On the final day of the Republican National Convention in July 2016, which nominated Donald Trump because the GOP’s candidate for the presidential election, CNN’s Anderson Cooper led a panel of pundits commenting on the occasion. Among them was cotton-haired Jeffrey Lord, who was desirous to report on a name he had had with Trump.
“He has a message for you, Anderson, that he is not pleased. He feels we are not accurately representing this convention,” Lord stated on air. “He [asked] me to say that your ratings, our ratings at CNN, are up here because of his presence in the convention,” he added.
“There is no doubt about Donald Trump’s impact on ratings,” Cooper responded, amiably.
Trump’s assertion was not inaccurate. The yr he first ran for election was probably the most worthwhile in CNN’s historical past. Interest within the new, unorthodox candidate – whether or not it was fascination, alarm, or glee – boosted earnings for media shops left and proper. Online subscriptions soared for The New York Times and The Washington Post. Fox News’s rankings reached new highs.
The increase continued all through the Trump presidency however wore off as quickly as he left workplace.
The actual property mogul has now returned to the centre of American politics because the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party after Nikki Hailey dropped out of the race.
The risk of one other Trump time period has led to a bout of public acknowledgements amongst media professionals that whereas the previous president threatens democracy together with his incessant falsehoods and norm-busting practices, he’s truly good for enterprise.
“In crude material terms,” The New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote in January, “Donald Trump’s presidency benefited the media, with subscriptions, ratings and clicks all soaring.”
Acknowledgement is essential, however stopping at that with out altering conduct looks like a shrug of resignation, a self-serving free cross for protection and enterprise as normal to proceed. Instead of soul-searching, we’re getting disclaimers.
The phrases that even the considerate voices appear reluctant to make use of are “conflict of interest”. It is obvious that media shops stand to profit from their protection of Trump. That is unhealthy for journalism and, by extension, for democracy.
As American journalist George Packer famous in a December article for the Atlantic, whereas newspapers and TV channels are raking in document earnings from milking the Trump phenomenon, they’re beginning to resemble him. They have develop into extra “solipsistic … divisive, and self-righteous”.
Journalism requirements have declined as information is turning into “almost indistinguishable from fluff and lies” and media shops are abandoning “independence for activism”, Packer wrote.
In impact, many media shops have relinquished a core obligation and privilege: figuring out what’s newsworthy.
Much of the Trump protection has been simply click-bait in numerous incarnations, a ceaseless stream of alarm bells for the distressed liberals and catnip for the gleeful MAGA crowd. TV networks have aired hours of Trump’s rallies, unfiltered and unscrutinised. National newspapers have featured his tweets about political non-sequiturs on their entrance pages, on-line and in print.
Many within the information media have capitalised on the political polarisation that Trump stoked, additional deepening it. Otherwise glorious journalists, like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper, have too usually slipped into unseemly editorialising monologues.
The media have more and more mirrored the knowledge bubbles of social media. That has labored higher for rankings and clicks.
This sort of profit-seeking protection is not only unhealthy for journalism, but additionally for democracy. The media’s fixation with Trump – his antics and insults, his taunts and vulgarities, his gleeful breach of norms – has not directly affirmed a model of politics that the previous president embodies and thrives in.
He has turned political life right into a mud-slinging area the place politicians are seen as cynical, self-dealing hacks whose objective is to inflict the best humiliation doable on their opponents.
In this political atmosphere, each coverage – even benign public well being measures just like the face masks mandate in the course of the pandemic – can develop into grounds for poisonous, polarising politicking.
This sort of political behaviour encourages voters to solid their ballots in accordance with a tribal imaginative and prescient of politics – one based mostly not on deserves however on rage.
As one other Trump time period emerges as an actual risk, US media shops can and may do greater than throw their arms up in resignation. If they’re critical about addressing the conflict-of-interest drawback, they need to undertake what I’ll name the Lonely Planet check.
This check takes its identify from the favored journey information. In a 2010 lecture on methods to enhance belief in authorities, Harvard legislation professor Lawrence Lessig, a outstanding advocate of reforming Congress marketing campaign finance legal guidelines, used Lonely Planet’s practices for example.
Lonely Planet avoids any look of battle of curiosity by assuring its readers that, amongst different practices, it doesn’t “accept payment for listing or endorsing any place or business”. Lonely Planet understands that even a slight suspicion that it’s creating wealth from the locations or companies it options might undercut its credibility.
Media shops ought to embrace an analogous ethos. Editors ought to be sure that their editorial selections aren’t profit-driven, uphold journalistic requirements and are within the curiosity of most people. They ought to scrutinise each potential story about Trump for “conflict of interest” by asking three questions.
Should we report on the story? If we do, can we profit financially from it greater than our common achieve from different protection? And if we do, would it not profit Trump and advance his model of politics?
When it involves Trump protection, editors and journalists ought to lean in direction of the precept of much less is extra. Not simply because that may restore proportionality in protection, but additionally as a result of it might scale back their outlet’s battle of curiosity.
None of this ensures {that a} second Trump time period could be much less polarising or much less nerve-racking. The check I’m proposing would imply, although, that media shops can do extra to protect their integrity and the general public’s belief.
For years, The Washington Post has put its Trump-era motto entrance and centre, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. But if the media proceed on the present path and into one other Trump time period, democracy in addition to journalism could endure gravely within the glare of sunshine, too.
The views expressed on this article are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially mirror Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/4/9/trump-and-the-us-medias-conflict-of-interest?traffic_source=rss
