How should journos cover a second Trump admin?
PLUS: I call BS >> Dems blame loss on 'bad messaging'
As the angsty handwringing simmers over Donald Trump’s victory earlier this month, some of his adversaries have looked long and hard for a reason for the poor showing of Democrats far and wide. And, as I’ve observed before, the soul-searching is very much in order:
Some Democrats are wise enough to take a hard look at their policies — most notably: the Biden administration’s disastrous approach to the border, with the repeal of the Remain in Mexico rule; economic programs such as excessive government spending that triggered tight labor markets and contributed to inflation during the recovery from the pandemic; and an approach to cultural issues that seemed baffling to most Americans, perhaps most notably among Latino voters.
Likely worst of all was the inability or unwillingness of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris to distance herself from the unpopular Biden, whom she served as vice president.
But as soon as the dust cleared from Trump’s narrow popular-vote win, the progressive brigades came out in full force on cable and social media. The culprit in Harris’ losing campaign: unfair news media coverage and the proliferation of “disinformation” on the internet. Here’s a sampling and a response from yours truly:
It is a refrain I heard over and over again. “It’s a messaging problem,” or as “tshred56” insisted above, a problem with media coverage and, moreover, the corporations that own media outlets.
No, when you have a decent (but not great) candidate and you lose to a serial fraudster who was impeached twice, convicted on multiple felony charges, and incited an insurrection, you have more than a messaging problem.
Now if only Phil Roberts could understand that (and I believe the word he is looking for is “drivel”):
I’ve sort of taken the scenic route to today’s topic, so forgive me. There seems to a consensus — left and right — that the way the news media have covered Donald Trump, to borrow a phrase from Mika Brzezinski, “hasn’t worked” (note that Mika did not say how it actually was supposed to work; was it supposed to result in Trump’s defeat? If so, you’re right. It did not “work”).
Basking in the glow of Trump’s victory, the right sees most of the media as unrelentingly biased against Trump and utterly clueless in discerning his appeal. The left sees the mainstream media (MSM) as mostly pro-Trump, either because he’s good for the news business or because they were afraid of reprisals from the Orange Monster in the event that he won.
These progressives resurrected a term that was new to me: “sanewashing” or, in this context, normalizing grossly abnormal policies or behavior in their coverage of Trump. These charges, often directed at the New York Times and the Washington Post, always struck me as hollow, based as they were on headlines more than anything else.
But the sanewashing charge does raise an interesting point. Part of the problem in covering Trump is that his incendiary rhetoric and bizarre utterances hit us with such overwhelming volume that we become numb to it. Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who was recently released from a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, coined a scatological term for it:
Or as Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark put it:
So should an anxiety-ridden news media actually report every harebrained pronouncement, every blustering threat, every crude insult that tumbles from his mouth? After all, that’s precisely what Trump wants us to do. And to decline to take the bait isn’t necessarily sanewashing. In most cases, it’s simply depriving him of the ability to spread the shit.
These are the challenges journalists face when confronted with a character like Trump. To be sure, there needs to be tough, aggressive coverage of his administration, its policies and their implications, but to report breathlessly on every baseless claim, every empty threat, every insult directed at his enemies, is to play Trump’s game.
At that point, we become desensitized to the insanity, which in turn becomes the new normal. After all, if everything is an outrage, then nothing is.
P.S. I wanted to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving! My wife and I will be spending the day with our son, his partner and our four-month-old grandson, Emmett Christopher Cowgill:
Further reading:
A New Way to Cover Trump’s Second Term -Columbia Journalism School
And my favorite so far:
The press must lean in and focus on issues that matter to our audiences instead of breathlessly reporting on the circus around the president.
Trump’s first term shows journalists can make an impact in his second -Poynter Institute
Good points about how the mainstream media covered the election. But I wonder how much it even matters how the MSM covers the Trump administration, given its declining influence. In fact, what does “mainstream media” even mean anymore? (I prefer the term “legacy media.”) I believe social media and podcasters had more influence on voters this time around.
Plus, there’s the threat of Trump seeking legal retribution against the big media institutions like The NY Times and WaPo, an action likely to have more success under the current SCOTUS — covered here:
https://newrepublic.com/article/188858/transcript-trumps-rage-nyt-offers-unnerving-hint-whats-coming
Terry,
You have a misperception about the term “sane-washing,” which, considering the newness of the terms, is understandable. You write:
So should an anxiety-ridden news media actually report every harebrained pronouncement, every blustering threat, every crude insult that tumbles from his mouth? After all, that’s precisely what Trump wants us to do. And to decline to take the bait isn’t necessarily sanewashing. In most cases, it’s simply depriving him of the ability to spread the shit.
But the MSM has hardly ever “declined to take the bait… depriving him of the ability to spread shit,” and that failure to call shit is the sane-washing. The New York Times is infamous for reporting Trump’s bullshit—including outright outrageously dangerous-to-American-democracy bullshit—without calling it out, is part of the normalizing or sane-washing play. I doubt NYT and others did this because they’re unaware of ape-shit statements, but because they are confused about the role of news. The role should include saying, “Well, in fact, the Emperor is buck naked.”
But, oh no, that violates some prissy propriety standard that makes my mémère’s best behavior look like Hannibal Lector behavior (to use a current allusion). MSM is populated, at least at the top, by people who love being professional journalists in terms of salary and access and fellowship with the powerful, a.k.a., elites, and this is bad for useful news. This is probably largely responsible for the talking head circle-jerks that make up much of MSM, and this is a form of reality TV, by the way, with the same low-cost easy-peasy production. Thinking—and thinking outside one’s of own reality—is hard and expensive work, and mainly because you have to go question your own assumptions and talk to people outside your experience and do the research.
So, yes, MSM (and let’s remember consolidation of ownership, also called monopoly) carries a lot of responsibility for Trump’s ascension.
But the Democrats fall into the same elitism, and everyone know this. The Democrats, with some fortunate exceptions that don’t include Harris, actually can see the reality of the vast majority of Americans, and that reality is that with the long run of neoliberalism, the rich have been standing on most of our heads in an increasingly heavy way, and that, increasingly so, is uncomfortable. Despite having policies that address this or that element of discomfort—the child care tax credit comes to mind—Harris and her stand-ins failed to confess that things are tough for the 80th income percentile and under. She could have said, about the child care tax credit, “Gee, you know, you have been getting screwed and here’s one small way you can get help.”
Trump, somehow, convinces people that he sees them, and in not some small part because he attacks the elites and, frankly, the elites are rightly seen as those who have been in government, academia, and media for sometimes better and sometimes worse, but each and every not talking about the rich standing on peoples’ heads. Harris wants to bring grocery prices down, but doesn’t mention the consolidation of ownership of supermarkets to something like four companies owning 80-90% of supermarkets? Really?
Um, sorry, what was my point?
I always take a moment to look at your work, Terry, and too often for my own scheduling, that moment turns into a full-bore read out.
So, thanks?