By John
Daniel Davidson
Monday, December
05, 2016
Since
Donald Trump’s election, the mainstream media have been by turns hysterical and
condescending. Whether it’s Trump’s rebuke of the cast of “Hamilton or his
phone call with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, the press seems to think we’re
already on the verge of a constitutional crisis at the hands of a dangerous yet
idiotic president-elect.
Same
goes for the media’s coverage of Trump supporters. Last week, a clip of CNN’s
Alisyn Camerota speaking with Trump supporters made the rounds, in part because
the supporters insisted that millions of illegal immigrants voted, and in part
because Camerota reacted to them with the utmost disdain.
As
Mollie Hemingway noted last week, the mainstream media’s kneejerk response was
to hold the exchange up as an example of how “fake news” stories duped gullible
Trump voters. Instead of trying to understand why some Trump voters might be
concerned about Obama’s seeming nonchalance about voter fraud, Camerota Googled
a news story that confirmed her bias: “Fox Deceptively Edits Obama Interview to
Falsely Claim He Told Illegal Immigrants to Vote.” See? Stupid Trump voters.
The
incident underscores a troubling lack of curiosity in the press that Trump’s
election has done nothing to mitigate. Right now, the media should be asking
themselves: Why did Trump win white college graduates? Why did he outperform
Mitt Romney among blacks and Hispanics? Why did lifelong Democrats in the Rust
Belt vote for him?
If the
mainstream press wanted to understand and explain Trump’s appeal, they could
talk to any one of the millions of ordinary Americans with non-crazy views who
voted for him. Instead, the media have gravitated toward fringe supporters and
conspiracy theorists—the New Hampshire lawmakers who claimed that millions of
people voted illegally, the handful of white supremacists who praised Trump at
a recent conference in Washington DC, the malign influence of Alex Jones and
readers of Infowars.
By
insisting on an ideological narrative at the expense of honest reporting, and
by reacting with hysterics every time Trump tweets something provocative,
journalists are undermining their credibility. As fun as it is to laugh at
hysterical journalists, we actually need them to be credible because they have
an important job to do: hold the incoming Trump administration accountable for
real abuses of power.
The Media Lost Its Credibility A Long Time Ago
Arguably,
the media long ago lost all credibility with its fawning coverage of the Obama
White House. Faced with the task of covering a president who shared all their
favorite progressive narratives, biases, and priorities, the press abdicated
its responsibility to hold political leaders accountable.
From the
collapse of Obamacare to the ginned-up narrative undergirding the Iran deal,
the Washington media establishment balked every time it should have held the
Obama administration’s feet to the fire.
Instead,
it went after anyone who dared to question the administration’s policies. Just
ask Roger Pielke Jr., an academic who had the temerity to express the wrong
sort of views about climate change. In an essay for the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, Pielke tells how he was
singled out and attacked, not just by left-wing academics and Obama White House
advisors, but by prominent journalists and news outlets.
Pielke
is no extremist. He doesn’t deny climate change and even supports a carbon tax.
But his research led him to conclude that extreme weather events like
hurricanes and floods haven’t become more frequent or intense because of
climate change.
For
publicaly stating this rather dry fact, and calling out reporters for their
inaccuracies regarding it, he was singled out by writers at major publications
like The New York Times, The Guardian, Foreign Policy, and others. Reporters blocked him on Twitter and
launched a media campaign to get him fired.
Americans Need A Media Establishment They Can
Trust
That’s
just one example out of thousands during Obama’s tenure in office. Now that the
tables have turned, we have a somewhat different problem on our hands. Instead
of enforcing progressive orthodoxy and towing the White House line, the media
will be tempted to cover Trump the way they have been since November 8, with
feigned outrage, hysteria, and condescension. In both cases, the media are
abdicating their duty.
For a
media establishment with only slightly better approval ratings than Congress,
that’s a problem for all of us. If Americans don’t believe the press because
journalists automatically denounce everything Trump does in the misguided
belief that it’s their duty, then who will be able to credibly report on the
Trump administration’s actual mistakes and abuses of power?
Arguably,
it falls to the already divided conservative media, which now has a
responsibility to resist the temptations that bedeviled the mainstream media
during the Obama administration. Absent some radical change in how they cover
Trump, the national press simply won’t have the credibility they need to do
their job.
Last
week, Politico’s Glenn Thrush and
Nolan McCaskill reported that an enraged army of former Hillary Clinton aides
and operatives are plotting an anti-Trump movement. Groups like the Center for
American Progress are also exploring ways to discredit Trump, “possibly by
disseminating reports on the president’s record directly to voters and media
into swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that swung surprisingly
to Trump.”
These
groups are likely to feed their “reports” to reporters like Thrush, whose
penchant for clearing stories with high-placed sources was one of the more
egregious examples of journalistic malfeasance in the hacked John Podesta
emails released by WikiLeaks. Thrush wasn’t alone, of course. He was simply
caught doing what appears to be standard practice in Washington.
The
problem will look like this: Thrush or one of his colleagues will report on
some abuse of power or shady dealings in the Trump White House. Whether there
is merit to the report won’t matter, because half the country won’t care. They
will assume that it comes from Clinton’s anti-Trump movement or the Center for
American Progress, and they will dismiss it as mere partisanship—a politically
motivated hit job from a hostile press corps.
That’s
too bad, because as a political novice with authoritarian tendencies, Trump
will doubtless need to be checked. Just don’t count on the mainstream media to
do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment