By Jonathan S. Tobin
Friday, August 25, 2017
If we are to judge the importance of a threat by the
amount of time President Donald Trump spends attacking it and the harsh things
he says, the greatest peril facing the United States doesn’t come from Islamist
terrorists, illegal immigrants, foreign nations that benefit from bad trade
deals, or even from Democrats. By that measure, it’s clear Trump thinks the
real peril stems from the media.
He loathes them and – the same way as with anyone else
who says something unflattering about him — he believes he’s entitled to say
anything he likes about them. If that means engaging in fibs or distorted
accounts about what is said and written about him that are every bit as
deceptive and unfair as the coverage he receives, he knows that his followers,
and indeed most conservatives, won’t mind much. And he does it every
opportunity he gets.
But does that make him a Nazi or a putative totalitarian
weakening the last defenses of democracy before the inevitable putsch?
If you listen to many voices on the left, including those
on many liberal-mainstream outlets, the answer is that the attacks coming from
Trump as well as from conservatives on the media are nothing less than the
moral equivalent of the last days of Weimar Germany. That’s why, if you want to
know what’s really wrong with American democracy, you have to look beyond
Trump’s flaws.
These days it’s hard to know which is the greater
obsession — Trump’s with his media foes, or the media with their presidential
tormentor. You can hardly turn on CNN or MSNBC on any given day without being
confronted with panels of Trump critics not merely fact-checking and inveighing
against Trump’s attacks on the media, but also huffing and puffing about what
it is that dictators do to soften up their opponents before democracy dies (as
the Washington Post now perpetually
reminds us with its new self-aggrandizing motto). Those invoking the shade of
the Third Reich include The Atlantic’s
James Fallows as well as otherwise obscure Democratic members of Congress such
as Representative John Garamendi.
Perhaps this is merely par for the course in a
hyper-partisan era in which Trump has decided that politics is a
no-holds-barred event and in which, as his former strategist Steve Bannon said,
the press and not the Democrats are the true “opposition party.”
Trump’s attacks are unpresidential and often inaccurate.
Also, the cable-news networks have been as much his enablers from the start of
his candidacy as they have been critics. Better men than Trump, including
Ronald Reagan and the Bushes, have been subjected to vicious and unfair media
attacks and never lost their cool or used the press as an excuse for their own
failings.
But for all of the hyperventilating about Trump’s trying
— and clearly failing — to intimidate the press, the notion that attacks on the
media are a sign of impending authoritarianism is bunk.
Like Trump, the mainstream media are flawed and deserve
to be attacked. Far from being a war on democracy, media criticism is democracy.
Media panels tell us they are just doing their job and
that they are playing an essential role in our democratic system. But what has
happened in the past year is that many in the mainstream-liberal press have
dropped even the semblance of objectivity as they have joined the anti-Trump
“resistance” en masse.
It says something about how far we have gone that Jim
Acosta, CNN’s White House correspondent, could engage in what can only be
described as a debate with Stephen Miller about immigration policy and be
defended rather than disavowed by most of his colleagues. They actually saw
nothing wrong with a man whose job was gathering the news rather than spouting
opinion doing the latter and claiming there was nothing wrong with it.
The same dynamic was at work in the Wall Street Journal newsroom when that paper’s editor, Gerard
Baker, admonished his staff to leave their opinions out of their straight news
articles about Trump. The pushback was considerable and resulted in a news
story in the rival New York Times.
The sources for this piece had to be disgruntled Journal staffers who were happy to dish on their boss and portray
him as being in the pocket of the Trumps rather than a man fighting to preserve
his publication’s integrity.
Both of these incidents demonstrate that a considerable
portion of those working at legacy-media outlets think all of the normal
standards of journalism can be thrown out the window if it means wrong-footing
Trump. Outlets behaving in this manner deserve to be attacked and readers have
the right to demand that they play it straight in their news sections. Doing so
is the duty of responsible journalists and citizens, not an act of support for
authoritarianism, let alone the act of a would-be Nazi.
The media’s excesses do not excuse those committed by
Trump or erase his misjudgments about Charlottesville or his disingenuous
complaints about being unfairly criticized for what he did. But the notion that
conservative complaints about media bias are either completely false or a
smokescreen for a desire to destroy the First Amendment is sheer slander.
Trump has made noises about wanting to change libel laws
to make it easier to sue journalists but he has no more chance of doing that
than of getting Mexico to pay for a border wall. Nor is there any other real
evidence that what is going on is anything other than a more heated version of
the same argument conservatives have been having with the press for decades.
The only differences are that Trump has made it the centerpiece of his campaign
appearances and the mainstream press is, if anything, far more biased than it
used to be. Had journalists stuck to the standards they claim to be now
defending, it wouldn’t have stopped Trump from attacking them. But it would
make us a bit more sympathetic.
The rule remains that the first person in an argument to
invoke a Nazi or Holocaust analogy loses. In this case, you don’t have to be a
supporter of Trump to understand that the media’s claims about attacks on them
being a blow to democracy are nothing more than the worst sort of partisanship
masquerading as journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment