The media needs to relax its relentless Trump coverage. It’s already caused a lot of damage, and it will only continue to get worse.
Earlier this month, Jim Rutenberg wrote a column for The New York Times originally titled “Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism.” In it, he comments on the ethical difficulties many non-opinion journalists feel about covering Trump.
How can we remain objective and fair when we know how dangerous Trump would be in the White House? This is the conundrum many journalists find themselves in. And according to some, the answer, the almighty way to dump Trump, is to report on Trump aggressively and with fierce opposition.
As reported in the column, Carolyn Ryan, The New York Times’ senior editor for politics, argues that, given Trump’s threats and disturbing actions, he deserves “copious coverage and aggressive coverage.” Ryan went on to say Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering,” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”
We agree; it’s disingenuous to readers to misrepresent reality. But it’s also disingenuous to readers for the media to proceed as if they bare little to no responsibility in getting Trump this far.
There are consequences to this nearly 14-month haze of Trump-induced news cycles. Big media can’t expect “aggressive” coverage to clean up the mess it’s invested in, giving $2 billion worth (and counting) of free advertising to Trump and casting a national spotlight on his controversies and tenuous relationship with facts and reality.
This isn’t to say aggressive anti-Trump coverage is pointless, but it’s definitely along the lines of too little, too late. Media figures who prioritize the best interests of the country over ratings wouldn’t have put Trump on a pedestal to begin with.
Put it this way: When Leslie Moonves, the executive chairman and CEO of CBS Corporation, speaks of the Trump campaign and says, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” and goes on to say, “The money’s rolling in, and this is fun,” we the people have a serious problem on our hands.
So, at this point, what can we do? What we should have been doing with Trump this entire time: only talk about him when does something newsworthy. Otherwise, don’t talk about him. We’re not suggesting censorship by any means, but Trump’s controversies don’t deserve to be front-page, breaking news or trending on all social media.
Trump proposes a new policy idea — like the wall or mass deportations — or reporters dig up new developments on his bankruptcies or long list of business failures despite his “I’m-the-best” persona? Cover it. That’s newsworthy, and the American people can benefit from knowing about it.
But Trump ripping into Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the two hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” and claiming they’re having an affair? Or his statements about Megyn Kelly, or never-ending remarks about the Khan family? None of that deserves major headlines or discussion in the media, because it’s all about as newsworthy as a car-sales ad. You know what, no: A car ad would actually benefit more people than providing aggressive and oppositional coverage of these sensationalist “controversies.”
Ever since Trump announced his candidacy June 16, 2015, far too many figures in the media have consistently underestimated his electability and underplayed their role in his success. To think giving “copious” and “aggressive” coverage to Trump is the best means of stopping him, at this point, is naive.
As a country, we need to get serious about why we got here and how we need to move forward on behalf of the people’s best interests.
