What an unbelievable week. Donald Trump achieved one of the greatest comebacks in U.S. political history by beating Kamala Harris decisively and returning to power with an impressive win over her for 2020 presidential elections. Donald Trump remains one of the most divisive, intriguing, and divisive figures our nation has ever known. His unique political approach began a movement which has resonated with at least half the people across our nation. He has held onto control of the Republican Party for nine years and won two elections despite running campaigns and doing and saying things which, under any other circumstance, would disqualify him as being taken seriously as leader of our nation. Trump has employed an unprecedented strategy of attacking enemies – including journalists – which has left journalism experts constantly questioning how it has covered him and should cover him moving forward. As this piece explores these concerns and speculates as to whether Trump will follow through with some of his statements regarding press freedom, many questions arise as to if and when these threats from President Donald Trump against journalists might materialize into action. Therefore, I decided to consult analysts and experts from media world in order to gain their insight on how Trump has been covered and what can we anticipate over his four year presidency. Here is what they said. Longtime media reporter and former Washington Post staff Paul Farhi: I no longer understand what “the press” refers to when spoken of in relation to it by speakers; can be considered anything from The New York Times and The Washington Post through to CNN and Fox news, USA Today as examples cited when they refer to “the media”, to The Atlantic magazine (NPR PBS BBC etc) Associated Press or even “newsprint”. Yes again. Again. A thousand local newspapers? Fine; talk radio? Adequate… Podcasts? Ummm… TikTok and social media all play their parts; all have “influence”, shaping both public opinion as well as current “news”. My point here is that this becomes even more convoluted when one attempts to assess any news organization individually, like CNN (or The Washington Post or whatever). People frequently allege these outlets as biased or unfair. But they really mean something different; what they really mean is “I didn’t agree with what Scott Jennings or Jennifer Rubin said on a panel or in her column last night/this morning and so the precision gets lost. Do I believe the relatively few beat reporters adequately covered all aspects of this campaign?” Sure. One click away from finding reliable reporting on virtually every aspect of a campaign can bring up substantial coverage (you might also come across less-than-stellar pieces of writing); yet such reporting only forms part of today’s information stream and does not affect perceptions and votes directly. Eric Deggans, TV critic at NPR and longtime media analyst: I know some may raise complaints against mainstream news coverage of Harris and Trump in mainstream outlets, alleging double standards. Traditional news media have always had difficulty covering Trump and how best to cover his dysfunction and extremism without becoming biased against them. That being said, I think there were ample reports across different outlets giving people an accurate representation of him as an individual. However, Fox News remains at the core of an alternative media structure dedicated to discrediting most criticism of Donald Trump by overtly criticizing political enemies and supporting conservative causes. Last year I participated on a journalism panel and stated that mainstream media’s biggest hurdle remains millions of Americans who refuse to believe what we report despite all our best efforts at reporting accurately. Now I fear this dynamic has affected a presidential election in ways we are only just beginning to comprehend. Dan Kennedy, Professor and Media Observer at Northeastern University. Author of “Media Nation”. Democrats and critics may lament how mainstream news organizations like The New York Times offer both-sides coverage. But Fox News remains by far the most damaging media outlet. Fox serves as an extension of Trumpworld, providing viewers with news that conforms with their preexisting viewpoints or Fox’s agenda. This leads many of their viewers to reject alternative sources of information which don’t conform with these views and Fox’s agenda. That leaves a huge segment of society without access to reliable news and information sources – especially newspapers such as the Times – making news-gathering even harder than necessary and elevating truth over falsehood. But I agree: media companies also must improve and put greater focus on upholding truth over misleading equivalencies. Neil Brown, president and former editor-in-chief of Tampa Bay Times: Could press coverage play any part in producing results? That would suggest press coverage should be evaluated based on one outcome and evaluated accordingly. Press coverage is key in keeping people informed and helping them participate in elections, form their own opinions and decide on an agenda which makes sense to them. Media sources of all varieties — from national news organizations and local papers, through local TV news to podcasters, social media content creators and podcasts — provided people with information they found useful, entertaining or thought provoking; whether that information stirred their emotions or they simply dismissed or disregarded. So that is their role; to my observation there was plenty of coverage of Trump or Harris across various channels and forms of media coverage, with neither candidate experiencing tangible misunderstand due to inaccurate or inadequate coverage by media. Overall I would argue the press did an admirable job of covering them properly – there has not been any tangible misunderstanding caused by inaccurate or inadequate media coverage of either presidential candidate. Paul Farhi: Strap yourselves in. Trump has long made attacking mainstream media a cornerstone of his brand; and with more practice under his first term belt he may get better at doing it. Eric Deggans: Fearless journalism is at serious risk now. Jeff Bezos’ gesture of offering complimentary congratulations texts to Donald Trump shortly after The Washington Post suffered over 200,000 subscription losses due to its decision not to endorse Harris leaves many wondering which news outlets can be trusted. Journalists are eagerly waiting to see how Trump, who frequently made statements regarding taking revenge against news organizations they feel have wronged him, will respond to thorough coverage. Conservative-leaning media have distorted what many consider fair news coverage, increasing misinformation and disinformation in public space. But one of the major obstacles facing mainstream news organizations right now is their audience’s belief that coverage this election cycle was too “soft on Trump”, normalizing his excesses while “sanitizing” and whitewashing them. Traditional journalists already lacking trust among conservative consumers risk further losing it from those news consumers left. It would not make for an encouraging scenario! Dan Kennedy: Much worse than in its initial four-year incarnation when Trump White House staffers leaked to reporters to prevent Trump from acting on impulses he felt passionately about, I now expect us to witness an orderlier and disciplined operation from him and his White House staffers. While Trump will continue his attacks against media as enemies of the people and make dark jokes about shooting journalists, those around him will seek ways to channel this anger into policy such as weakening libel protections or challenging local broadcast licenses held by networks in an effort to delegitimize honest reporting and delegitimize truthful journalism. Neil Brown: For journalists and news companies alike, just as with politicians, ground play is paramount. When journalists get bogged down in macro analysis about things like economy or crime or climate, consumers may struggle to connect or find relevance with our messages. Or they believe our stories require them to see an overarching context that doesn’t speak directly to their daily experiences; when that occurs, journalism becomes non-essential instead. As media professionals, our challenge lies in closing the reality gap between what audiences and communities experience and our interpretations of meaning. That being said, don’t define all your news around “Trump”. If President Donald Trump or those in power take any actions, we need to delve deeper into what that action entails and its results. Stories should be tailored more narrowly if we wish them to resonate with people – however his open disdain for media presents unique complexities we need to navigate carefully. He must continue to be held accountable for his actions and words — something the national press corps is now adept at doing after years of covering him. Yet there must also be an equilibrium struck between being drawn into Trump’s attempts at painting us as opponents and providing coverage that feels monotonous. Our coverage of Trump and all those in power must be accurate, thorough and transparent about where information originates – without being overexcited about every new development or sounding breathless when discussing any topic at stake. At a local and small newsroom level, it’s imperative that we commit to ground-level beat coverage that gives people an authentic view. Although politics are local in nature, news too must reflect it if local issues are truly being tackled effectively. And for more media news… tidbits… and links of interest for weekend review… Jennifer Senior from The Atlantic published “Focus on What Matters.” Opinion columnists from The Washington Post published “He’s Back: Thirteen Columnists Discuss His Re-entry — And Their Reasons for Hopefulness. ” Angela Fu at Poynter notes “After its debut as a tool of influence in this election cycle, podcasting will likely remain part of future campaigns”. Fernanda Camarena at Poynter writes “Once again mainstream media misunderstood Latino voters”. Aiden Ryan of The Boston Globe wrote “How Trump Avoided Mainline Media — and Won the Presidency,” while Eric Lipton, Kirsten Grind, David Fahrenthold and Theodore Schleifer from The New York Times co-wrote an editorial entitled, “Elon Musk Contributed To Donald Trump; What Do His Expect in Return?” Rob Gillies of Associated Press reports, “Canada orders TikTok Canada business to be liquidated but won’t prohibit app.” According to Benjamin Mullin of The New York Times, Washington Post CEO Will Lewis recently informed staff they must work five days each week beginning February. Mullin cited Post Guild representatives’ displeasure with this plan, noting they feel “distressed” about its announcement and that “The Post intends to implement an inflexible, outdated work-from-office policy that does not reflect reality or our lives. ” Neil Shah from The Wall Street Journal wrote an insightful piece: Bob Dylan on X: Is He Messing With Us?” Last week, ESPN analyst (and former NFL star) Jason Kelce had an altercation with an offending fan which ended up with him taking away their phone and smashing it to the ground (many felt this action to have been appropriate). Consequently, many believed this incident to have caused considerable tension within ESPN and among their audience at large. Kelce apologized, expressing regret at responding with more hatefulness, as Candace Buckner of The Washington Post puts it: “Jason Kelce poses an intractable problem: How should we respond to hatefulness?” If you have feedback or tips to offer Tom Jones at Poynter Senior Media Writer Tom Jones ([email protected]). For daily media news delivery Monday-Friday subscribe here for The Poynter Report daily media newsletter
Social Share
