“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
The media are responsible for Trump winning in 2016 by giving the cheap candidate incredible amounts of free air time. CNN gloated on how much Trump helped their bottom line, so they willingly sacrificed the American public to Trump to generate higher profits for themselves. MSNBC with Chris Matthews also gave Trump incredible amounts of free air time. After the world learned of Trump as president with his political debauchery, CNN free time did not work its magic for Trump in 2020. Now we have the expectant dictator running in 2024 with his pronouncements on how he will be a dictator and have the Justice Dept. charge his political opponents just like the dictators he admires. His speeches are a multitude of lies thrown together by an occasional verb or an adjective for spice. So CNN again wants to give him free air time while he is under indictment in four jurisdictions under 91 counts of criminal behavior. MSNBC might do they same if their ratings decline, and of course Fox will act like the media arm of the Trump campaign. The media are a major problem due to their lack of integrity in not just distributing news but also promoting, directly or indirectly, a would-be dictator and charged criminal. So the answer to CNN is what Margaret said, broadcast real news if there is any but no free time.
I agree completely as always and simply add that when the media chooses to cover Trump it must do so with blunt honesty and verbiage. No “Trump appears to confuse Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi”; no “Trump and Biden differ on what happened on January 6th” etc etc. When he lies, the media must say so, over and over. As he exhibits imbalanced and erratic (to be generous) behavior, there should be no euphemisms. Our future depends on it.
Over the past four years, I've chosen to abstain from consuming content on CNN, opting instead for a more nuanced understanding of current events through written news sources. This decision stems from a desire to avoid the influence of what I perceive as biased commentary from talking heads on television.
It's disheartening to witness the cooptation of the fourth branch of government, our media, by conservative mainstream outlets. This transformation traces its roots back to the 1980s, marked by the rise of conservative talk radio. The phenomenon gained momentum with the emergence of Fox News as a media behemoth, accompanied by the consolidation of local and independent newspapers under influential figures like Singer.
The impact of this shift is palpable today, as a significant portion of the American population believes that the federal government is the sole functioning authority. This alteration was orchestrated by conservative billionaires and political figures such as Newt Gingrich, aiming to assert control over states. The present reality reflects their success, with Republicans dominating state governments in half of the country. The Democratic response to this challenge has been lackluster, lacking a robust grassroots organization at the state level.
A noteworthy aspect is the reluctance of Republicans to advocate for civics education in schools, potentially to hinder public understanding of how government functions. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to have forgotten the pivotal role of grassroots organizing that propelled the party to control for 35 years, from local positions to the White House and Congress.
The question looming is whether there is still time to alter this trajectory. Can Democrats re-embrace grassroots strategies, rekindle civic education, and counterbalance the conservative influence that has shaped the political landscape? The answer remains uncertain, but the need for a strategic reevaluation is evident in order to navigate a more inclusive and informed democratic future.
It’s been my opinion for a long time that news media overuse live coverage partly because it’s cheaper than doing journalism and partly because it helps fill their yawning 24/7 expanse of air time. (One change from the old days is that news air time is no longer a precious commodity, limited to a couple of hours every day. Then, editorial decisions had to be made as to how to best use that time. No one would have wasted it on an empty podium, for sure!)
I remember in broadcast classes lo these many decades ago we contrasted the strengths and weaknesses of different media formats. The strength of live coverage is in giving the public access something happening that’s of immediate importance. Either people need information for safety reasons (disasters, etc) or want to be present at a momentous event such as the funeral of a world leader or a moon landing. A politician blithering after a race everyone knew he was going to win is not momentous. It should be recorded, summarized and analyzed, with relevant recorded excerpts. Might be nice to provide a full recording and transcript for the record somewhere.
Absolutely correct, Margaret. And how about a column on the NYT’s election coverage, which looks more and more in the tank for Trump, especially their front-page print headlines?
What happens when you treat a fraud, a charlatan, a crook, and a rapist like a normal candidate? The answer is on display every day in America. In the interest of some perverse sense of equity, the media allows this criminal free rein over the country’s airwaves. What does he do with that treatment? He rubs shit in the collective face of the networks. He insults, he disparages, he lies, and if he isn’t given deferential treatment, he bans reporters he doesn’t like from covering him. Ask Vaugh Hilliard. He asked a legitimate journalistic question and got prohibited from doing his job. It isn’t enough that he is allowed to suck all the broadcast oxygen from the airwaves, it remains for a sycophantic media to bend over like some fawning frat pledge and take the whacks this deviate loves to dole out and they beg for another ass beating. I was a j-major who never worked in journalism but worked with journalists every day of my professional life. I argued when I thought it necessary but I always afforded the reporters covering my principals with respect. I also translated that respect into friendship. I have to say now, Margaret, I’m wondering what the hell happened to journalism? How can any self-respecting reporter cover this mental midget and allow him to run roughshod over them? How can the media allow a man of such blithering lunacy to escape scrutiny for his obvious senility while casting aspirations on his opponent? How can the media allow his misogyny and his schoolyard bullying and juvenile naming calling to be treated with even a grain of normalcy? He is allowed to libel and slander and lie with impunity as though that’s legitimate political discourse. It is not an overstatement to say that if he becomes president, American democracy will never recover and the mainstream media will be complicit in our demise. What will the media say when reporters start getting jailed, when outlets are shut down, when only those who kiss the ring are granted access? We once thought such authoritarian bullshit was unthinkable. Today, this moral midget tells us that’s exactly what he’s going to do. My respect for the media diminishes every day witnessing the intellectual cowardice we see every day.
I agree, of course, that the media should not relay the TRUMPeting of lies; I wonder if you have any insight into why the NY Times, in particular, attaches clearly unbalanced headlines (as pointed out by Mr. Delbanco) to articles that make a more balanced point. It's obviously intentional. Is it just too encourage clicks? Or is there really a political agenda behind it?
News organizations used to be leaders in speaking truth to power to inform the public about the activities of our government. I guess with news organizations being owned by hedge funds or publicly held companies, they only care about revenue? Well, it shows in the quality of what they produce. Someone in corporate media needs to take a stand and declare that they will not show Trump live or even cover him 24/7. They will only show what is actually newsworthy. I can't stand to watch him, but from what I've seen and read, he's losing his faculties. This is something that certainly needs to be more widely reported on than it is. Again, not many reporters/news orgs are going to go against him. Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC never goes live to Trump or anyone spewing lies. Someone monitors it and they show it with some context later. Other reporters/news orgs need to do the same.
More and more I obtain my news from online print news (read: legacy) sources. I have more than one subscription to bring some balance. Additionally, I do view the BBC World News cable channel on my cable system. What I have noticed is the USA media is very much given to opinion rather than *facts* . . . it resulted in a personal test I call the "Joe Friday Test" after the Dragnet character whose tag line was "just the facts ma'am."
Personally if I want someone's opinion I will ask for it . . . in the meantime, "Just the Facts Ma'am!"
Margaret, thanks so much for this column. When a man is a "DANGER TO himself or OTHERS" we typically restrain him for 72 hours and he receives psychological assessments by professionals who decide whether he is safe to be released on his own recognizance or whether he needs to be hospitalized for the safety of the society in which he lives.
I wish journalists would make the case that due to the high coincidence of Trump's messages and death threats to individuals whom he has verbally attacked, he is a DANGER TO OTHERS. Therefore, erring on the side of caution and the safety of American citizens, he should not be given the microphone by media corporations where his coded language to his cult followers can be broadcast.
I completely agree with you that self congratulatory comments mixed with verbal attacks on American citizens is NOT news. This man is under indictment for crimes against the government for which many of his accomplices are serving time in jail. That, right there, implies that he is a DANGER TO SOCIETY and should definitely not be given free rein to perpetuate the lies and rhetoric that organized the violence on J6th.
Why this traitorous toddler, who is telling us straight up that he wants to be a dictator, is allowed to speak at all, and why he isn't in prison, is beyond me. But at the very least media should not be giving him carte blanche to continue the treasonous tirades that activate his followers to make death threats against American citizens. PERIOD.
100% agree that it's journalistic irresponsibility to simply point a camera at Trump spewing his lies. We all saw what that did in 2016. And when he is covered, journalists should not be shy to point out the nature of what he's saying - and its context (e.g., his comments about "vermin" being derived straight from Hitler's playbook). Sadly, my hopes are not at all high that the MSM will do any better now than they did in 2016 since they continue to largely act in ways which assume that Trump is just a normal candidate running a normal campaign.
I think your article is spot on. In a democracy someone like Trump who has large numbers of supporters has to be covered, otherwise a news organization is acting like a partisan mouthpiece. At the same time, that coverage needs to be context driven, and examples of his most outrageous lies exposed so his style of negative populism doesn't erase the truth.
When you're discussing the travails of the news business, perhaps you can spare a moment to explain how news organizations supposedly in distress were still able, as I've read, to send literally hundreds of reporters to New Hampshire to cover political events of no real significance. That doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of scarce resources.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
The media are responsible for Trump winning in 2016 by giving the cheap candidate incredible amounts of free air time. CNN gloated on how much Trump helped their bottom line, so they willingly sacrificed the American public to Trump to generate higher profits for themselves. MSNBC with Chris Matthews also gave Trump incredible amounts of free air time. After the world learned of Trump as president with his political debauchery, CNN free time did not work its magic for Trump in 2020. Now we have the expectant dictator running in 2024 with his pronouncements on how he will be a dictator and have the Justice Dept. charge his political opponents just like the dictators he admires. His speeches are a multitude of lies thrown together by an occasional verb or an adjective for spice. So CNN again wants to give him free air time while he is under indictment in four jurisdictions under 91 counts of criminal behavior. MSNBC might do they same if their ratings decline, and of course Fox will act like the media arm of the Trump campaign. The media are a major problem due to their lack of integrity in not just distributing news but also promoting, directly or indirectly, a would-be dictator and charged criminal. So the answer to CNN is what Margaret said, broadcast real news if there is any but no free time.
I agree completely as always and simply add that when the media chooses to cover Trump it must do so with blunt honesty and verbiage. No “Trump appears to confuse Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi”; no “Trump and Biden differ on what happened on January 6th” etc etc. When he lies, the media must say so, over and over. As he exhibits imbalanced and erratic (to be generous) behavior, there should be no euphemisms. Our future depends on it.
Over the past four years, I've chosen to abstain from consuming content on CNN, opting instead for a more nuanced understanding of current events through written news sources. This decision stems from a desire to avoid the influence of what I perceive as biased commentary from talking heads on television.
It's disheartening to witness the cooptation of the fourth branch of government, our media, by conservative mainstream outlets. This transformation traces its roots back to the 1980s, marked by the rise of conservative talk radio. The phenomenon gained momentum with the emergence of Fox News as a media behemoth, accompanied by the consolidation of local and independent newspapers under influential figures like Singer.
The impact of this shift is palpable today, as a significant portion of the American population believes that the federal government is the sole functioning authority. This alteration was orchestrated by conservative billionaires and political figures such as Newt Gingrich, aiming to assert control over states. The present reality reflects their success, with Republicans dominating state governments in half of the country. The Democratic response to this challenge has been lackluster, lacking a robust grassroots organization at the state level.
A noteworthy aspect is the reluctance of Republicans to advocate for civics education in schools, potentially to hinder public understanding of how government functions. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to have forgotten the pivotal role of grassroots organizing that propelled the party to control for 35 years, from local positions to the White House and Congress.
The question looming is whether there is still time to alter this trajectory. Can Democrats re-embrace grassroots strategies, rekindle civic education, and counterbalance the conservative influence that has shaped the political landscape? The answer remains uncertain, but the need for a strategic reevaluation is evident in order to navigate a more inclusive and informed democratic future.
It’s been my opinion for a long time that news media overuse live coverage partly because it’s cheaper than doing journalism and partly because it helps fill their yawning 24/7 expanse of air time. (One change from the old days is that news air time is no longer a precious commodity, limited to a couple of hours every day. Then, editorial decisions had to be made as to how to best use that time. No one would have wasted it on an empty podium, for sure!)
I remember in broadcast classes lo these many decades ago we contrasted the strengths and weaknesses of different media formats. The strength of live coverage is in giving the public access something happening that’s of immediate importance. Either people need information for safety reasons (disasters, etc) or want to be present at a momentous event such as the funeral of a world leader or a moon landing. A politician blithering after a race everyone knew he was going to win is not momentous. It should be recorded, summarized and analyzed, with relevant recorded excerpts. Might be nice to provide a full recording and transcript for the record somewhere.
Absolutely correct, Margaret. And how about a column on the NYT’s election coverage, which looks more and more in the tank for Trump, especially their front-page print headlines?
What happens when you treat a fraud, a charlatan, a crook, and a rapist like a normal candidate? The answer is on display every day in America. In the interest of some perverse sense of equity, the media allows this criminal free rein over the country’s airwaves. What does he do with that treatment? He rubs shit in the collective face of the networks. He insults, he disparages, he lies, and if he isn’t given deferential treatment, he bans reporters he doesn’t like from covering him. Ask Vaugh Hilliard. He asked a legitimate journalistic question and got prohibited from doing his job. It isn’t enough that he is allowed to suck all the broadcast oxygen from the airwaves, it remains for a sycophantic media to bend over like some fawning frat pledge and take the whacks this deviate loves to dole out and they beg for another ass beating. I was a j-major who never worked in journalism but worked with journalists every day of my professional life. I argued when I thought it necessary but I always afforded the reporters covering my principals with respect. I also translated that respect into friendship. I have to say now, Margaret, I’m wondering what the hell happened to journalism? How can any self-respecting reporter cover this mental midget and allow him to run roughshod over them? How can the media allow a man of such blithering lunacy to escape scrutiny for his obvious senility while casting aspirations on his opponent? How can the media allow his misogyny and his schoolyard bullying and juvenile naming calling to be treated with even a grain of normalcy? He is allowed to libel and slander and lie with impunity as though that’s legitimate political discourse. It is not an overstatement to say that if he becomes president, American democracy will never recover and the mainstream media will be complicit in our demise. What will the media say when reporters start getting jailed, when outlets are shut down, when only those who kiss the ring are granted access? We once thought such authoritarian bullshit was unthinkable. Today, this moral midget tells us that’s exactly what he’s going to do. My respect for the media diminishes every day witnessing the intellectual cowardice we see every day.
I agree, of course, that the media should not relay the TRUMPeting of lies; I wonder if you have any insight into why the NY Times, in particular, attaches clearly unbalanced headlines (as pointed out by Mr. Delbanco) to articles that make a more balanced point. It's obviously intentional. Is it just too encourage clicks? Or is there really a political agenda behind it?
News organizations used to be leaders in speaking truth to power to inform the public about the activities of our government. I guess with news organizations being owned by hedge funds or publicly held companies, they only care about revenue? Well, it shows in the quality of what they produce. Someone in corporate media needs to take a stand and declare that they will not show Trump live or even cover him 24/7. They will only show what is actually newsworthy. I can't stand to watch him, but from what I've seen and read, he's losing his faculties. This is something that certainly needs to be more widely reported on than it is. Again, not many reporters/news orgs are going to go against him. Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC never goes live to Trump or anyone spewing lies. Someone monitors it and they show it with some context later. Other reporters/news orgs need to do the same.
He could be covered live as long as the media fact checks him completely, preferably as he is speaking.
More and more I obtain my news from online print news (read: legacy) sources. I have more than one subscription to bring some balance. Additionally, I do view the BBC World News cable channel on my cable system. What I have noticed is the USA media is very much given to opinion rather than *facts* . . . it resulted in a personal test I call the "Joe Friday Test" after the Dragnet character whose tag line was "just the facts ma'am."
Personally if I want someone's opinion I will ask for it . . . in the meantime, "Just the Facts Ma'am!"
Margaret, thanks so much for this column. When a man is a "DANGER TO himself or OTHERS" we typically restrain him for 72 hours and he receives psychological assessments by professionals who decide whether he is safe to be released on his own recognizance or whether he needs to be hospitalized for the safety of the society in which he lives.
I wish journalists would make the case that due to the high coincidence of Trump's messages and death threats to individuals whom he has verbally attacked, he is a DANGER TO OTHERS. Therefore, erring on the side of caution and the safety of American citizens, he should not be given the microphone by media corporations where his coded language to his cult followers can be broadcast.
I completely agree with you that self congratulatory comments mixed with verbal attacks on American citizens is NOT news. This man is under indictment for crimes against the government for which many of his accomplices are serving time in jail. That, right there, implies that he is a DANGER TO SOCIETY and should definitely not be given free rein to perpetuate the lies and rhetoric that organized the violence on J6th.
Why this traitorous toddler, who is telling us straight up that he wants to be a dictator, is allowed to speak at all, and why he isn't in prison, is beyond me. But at the very least media should not be giving him carte blanche to continue the treasonous tirades that activate his followers to make death threats against American citizens. PERIOD.
100% agree that it's journalistic irresponsibility to simply point a camera at Trump spewing his lies. We all saw what that did in 2016. And when he is covered, journalists should not be shy to point out the nature of what he's saying - and its context (e.g., his comments about "vermin" being derived straight from Hitler's playbook). Sadly, my hopes are not at all high that the MSM will do any better now than they did in 2016 since they continue to largely act in ways which assume that Trump is just a normal candidate running a normal campaign.
I think your article is spot on. In a democracy someone like Trump who has large numbers of supporters has to be covered, otherwise a news organization is acting like a partisan mouthpiece. At the same time, that coverage needs to be context driven, and examples of his most outrageous lies exposed so his style of negative populism doesn't erase the truth.
Thanks, Margaret. Have forwarded to all my contacts.
When you're discussing the travails of the news business, perhaps you can spare a moment to explain how news organizations supposedly in distress were still able, as I've read, to send literally hundreds of reporters to New Hampshire to cover political events of no real significance. That doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of scarce resources.