How NOT to cover Donald Trump

We still don't have it quite right.

(Donald Trump)

The fundamental choice of the 2024 campaign will be between:

a) A candidate that, at 80, a majority of people feel is too old to hold the office — and whose handling of major issues like the economy and immigration have been judged as woefully inadequate by a significant chunk of the electorate.

b) A candidate that actively sought to use the powers of the federal government to overturn a free and fair presidential election in 2020 and, when that effort didn’t work, incited a violent crowd on January 6, 2021 to march on the U.S. Capitol. This same candidate has suggested — in just the past week or so! — that a prominent general should be executed and that shoplifters should be shot on sight.

These are NOT the same thing.

Yes, President Joe Biden, without doubt, has weaknesses in this race. And Donald Trump has strengths. But presenting the 2024 race as a relatively equal choice between a candidate that people think is too old and a candidate who sought to subvert the basic tenets of democracy is misleading to the public about what’s really at stake here.

I was reminded of this fact — again — while reading this piece by Washington Post media critic Paul Farhi about how Trump is being covered. Here’s the key bit:

Trump’s advocacy of extrajudicial killings was widely covered by newspapers and TV stations in California but generally ignored by the national press. No mainstream TV network carried his speech live or excerpted it later that night. CNN and MSNBC mentioned it during panel discussions over the next few days. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, NPR and PBS didn’t report it at all. The New York Times wrote about it four days later, playing the story on Page 14 of its print edition.

The Anaheim speech was part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive rhetoric by Trump — and a somewhat muted response by the news media to his repeated exhortations to violence.

During his speech in Anaheim, Trump also mocked Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband, who was gravely injured last year in a hammer attack by an assailant who reportedly believed the former president’s lies about a “stolen” 2020 election.

A few days before his appearance in California, Trump suggested on his Truth Social platform that the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, deserved “DEATH!” for reassuring Chinese officials that the United States had no plans to attack in the waning days of the Trump administration.

He has also hinted darkly about seeking retribution against judges, prosecutors, witnesses and officials involved in his multiple criminal and civil cases. In April, Trump said that an indictment by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg (D) would result in “potential death and destruction.” On Monday, facing a civil suit alleging business fraud, Trump urged people to “go after” Letitia James (D), the New York state attorney general who filed the suit.

I ran into this problem covering Trump myself — both for CNN and the Washington Post. He said and did SO many things that were totally radical, controversial and dangerous that it became hard to accurately present them to the readers and viewers.

The whole job of a reporter or analyst is to help the general public differentiate between mountains and molehills. So, if EVERYTHING Trump does is a BIG DEAL than everything becomes a mountain. Molehills cease to exist.

And yet — as I just noted — he said and did (and does) so many things that are outside the bounds of normal political behavior that to not cover them as BIG DEALS is a mistake.

It’s a very tough place to be — especially when you consider that there is a whole other strain of thinking that suggests Trump (and his pronouncements) should be ignored entirely by the mainstream media.

My view is that we HAVE to cover Trump for what he is: An active threat to democratic norms — from the way in which elections are conducted to the existence of a free and independent press.

Ignoring him — and what I believe to be his increasingly out-there statements — is not an option. This stuff, like it or not, seeps into the political ether. It influences how people think about our politics, our politicians and our country. It sets up a dueling (and false) narrative about what is really happening in the country.

The other thing the media cannot do when covering Trump, per my initial point, is seek to create a “on the one hand, on the other hand” narrative when talking and writing about the 2024 candidates.

Yes, it’s interesting that the Biden’s dog has a biting problem. But, that shouldn’t get the same (or more coverage) than Donald Trump saying we should shoot shoplifters!

Yes, it’s noteworthy that Biden’s numbers on his handling of the economy aren’t great — or even good. Or even that voters don’t buy that he is making things better. But, it’s not the same thing as Trump (still) trying to suggest that the 2020 election was rigged, without evidence.

Yes, it’s worth covering — and covering extensively — the concerns that voters (including lots and lots of Democrats) have about Biden’s advanced age. But, that coverage should never drown out the fact that Trump is currently under indictments in four different jurisdictions on 91 different counts.

Again, these are just not the same things. They are different in kind.

Biden has weaknesses and problems that are well within our normal political spectrum. The economy! His age! Lack of Democratic enthusiasm!

These are problems that presidential candidates have faced, on and off, since there have been presidential races.

Trump’s problems are far deeper and more, um, problematic. The ability to conduct a free and fair election! Democracy! The freedom of the press! Murdering top generals!

These are problems NO presidential candidate has ever faced before. Ever.

We can’t treat them than as two sides of the same coin. They are, fundamentally, not.

Trump, I have long believed, represents the most serious threat to political journalism that it has ever faced.

The 2016 election proved that doing things the way we’ve always done them isn’t enough anymore. I think that is a point of agreement in most newsrooms. What I think is far less clear is the best way to cover him now.

For me, it’s documenting Trump’s excesses — and putting them in the proper context: NONE OF THIS IS NORMAL. And it’s making sure that in covering Biden’s weaknesses and troubles, it’s noted that what he is struggling with are different in kind than the democracy-undermining tactics and strategy being employed by Trump and his team.

What do you think?