Should we just stop covering Donald Trump?
A radical theory, explored.
I spent Monday afternoon — and some of Tuesday morning — going, word for word, through the transcript of Donald Trump’s 78-minute interview on “Meet the Press.”
Somewhere about halfway through that process, I had to stop and take a break. The amount of lying, interrupting and bullying had reached epic proportions. Every word out of Trump’s mouth was an exaggeration or an outright falsehood. It was hard to read — and even harder to analyze.
The truth is that there was no there there — no real statements of substance or policy. Just rhetoric. And the vast majority of that rhetoric was simply not true. Like, objectively so.
Which got me to thinking: How the hell do you interview — or, more broadly, cover — Donald Trump in a way that informs and educates the public? How do you avoid simply providing him a megaphone to blast out things that have repeatedly been proven to be false?
I am not the only one contemplating these questions. Here’s what CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote about Trump’s “Meet the Press” interview:
It’s arguable that, at this juncture, there is really no need to interview Trump. After years and years of seeing how he dishonestly operates, what exactly is there to glean from a sit-down? The near-certain result is that the outlet will record a stream of lies rushing out of his mouth, mixed in with absurd grievances about how supposedly unfair the system treats him. Does any of that really serve the public?
Some news executives seem to believe that Trump can make “news” during interviews, but pressing him on policy issues rarely yields consequential results. The public is well familiar with Trump and already knows that he is a man estranged with the truth. Further, it’s hard to believe that voters are deciding whether to support him based on his stance on specific issues.
This is an extension of an argument made by Democrats for most of the last 7 years — that giving Trump air time does a disservice to voters. That because he lies so much and without any remorse, in covering him as they would any other candidate, all the media does is give a platform for those falsehoods.
I have always, by default, put myself on the other side of this argument. My thought process has, generally, gone like this: Trump is a former president. He is also the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination. Given that, ignoring him is not an option.
I still believe that — generally speaking. I don’t think ignoring Trump is a viable solution for the mainstream media. But, the “Meet the Press” interview has reminded me that we absolutely have to adopt a different tact in covering him than we ever have with any other candidate.
And that’s because Trump is like no other candidate we have ever covered. To wit:
He refused to acknowledge he lost a free and fair election in 2020
He helped incite a riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 — fueled by false election claims
He has been impeached twice by the House
He faces four indictments in a variety of jurisdictions around the country
The problem is that the mainstream media doesn’t seem to entirely grasp how these differences necessitate a change in how Trump is covered.
Media critic Margaret Sullivan, writing in The Guardian, put it this way:
The big problem is that the mainstream media wants to be seen as non-partisan – a reasonable goal – and bends over backwards to accomplish this. If this means equalizing an anti-democratic candidate with a pro-democracy candidate, then so be it.
I think there’s a lot of truth in that analysis. From my earliest days as a reporter, I had the idea of being nonpartisan baked into me. It was at the core of who a journalist was supposed to be — someone who played it straight down the middle always.
But, that idea was based on a sort of compact — unspoken — with politicians. That, yes, they would exaggerate or frame things to make themselves look good. But they wouldn’t outright lie. That, yes, they would engage in partisan fights and bluster. But they would never work to provoke violence against the other side. That, yes, they would fight like hell to win election. But, if they lost, they would acknowledge that fact, congratulate the winner and move on.
Donald Trump doesn’t adhere — or even acknowledge — any of those norms. He blew up the unstated contract between politicians and the media who cover him. Which means we need new rules for how we do it.
My friend Jonathan V. Last over at The Bulwark has laid out some useful ground rules for covering Trump. Here they are:
Never give Trump access to live air where he can filibuster and lie without adequate accountability.
When presenting Trump through recorded clips, aggressively fact check him in post-production, preferably with video sourcing.
Do not edit out his wilder statements and create a sanitized version of Trump for broadcast. Present his craziest stuff to the audience and contextualize it.
Reporters should not follow the traditional form of presenting a claim and then presenting a counterclaim from the opposing side.
Op-ed pages should not publish Trump apologists for the sake of giving readers “balanced” perspectives.
I think those are all sound. I would add:
If Trump can be definitively shown to be lying, media organizations should say that — directly and repeatedly.
Headline writers need to make sure they aren’t allowing Trump to, well, just say stuff. For example, his recent pivot to a more moderate stance on abortion needs to be contextualized with his past statements on the subject and his appointment of three justices to the Supreme Court who helped overturn Roe.
In every story about Trump, it should be noted — somewhere high up — that he not only refused to accept defeat in 2020 but actively sought to foment protests of the election results.
Avoid direct, apples to apples comparisons between Trump’s legal peril and the legal issues surrounding Hunter Biden. They are not equivalent. Or close to it.
The simple fact is that Trump has taken HUGE advantage of the slow-changing norms surrounding political coverage. While the media was tut-tutting and scolding Trump for his verbal excesses, the billionaire businessman was using the platform these organizations afforded him to build a movement based on falsehoods and outright conspiracy theories.
He didn’t care about their scorn or their judgment. In fact, he reveled in their distaste for him. Because he was getting what he wanted: Attention.
That’s still true for Trump. What he feeds on is attention. Which is why the media has to be very careful in how much — and in what form — they give it to him.
Making this even more complicated is the fact that Trump does, still, rate. As in, he draws eyeballs to him. And the media business is, well, a business. Meaning that they are in the business of getting as many people as possible to watch. So, there is a financial incentive to continue to platform Trump.
Again, Sullivan hits the nail on the head here:
Remember at all times what our core mission is: to communicate truthfully, keeping top of mind that we have a public service mission to inform the electorate and hold powerful people to account. If that’s our north star, as it should be, every editorial judgment will reflect that.
Journalism is, at root, a public service. To best serve the public interest, we need to adjust how we interact with Donald Trump. That does not mean we should ignore him. But what it does mean is that we have to accept the fact that Trump is not an honest broker — or anything close to it. He is actively using the media to manipulate the public and, in so doing, do them a disservice.
Our job then is not to be nonpartisan or objective. It is to be honest, open and transparent. Explain, with facts, exactly how Trump is bending (or breaking) the truth. Every time. Without fail. Be judicious about what to cover as it relates to Trump. Always remind people of what he’s said before that contradicts what he is saying now.
This is harder than it might appear. Trump is a bulldozer. He just talks and talks. He takes advantage of any weakness in the media’s commitment to holding him to account.
Which is why we must be vigilant. Trump poses a threat to democracy (and democratic norms) the likes of which we have never seen before. Using the same old styles of covering him won’t work. We need to change with the times. And fast.
I, too, read the transcript. What it needed was the interviewer saying, "You're lying." or "Where is the evidence you claim you have that wasn't produced in court?" And I'd go further, if he just kept lying and insulting cut his mike, turn to the camera and say, "He refuses to speak honestly. This interview is over."
In other words, stop being "polite."
I understand why you, and all the press “need” to cover him. But I have long ago stopped reading anything about him. It’s all BS, all the time. I wish him to disappear into oblivion~