless of their profession. Journalists, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with a modicum of civility. The idea that a reporter should be grateful for being insulted undermines the very fabric of free speech and open discourse.
One can’t help but wonder about the mental gymnastics required to justify such statements. What does it say about the speaker’s values, or their understanding of basic human decency? It’s not simply a difference of opinion; it’s a fundamental disconnect from the world most people inhabit. It’s easy to get lost in the outrage, but this seems like a pattern. A pattern of behavior that consistently minimizes and demeans anyone that isn’t in agreement with a particular point of view.
It’s tempting to dismiss this as a fringe opinion, but the fact that it’s being voiced, and by someone in a position of authority, is deeply troubling. It normalizes behavior that should be universally condemned. If calling someone “piggy” is seen as “frank and open,” what comes next? What boundaries are being eroded?
The conversation around this statement also underscores the double standards at play. If this kind of language were used against a male reporter, would the response be the same? Would the same justifications be offered? And if it’s acceptable for a politician to use such language, does that make it okay for anyone else?
The overall situation becomes even more complicated as the press must keep themselves composed. The job is to be professional, but the people they are covering do not extend the same courtesy to them. The question is, how do you cover someone who seemingly doesn’t value truth, civility, or basic respect?
This whole episode is a stark reminder that words matter. They can wound, they can divide, and they can erode the very foundations of civil society. It’s important to keep calling out this kind of rhetoric and to demand a higher standard of discourse, from everyone, especially those in positions of power.