I played high school football just 60 years ago, and followed the sport sporadically after graduation. Over the years, I became familiar with the concept of “flooding the zone” by sending multiple offensive receivers into one area against defenses which designated only one or two players to cover it.
The phrase is common in today’s political conversations, describing the onslaught of executive orders, lies, and nonsensical musings employed by the Trump administration to overwhelm resistance. Far-right mouthpiece Steve Bannon (released in October 2024 after four months in jail for contempt of Congress by refusing to testify about his role in the January 6 insurrection) has often been the most brutally honest source for describing right wing tactics.
In 2019, he clarified the Trump and Republican approach: “The Democrats don’t matter … The opposition party is the media. And the media can only, because they’re dumb and they’re lazy, they can only focus on one thing at a time … All we have to do is flood the zone. Every day we hit them with three things. They’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all our stuff done.”
I don’t think all news media members are dumb and lazy, although some certainly are. But it’s the nature of American news, going all the way back to the “yellow journalism” of the late 1800s, to seek readers by emphasizing the most outrageous or sensational stories. Our collective attention span in America is notably brief, with the majority of people uninterested or lacking the time to pursue in-depth analyses of even the most crucial issues. Several wars, which cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, were launched and supported by sensational news stories found to be false when examined carefully.
Here’s an example of the quandary faced by the current news media, and its millions of readers and viewers. Suppose President Trump muses about getting into heaven, taking over Canada and Greenland, and the wonderful effects of the recent budget and tax cuts all on the same day. Which story is worthy of the most attention? Which will draw the most eyeballs to read and watch?
The budget bill requires complicated explanations and won’t draw the emotional response coveted by news organizations. On the other hand, DJT’s possibilities for getting into heaven, and annexing stable, prosperous countries draw an immediate and righteous backlash in the U.S. and abroad. Sadly, the majority of resources will be devoted to the sensational stories, relegating budget and tax issues to summaries and sidebars.
In a later interview, Bannon was even more forthcoming. Not only do Republicans want to “flood” the media zone, their goal is to “flood the zone with s**t.” One writer observed that “This isn’t about persuasion. It’s about disorientation.” Another site that follows media manipulation says that the goal is “sowing confusion and distrust among the audience as to what is real and what is not.” A New York Times article observes that “people are numb and disoriented, struggling to discern what is real in a sea of slant, fake, and fact,” much of it worthless excrement created by Bannon’s right wing allies.
It’s tough to keep our eyes on the prize under such a powerful and pervasive attack. But one blog suggests that “Keeping the ship of democracy afloat is only possible if the democratic public and its institutions retain their ability to pay focused attention to the relevant issues they face.” I do believe there are enough people opposing a Trump autocracy that it’s possible to “flood the zone” in opposition, not with toxic sludge, but with impassioned, informed dissent. It happened with House Republican representatives who fled from constituent forums and town halls when they were incessantly questioned about indefensible policies.
If we can express our opposition on every hand, some officials may see the powerful groundswell they are facing from the vastly unpopular budget that cuts social services to pay for billionaire tax cuts, indiscriminate ICE raids, tariffs, and continuing, undemocratic attempts at seizing more power through redistricting, making voting more difficult, etc.
None of us have the time, energy, or capacity to oppose all the contaminated flood waters directed our way. But everyone can choose one or two causes they passionately care about, and proceed with making some of John Lewis’s “good trouble” by flooding phone lines, in-boxes, and the streets in both planned and spontaneous protests. The cumulative flood of opposition could slow, and possibly stop, the toxic, Trumpian flood before it drowns our voices.
Allen Woods is a freelance writer, author of the Revolutionary-era historical fiction novel “The Sword and Scabbard,” and Greenfield resident. His column appears regularly on a Saturday. Comments are welcome here or at awoods2846@gmail.com.