Oct.04

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

Covering Donald Trump

This is a question we think about a lot. And, as it turns out, we're not the only ones. In fact, there has been a sizable number of pieces in the last couple of weeks on the issue of the correct way to cover Donald Trump.

The fundamental problem is pretty simple. On one hand, just about everyone, outside of significant elements of the MAGA mediasphere (MAGAsphere?) wants to be fair and dispassionate. On the other hand, Donald Trump is not a normal presidential candidate. He's a four-times-indicted potential felon who tried to overthrow the government, in addition to being a court-affirmed sexual predator. And added to the salad are the endless lies, the threats against individuals, the cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin and other strongmen, the shady financial dealings, and Trump v2.0 (a.k.a. American Fascism v1.0). What to do with someone like that?

Now, some of the "correct way to cover Trump" items are largely just rants. Salon tends to be kind of rant-y, a lot of the time, and their columnist Brian Karen certainly was in his piece headlined "Donald Trump's thrill ride is nearly over—but the media refuses to let go." For example:

The Biden White House and the Democrats have no heart for the fight they face, and no head for it either. In an attempt to avoid getting their hands dirty, they're allowing the country to bathe in Trump's filth without responding to it. We heard a rare exception from Biden this week in San Francisco when he said, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy this democracy."

White House spokesman Andrew Base backed that up by saying that "to abuse presidential power and violate the constitutional rights of reporters would be an outrageous attack on our democracy and the rule of law."

We need more of that and a lot less of people in my profession giving false equivalency between Trump and his GOP competitors, much less the current president. If this is the end, then let it be Trump's end—not our country's.

At the end of the day, will some of my fellow journalists grow a pair? We make decisions every day based on money and audience share, not journalism. Trump went on Meet the Press because he's good for ratings. We cover him as if he were equal to Biden for the same reason.

Impassioned, but "grow a pair" is not especially actionable. Also, we think it's a little facile to say that the way in which Trump is covered is due to the desire for ratings. Sure, that's part of it, but E-V.com, for example, has no "ratings" and no need to chase gratuitous clicks, and yet we still wrestle with how to cover Trump.

In addition to the Salon piece, we read several others on the general subject. Here are some bits of advice we think are more useful, both for us and for politics-focused outlets in general:

• Let People Reach Their Own Conclusions: Josh Marshall, of TalkingPointsMemo, had a piece last week headlined "Learn to Cover Trump Right Before It's Too Late." The most important point he makes is that while it's necessary to outline the various threats that Trump poses to democracy, it generally does not go over well when media members preach to readers. And so, he concludes, "Reporting clearly things that are alarming is more important than telling people how alarming it all is."
  
  
• Too Much Negativity: The piece written by Margaret Sullivan of The Guardian is headlined "With democracy on the ballot, the mainstream press must change its ways." Her most useful observation is that the media has a negativity bias (true), which means that it's a constant stream of bad news about Trump and a constant stream of bad news about Biden. This inadvertently creates a false "they're both awful" equivalence. Put another way, it's OK to write positive stories about the Biden administration. In fact, in view of the ease with which negative stories are produced, there's an argument for consciously making sure to do so.
  
  
• If the Shoe Fits: The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by the conservative-but-not-Trump-friendly Rupert Murdoch, did not intend to comment on Trump coverage, per se. However, the headline of a recent op-ed speaks to the question nonetheless: "Why Is Donald Trump Afraid to Debate?" Generally, when writing about politics, one avoids judgmental words like "afraid" and judgmental questions like this one. However, the words (and questions) exist because sometimes they are called for.
  
  
• Think about Framing: Press Watch had a lengthy piece headlined "A desperate appeal to newsroom leaders on the eve of a chaos election" in which they reported the opinions of various experts as to how politics coverage could be better. Jennifer Mercieca, who teaches political rhetoric at Texas A&M University, focused on framing: "Use a 'democracy frame' instead of a horse race frame. What impact does the event/news item have on democracy in America?" Others quoted in the piece made similar observations.
  
  
• Set the Agenda: Politicians are pretty good at setting the agenda and controlling the narrative, and Trump is especially skilled in this way. Several people interviewed by Press Watch had ideas about how to counter that. The best, we think, was from Harry Shearer: "Pick five 'major issues'; devote a full week to both the issue and the candidates' positions on the issue." We will have to consider that. But no matter what happens, we're not having "Infrastructure Week."
  
  
• Cut the Oxygen: This is a notion we've had for a very long time, but it is good to hear that others have it as well. In the Press Watch piece, Heather Cox Richardson says: "It is astonishing how fully the Trump circus continues to absorb oxygen in the midst of the most consequential administration since at least Reagan. The press certainly doesn't have to cheerlead for the administration, but it should make clear the extent of the changes it's overseeing." Agreeing with Richardson is, of all people, Howard Stern. The radio talker doesn't care about covering the Biden administration, but he does describe Trump coverage as being "like an obsession," and says that media shouldn't be feeding the "can you believe what Trump said/did?" addiction.
  
  
• The Silent Majority: This doesn't really apply to us, but it's good to know that others are annoyed by this trend as well. In short, we've seen a million pieces where reporters travel to "the heartland" and try to understand the Trump voter. As several of the Press Watch respondents observed, where are the equivalent pieces for non-Trump Republicans? Or for Democrats?
  
  
• Advocate for Democracy: This is something we've written many times, but again it's good to hear that others agree. Dan Gillmor, who teaches journalism at Arizona State University, decrees: "It is long, long past due to take an activist stance on behalf of democracy." Other respondents for that piece agree: To be staunchly pro-democracy is not prima facie evidence of bias.

Some interesting thoughts, and certainly things that we will keep in mind going forward. It's not so easy, on a daily basis, to hit the right balance when it comes to Trump. On one hand, it would be over the top (albeit accurate) to consistently refer to him as "sexual predator Donald Trump" on first reference. On the other hand, we don't want to fall into sloppy habits that serve to normalize his various forms of bad behavior.

As readers may have noticed, we have made one small change to the page as a gesture in this direction. From now until the election, the picture of Trump that appears at the top of the page is his mugshot. So, every day, there will be at least a small reminder that he's a deeply problematic, and very possibly criminal, individual. (Z)