by Mike Smith There is a battle going on that ultimately may have more of a lasting impact on this country than any executive order President Donald Trump recently signed. The president and much of America’s national media seem to be on a quest to delegitimize one another. No one is backing down. Both sides are concentrated on destroying each other, seemingly blind to the longterm ramifications or consequences this battle has on the country. It is a silly and dangerous game, and although the president may ultimately win, winning this battle will have a lasting negative impact on all of us.
When President Trump says he hates the media — which he has said at almost every gathering during his presidential campaign — he signals to his supporters and others that the media can’t be trusted. When he labels the media as the opposition, as he and his advisors recently did, he places them in the category similar to an opposing political party, or worse — an enemy. His purpose is to delegitimize most media. His hope is to replace media that offends or challenges him with media coverage that will concur with him. This isn’t independent reporting. It more resembles propaganda.
Helping Trump with this delegitimizing effort is the media itself. For example, The New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet acknowledged that the paper changed its editorial standards and allowed reporters more leeway when writing about Trump during the presidential campaign. More leeway inevitably leads to more editorializing in news stories. In fact, one Times reporter gave veto power to the Clinton campaign on the quotes he could use in his story on Hillary Clinton. After the election the public editor of the paper, Liz Spayd, noted that for many weeks prior to the election the Times reported that Clinton was all but assured to be the victor. “The picture was of a juggernaut of blue state invincibility that mostly dismissed the likelihood of a Trump White House,” Spayd wrote.
In addition, BuzzFeed, an online news organization, published an unverified report filled with innuendo and gossip about Trump’s activities in Russia. This was picked up by other news organizations, or in some cases, the report was conflated with a leaked story of an intelligence briefing where Trump was made aware of this report. When standards are changed for the purpose of undermining a presidency, or a person seeking the presidency, then that resembles revenge rather than responsible journalism.
And when Trump questions the integrity of journalists, whose careers are dependent on trustworthiness, it angers many in the profession. It’s normal human behavior to be angry at such an accusation. There’s a tendency to strike back, perhaps harshly. But by doing so, it further erodes faith in the journalism for two reasons. First, when anger or frustration takes journalists to a place that allows them to leave the boundaries of established journalistic standards; when events go unverified or are not properly vetted; or stories are wrong or misleading because key provisions are missing — then all of this undermines credibility. And secondly, when attacking Trump as viciously as he attacks the media, it undermines fairness. Credibility and fairness are two of the pillars that good news organizations are built upon.
Like it or not, the rules are different for journalists, and most journalists should understand this when entering the profession. They are, in many ways, required to be guardians of responsible actions. A police officer punching a mouthy motorist after stopping him for speeding is likely to face repercussions from superiors and perhaps the public. Journalists, like police, have a responsibility to rise above a situation that may provoke anger, even Trump’s insults.
Right now, the president has a solid core of support that consists of somewhere in the range of 36 to 38 percent of the public. In politics this is called the floor, a point where his support probably will not dip any further. On the other hand, a recent survey by the polling company Gallup found that only 32 percent of Americans believe news organizations report the news fully, accurately and fairly. In other words, core support is less than Trump’s, and it’s continuing to dwindle. In fact, the 32 percent supporting the media in this poll may not be the floor — it could go a lot lower, especially when a president is trying to drive up negatives. If the president is successful at further eroding support for the media, then our press becomes less and less relevant in American politics. Already we see signs of this irrelevancy in this year’s presidential election when nearly all newspaper editorials threw their support behind Hillary Clinton, to no avail.
Here’s what happens when the media become irrelevant: Ultimately, reporters write and talk to impress each other. Unfortunately, it becomes less important to a growing number of Americans what journalists are writing or saying. This leaves the door wide open for government and politicians to control the information flow, without accountability. This is a dangerous situation for any democracy.
Recent attempts to oppose Trump by emulating his demeanor have failed. Sen. Marco Rubio tried to out-Trump Trump in the primaries and then saw his presidential hopes evaporate soon after. The tactics that some media outlets have recently taken resembles those of Rubio. They likely will fail, too. Instead, a more successful tactic may be to get back to the basics of reporting, and with less editorializing in news reports. In many instances local media are besting the national media because they adhere to these principles. Additionally, many national media outlets need to reach out to all of America, especially the rural parts of this country with their reporting and not just concentrate on people or events in the metropolitan areas. This is a sentiment that was echoed by the Times public editor. The election of President Trump may have stunned many — especially those in the media — but reporters may be equally stunned to find out the number of those Americans that support the president’s recent actions.
There are many issues facing today’s media, including a plethora of places Americans get their news, and, in many cases, only seeking out news that may conform to their own thinking. There is fierce competition for readers and viewers. At the same time, newsrooms at many newspapers are shrinking, and competition from social media and online services has impacted all traditional media outlets. Yet it is important to remember that the framers of the U.S. Constitution thought it extremely important to have a free press that is not controlled or minimized by a government or politicians. Any attempts to undercut the vibrancy, respect and trust of our press needs to be curtailed. Both journalists and elected officials have equal responsibilities in this effort. However, trying to delegitimize each other is not one of them.
Mike Smith is the host of the radio program, “Open Mike with Mike Smith.” He is a regular contributor to Vermont Business Magazine.