How should the news industry cover Trump?

Here's a novel suggestion, honestly and without bias

The title of my post is also the title of a Washington Post article. To answer its question, the Post sought the views of ten mainstays of the mainstream media, none of whom backed my suggestion that Trump be covered honestly and without bias.

That’s not surprising. The media mainstays whose advice the Post solicited are a collection of liberals — Jill Abramson, Don Lemon, and David Remnick, for example.

This statement by Brian McGrory, former editor of the Boston Globe, caught my eye:

The news media, especially Washington reporters, will be challenged to do two things at once — things that may appear in conflict with each other. First, they need to at least accept, and, even better, appreciate, that a [plurality] of voters elected Donald Trump, and his support was broad and surprisingly deep. Those voters undoubtedly considered January 6th, the daily chaos, the impeachments, the criminal charges and convictions, the civil liabilities, his crassness and his threats. It’s now time to cover his actions and policies, his successes and his failures. To do it through as conventional a lens as possible, while not normalizing mayhem, and a willingness to acknowledge when things go well.

The media should, of course, cover the Trump administration’s actions and policies and acknowledge its successes. But McGrory implies that this duty arises from the fact that Trump won a plurality of voters and that his support was broad and deep.

Actually, the media’s obligation to report fairly has nothing to do with the president’s margin of victory. It would exist if Trump had garnered fewer votes than Harris.

As for refusing to “normalize mayhem,” the media’s role should be to report facts honestly and leave it to readers to decide whether they amount to “mayhem.”

McGrory continues:

At the same time, with a Republican-controlled Senate and House, a largely compliant judiciary, exhausted and defeated political adversaries, and a lineup of administration officials that may well fuel [Trump’s] worst instincts, the news media in this moment is the most vital check on executive power, truly the fourth branch, with an imperative to highlight lawlessness and incompetence.

McGrory is wrong both in his premise and his conclusion. Congress, the prime check on executive power in our constitutional system, is well-equipped to play that role. The Republican majority in the House is razor thin. In the Senate, it will require the votes of more than half a dozen Democrats to enact most legislation.

As for the Supreme Court, McGrory cites no evidence that it’s likely to be compliant if Trump abuses power. Just today, the Court rejected Trump’s effort to delay his sentencing in the New York criminal case.

In any event, it is not the proper role of the news media to check executive power. The industry may see itself as “the fourth estate,” but it is not the fourth branch of our government.

For the news industry to try to replace or supplement Congress and the Supreme Court as a check on the Trump administration means anointing itself a player on one side of the political/ideological divide — which, of course, it did years ago. In that role, it cannot report fairly.

Yet, McGrory is the voice of reason compared to some of the other respondents. Lemon implores the media not to treat Trump like “just another political figure” and not to be burdened by objectivity.

But why not honestly and objectively report what Trump does and let readers decide whether this makes him a normal or abnormal political figure? Because that’s not what partisans like Lemon and the vast majority of media mainstays got into the journalism racket to do.

Remnick wants the media to “stop apologizing for everything we do.” I read the Washington Post every day. I’ve seen almost no apologies for anything it does.

Remnick adds, “I think that journalism during the first Trump administration achieved an enormous amount in terms of its investigative reporting.” He’s right about that. “Journalism” weighed Trump down for at least half his term by peddling the false Russia-collusion story.

Journalism also achieved much during the Biden administration, not through “investigative reporting,” but through its absence. It concealed Biden’s significantly diminished capacity from the public.

Abramson considers it “crucial” to have “as big a reporting team [covering the White House] as possible.” Naturally. If you’re going to wage war on the administration, you want as big an army as possible.

It’s clear that the mainstream media intends to cover Trump’s second term essentially the way it covered the first — as partisan Democrats seeking to constrain the president. There’s nothing Trump can do to stop this — nor should he resort to oppressive tactics in an attempt to do so.

But Abramson’s admonition prompts me to identify the one thing Trump should do. Remember all of those attack pieces published by outlets like the Post during the first term — the ones with multiple by-lines that claimed to be based on interviews with, for example, “three dozen officials with knowledge?” The ones that, on almost a daily basis, depicted the Trump as incompetent and the White House as chaotic.

Trump should do everything within his lawful power to prevent members of his team from talking off-the-record to reporters. He can’t stop the media from inventing stuff, but he can stop his people from providing the media with material with which to promote its narratives. Or at least limit the extent to which they do this.

It’s true that leaking is a way of life in Washington. Yet the Obama and Biden White House’s weren’t plagued by leaks. Admittedly, nearly all big media outlets were pro-Obama and Biden and therefore weren’t constantly seeking leaks. Even so, I believe these two Democratic presidents ran a reasonably tight ship.

Trump did not during his first term. Can he do so in his second?

He has more “loyalists” working for him this time around. Maybe that will mean significantly less leaking.

I’m not convinced it will, though, because (1) “loyalists” are loyal until they aren’t, (2) even loyalists will leak if they think doing so will serve their interests, (3) currying favor with the media can be perceived as being in the interests of staffers serving a president who is under the media microscope, (4) leaking is more likely to occur in a chaotic administration, which Trump’s administration is likely to be, and (5) Trump himself likes to talk to lefty reporters (like Maggie Haberman) and this can encourage those under him to do the same.

On the plus side, Trump’s chief-of-staff, Suzie Wiles (daughter of the late, great Pat Summerall) is said to be capable of limiting administrative chaos. If she makes preventing leaks a priority, and if she makes it through most of the administration, perhaps leaking will be curbed.

I hope it is. It’s clear from the Post’s article — and was already clear — that the mainstream media will wage war against the Trump administration. Trump’s team shouldn’t hand it ammunition.