An Analysis of Trump’s Impact on the Field of Journalism
Over the last four years, American politics have been forever changed by President Trump. Not only is he one of the most unconventional presidents of our time, but his repeated attacks on the media caused complacency from some journalists and uproar from others. Whether or not journalists felt personally attacked by his remarks, one thing is for sure: Donald Trump has changed the field of political journalism, and whether he realizes it or not, these changes, although they took a while, are ultimately good for journalism and democracy.
“Since 2016, the Trump story has been a constant source of astonishment, sometimes of distress, and certainly has provided a lot of fodder for columns about the media,” said Margaret Sullivan, a media columnist at The Washington Post. To say that being a journalist covering the Trump administration over the past four years has been anything less than conventional, would be an understatement.
“That has been a major theme from his presidency: that the news media is corrupt and at fault for everything bad that has happened during his administration. As a lifelong journalist, I don't agree with this, of course, but I do see the faults of the press,” said Sullivan. In order to understand what the press has gotten right versus what they struggled with during the Trump era, it is best to first understand the instincts of a journalist and how Trump has challenged these instincts.
Journalists are sources of truth to the public, and are an essential aspect of the United States system of checks and balances. In order to honestly serve the public, bias and taking a stance on partisan issues is frowned upon. As reported in the Columbia Journalism Review, some journalists even go so far as not even voting, and during the Trump era, fearing “being seen as part of an anti-Trump ‘Resistance’.” So what happens when our president spreads false information to the public? Is it the job of the journalist to report on the statements the president made without any sort of rebuttal or fact-check? Do they appeal to bothsidesism to maintain neutrality? Or is their duty to tell the American people the truth, even when that means calling out Trump’s lies?
The idea and practice of Bothsidesism in the media was the norm for most journalists prior to 2016. It was important to report on both Republican and Democratic issues and presidential administrations equally, with the same level of criticism and praise. This practice was fine prior to the Trump era, but in the presence of an unorthodox president, these practices need to be reevaluated and reexamined or the media risk losing credibility and these administrations will continue to get away with corruption and the spreading of misinformation.
In James Fallows’ Atlantic article, “The Media Learned Nothing From 2016,” he says “Many of our most influential editors and reporters are acting as if the rules that prevailed under previous American presidents are still in effect. But this president is different; the rules are different; and if it doesn’t adapt, the press will stand as yet another institution that failed in a moment of crucial pressure.” Because journalists are taught not to take sides on partisan issues, their instincts lie within remaining neutral, but in an era of constant lies and misinformation spread by the President, breaking these norms is imperative to honestly serving the public.
So what happens when journalists report on and call out the President’s lies? They are deemed “enemies of the people.” This type of language used by the President has not only tampered with the public’s perception of the media, but it has caused a portion of the public to distance themselves from the shared reality and enter a world of conspiracy and overall mistrust in the media. It is a fact that Trump’s early attacks on the media came from his desire to protect himself from public criticism and Margaret Sullivan even included the time he admitted to this in a recent Washington Post article. “I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you,” said Trump just after the 2016 election. So if we know that these media attacks are purposeful, selfish attempts to protect his reputation, less so on keeping the public informed, why is so much of the public weary to trust the media? The answer is simple. Loyalty to Trump and an escape from “liberal bias.”
Because Trump created this idea of fake news and spread the false claim that journalists are “enemies of the people,” Trump supporters looked to news organizations that provided the information they wanted to hear, places like Fox News, and so came the birth of the dominance of Fox News in the cable news world. While other cable news networks, like CNN and MSNBC, fact-checked Trump on a nearly nightly basis, and their opinion shows were filled with brutal attacks on the administration, Fox News became Trump’s secret weapon. Fox News differs from other cable news networks because of its lack of a liberal bias; anchors defend Trump and attack the “radical left” on a nightly basis. While it is important to note that Americans with conservative political beliefs do deserve reporting on issues that cater to them and their demographic, the way in which Fox News went about serving this audience was irresponsible and ultimately damaging to their audience. For example, The Washington Post published an article titled “New Research explores how conservatice media misinformation may have intensified the severity of the pandemic.” In this article, Christopher Ingraham reported on three studies that explored conservative news networks and publications' role in questioning the severity of COVID-19. “The end result, according to one of the studies, is that infection and mortality rates are higher in places where one pundit who initially downplayed the severity of the pandemic - Fox News’s Sean Hannity - reaches the largest audiences,” said Ingraham. The misinformation spread by anchors like Sean Hannity in response to a lack of outlets for the conservative view, has proven to be detrimental to the audiences they cater to.