This is my last column for The Washington Post—my plans include teaching at Duke University and publishing a book this fall as a personal memoir and account of all I’ve seen in my four decades in journalism. So I will explain more what I mean.
Here’s the good news: The media has come a long, long way to figure out how to cover the democracy-threatening ways of Donald Trump and his allies, including his staunch acolytes in the right-wing media. It’s now common to see headlines and stories that clearly refer to some politicians as “election deniers,” and journalists are far less hesitant to use cutting words. the word “lie” to describe Trump’s false statements. This includes, of course, the former president’s near-constant campaign to claim that the 2020 presidential election was rigged to prevent him from holding the White House.
Moreover, the media seems to have finally absorbed what should have been blindingly obvious from the start: Trump is by no means a normal political figure, and he will never reform into some kind of responsible statesman. (Who can forget the constant predictions that he was going “presidential” every time he read from a teleprompter instead of ducking an expletive?)
Another encouraging development is the decision by a number of major media organizations, including The Post, to form democracy beat teams, focusing on efforts to limit access to voting, the politicization of electoral systems and insidious efforts to incite suspicions in public about legitimate. voting results.
And yet, I worry that it’s not nearly enough. I do not mean to suggest that journalists can address the threats to democracy themselves – but they must do more.
I’m often reminded of the troubling questions posed by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl in multiple interviews late last year about what it means to cover Trump if and when he runs for president again. He considered this perhaps the greatest challenge American political journalists will ever face.
“How do you cover a candidate who is effectively anti-democratic? How can you cover a candidate who is running against whoever is the Democratic nominee, but also against the very Democratic system that makes all of this possible?” asked Karl, a former president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. His questions hit hard, all the more so because of his reputation in the political press as a straight shooter.
The deeper question is whether news organizations can be freed from their hidden practices – the love of political conflict, the addiction to elections as a horse race — to effectively address these concerns.
For the sake of democracy, they should.
Journalists certainly don’t have to like Trump’s rivals in 2024 — whoever they are — but they should be willing to show their readers, viewers and listeners that by electing him again it would be dangerous. This is a tough tightrope to walk.
One thing is sure. The news media cannot continue to cover speeches, rallies and debates – the heart of campaign reporting – in the same old way. They will have to rely less on straight knee-jerk coverage and more on reporting that relentlessly provides meaningful context.
Real-time fact-checking is of limited use, in my opinion. Better to wait until these live events happen and then present them packaged with lots of real reporting about them.
Journalists simply cannot allow themselves to be megaphones or stenographers. They must be dedicated tellers of the truth, using clear language, plenty of context, and thoughtful framing to spread that truth.
Consider, for example, the different presentations the Associated Press and the New York Times gave to a recent story from Florida about a new push by Gov. Ron DeSantis to crack down on the allegedly dire problem of voter fraud; In fact, illegal voting is a rare occurrence, although something Trump and his allies would have you believe underlies all efforts to deny him victory.
As Kate Pickert, director of Loyola Marymount’s journalism program, was observed last week, the AP’s Twitter feed picked up on DeSantis’ hyperventilating press conference, offering the kind of treatment the governor might have written himself: “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced criminal charges against 20 people for illegal voting in 2020 , the first major public move by the Republicans’ controversial new election police unit.” While the New York Times tweet cut through the noise (I added the italics): “Gov. Ron DeSantis said 17 people have been charged with casting illegal votes in the 2020 election. in which 11.1 million Florida residents voted. there are no evidence that election crimes are a serious problem in Florida or anywhere else in the US”
(For the record, the AP often does a good job with framing, and the Times sometimes blows it.)
News organizations must also constantly explain themselves to their readers, viewers and listeners why they are doing what they are doing. If they are not receiving a direct speech, for example, they should say why. Not because they are on the opposing candidate’s team, but because they are not in the business of spreading lies.
If Trump runs, as Karl said, he will run “against the very democratic system that makes this all possible.” And he’s bringing most of the Republican Party with him.
As Edward Luce, associate editor of the Financial Times, tweeted this month: “I have covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world during my career. I have never come across a more nihilistic, dangerous and despicable political force than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.” General Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA appointed by George W. Bush, it sounded inside with two ominous words: “I agree.”
So my recipe – and it’s just a start – is less straight coverage of the campaign, more context and thought inclusion, and more fearless conversations from news anchors about what’s at stake and why covering politics looks different. The latter can take many forms: editors’ notes on stories, columns written by news directors and posted prominently on websites, public appearances, and more.
Even if the reality-based press does a perfect job of relentlessly focused coverage on the truth — and that’s unlikely — it won’t be the same as the right-wing duplicitous media, especially Fox News with its audience of full and ongoing work on behalf of Trump and his allies. Prime time commentators like Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity will do the heavy lifting. A candidate cannot buy that kind of help.
I hope editorial leaders are thinking hard about moving outside of their old practices as the presidential campaign approaches. This will not be a traditional race and the stakes are high. We just have to get it right.
A final and personal word. As I end a 42-year newspaper career, I am deeply grateful to those of you who have read my Post columns over the past six years, and to those who have written or called me to offer constructive comments or suggestions. And yes, sometimes to correct or (respectfully) disagree.
It has been one of the greatest privileges of my life to write for the legendary Washington Post—the very paper that inspired a teenager stunned by her Watergate reporting to get into journalism in the first place.
