According to Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post, the next four years are going to be hell for reporters.
How should reporters cover the Trump presidency? “Just the facts” in articles and then point-by-point critique in the opinion pages? Should they repeatedly call him out on blatant lies? In short, should they declare war on him? Many on both the left and right are suspicious of the press–can the media gain or regain any public trust? Are there any reporters/journalists here? Is this covered in journalism classes?
I think I’l go rewatch All the President’s Men tonight…
Same as in any other Presidency: tell the truth, correct themselves or others when the truth isn’t told, don’t try to be “fair” or “balanced,” but do try to be “accurate.”
Sure, that’ll amount to a war on Trump, since the man seems congenitally unable to tell the truth about anything, but in reality it’s just a war on falsehood.
I’d be happy to see “opinion” and “editorial” pieces go away altogether, but I’d settle for them being carefully labelled as such, and still checked for factual accuracy.
Perhaps the OP could explain why the role of the press would change, depending on who is president? In all seriousness, I’m struggling to understand why the question needs to be asked. The role of the press is to present the public with facts, and not try to slant the news in any particular direction.
You mention “declaring war” on him, and then ask if there is a way for the press to redeem itself in the eyes of the left/right. Do you think the press should “declare war” on Trump? Surely that would have the opposite effect in terms of restoring trust, no? I’m hoping that only the fringe of the fringe of “the left” would want the press to “declare war” on Trump.
Something the press has singularly failed to do. Indeed, it was explained to me on this board quite recently that the American press is historically and deliberately biased.
If what we’ve seen so far holds, the press as a whole will behave with ratings and access in mind and not journalistic integrity. If you use the recent press charade/conference as an example, you have seen the future. Journalists stepping over the corpses of their comrades in the hope that THEIR network gets to ask the question that the Baffoon-in-Chief answers. You can’t piss the guy off or he might not ever call on you again. Maybe ban you from the room and AF1.:eek:
But you asked what their role should be not what it will be. The press should demand actual answers to actual questions. If he refuses to answer a valid question from one reporter the next should ask the same question. If he flat out lies or contradicts himself, which he seems to do on a daily basis, he should be called out on it. If its about gowns for bestest inauguration ball ever, who cares? But if its about his business relationships with Russia or his plans to fight ISIS or any of a thousand other important issues his feet need to be held to the fire, if not in it. Alas, I have little hope that the mainstream media does this until there exists overwhelming and undeniable evidence that he or his administration have screwed up bigly. Then they’ll all jump on the bandwagon and say what a good job they did.
Fact checking “in real time” is a nice Science Fiction scenario, but often impossible IRL (such as at the debates). And if it were possible, it would not be “declaring war” on Trump regardless of what he thought. Unless, you are claiming that his opinion is reality.
And the press did not allow Trump to “lie at will”. There was plenty of fact checking for anyone interested in reading it.
I posted this in another thread but its relevant here.
Basically the press has three options when it comes to Trumps fabrications, none of them good.
Just report the statements Trump makes, in which case his fabrications will be taken as true
Report his fabrications but include statements indicating that others believe them to be false, in which case it makes settled issues seem to be controversial.
Indicate that his statements are just plain wrong and be pilloried as being biased against Trump, and so not to be trusted.
But generally they were in separate articles, possibly in the opinion section, specifically designated to Fact check Trump. Ideally a true Fact checking of Trump would involve every article about him saying something immediately followed by a statement indicating that what he said was entirely false, which would be seen as hostile.
Donnie lied a lot. He also attacked people who questioned him.
He and his spokes people will need to be questioned on the facts and not allowed to obfuscate; and they will have to be allowed to walk off the set if they don’t like it. The reporting should go on.
Are you actually defending don the cons relationship to reality?
“Many on both the left and right are suspicious of the press–can the media gain or regain any public trust?”
That’s a good question. The media outlets have destroyed their own reputations. The media outlets could go back to the days when they used to verify their stories first, and then publish the facts, and nothing but the facts. But the media outlets seem to prefer telling the voters/public how and what to think. The media outlets could chose to supply the Who, What, Where, Why, and When of each of their chosen lead stories, as well as their filler stories. Or not. Their reputations, their choice.
What Should Be the Role of the Press in a Trump Presidency?
The media outlets should continue forward in the exact same manner as they have doing in the recent past. Their own actions are the reason why so many people/voters are suspicious of the press. But they are still making money. Why change? It’s not as if many of the viewers/readers are demanding more credibility from their favorite media outlets. Not enought to force the media outlets to change, anyway.
It’s obvious that the Trump Presidency isn’t counting to heavily on the media outlets to help him lead the U.S.A… He will continue to counter-punch those who attack him, and still have time to select a cabinet, and pick a Supreme Court Justice (or two ). He may even be able to make a few deals with Congress.
It should also now be obvious that Trump beat 17 or 18 Presidential opponents to become President-elect, without much media outlet support. Plus Trump has the internet to help him talk directly to the voters/people. That fact seems to really piss off the reporters. Out with the old, in with the new.
I believe that once the media outlets get over their embarrassment of not being able to convince enough voters to put Hillary in the Whitehouse, they will begin to embarrass themselves by trying to convince the voters to put some other Democrat in the WH.
They need to question him on his plans and decisions.
They need to confront him on every lie.
They need to investigate his dealings and expose any corruption.
They need to try to make sure that Trump doesn’t control the story. Frankly, they should stop covering things like Trump getting in a Twitter war with some celebrity. Who cares? Yes, Trump is thin-skinned and prone to saying ludicrous things. We get it. Let’s move on. Let’s cover the things that Trump wants to do that are really dangerous. Cover that. Over and over and over. Do not let him control the story with his diversions.
If he cuts off their access, then that needs to be the story. The press should stand together. I know that’s hard to sell because ultimately news organization are for-profit businesses but this is what they should do. And that needs to be the story. Over and over and over again.
I’ll hand it to Trump. He’s played the press so far. They need to make sure he doesn’t continue to play them.
You could see the break in the facade when kellyanne conway had to address the russian videotape scandal. She is always beyond smug and a complete fabricator.
You need to keep asking the same question until you get an answer. You have to keep up the pressure and never let up, until they break down and say something weird or unintentionally true, or just run away. It’s a very doable goal and once it becomes a thing it will put the whole situation in a new light.
How’s that been working out for the media outlets? After all of that work, I suspect that in this new light there will be even fewer voters/people willing to trust the media outlets.
But isn’t that the point? Shouldn’t journalists be hostile to liars? Isn’t that a big part of their job? Trump can lie to the public all by himself. The press is supposed to pick apart those lies and tell the truth, for those of us left who wish to hear it. If Trump doesn’t like that, well, that’s what his Twitter account is for.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the polls say. At least not by the results of the last election. The Democrat collective, and the media outlets, will continue to attack Trump. SSDD. This is the future. You can adjust to it, or add it to the long list of things that need complaining about. Your choice.
Trump will continue to work on putting a cabinet together, picking a Supreme, and trying to lead the government. The Democrat collective, and the media outlets, will continue to say that Trump can’t do what he’s already done, and that is their proof that Trump won’t be able to accomplish anything in the future. :rolleyes:
). He may even be able to make a few deals with Congress.