Which Will Prevail: Trumpism or a Free Press?
How and Why Journalists Can and Must Cover What’s Vitally at Stake in the 2024 Election and Not Be Diverted by the Trivia Trump Uses to Distract Them
[This article was originally published at LinkedIn.com. It is part of a series that challenges the mainstream media to be both more aggressive and focused regarding how it covers the Trump campaign, and will also explain how anybody with a social media platform can get involved in protecting our Constitution and democracy from the dangers described in Safeguard.]
American journalists must rise to the historic moment and unequivocally counter the mortal danger that Trumpism is to American democracy, while simultaneously maintaining the ethical standards of their profession. They must ENERGIZE the "Rosen rule" for the 2024 election and "cover the stakes, not the horse race."
But HOW can journalists synthesize these seemingly contradictory objectives?
The journalistic community must first acknowledge that it does indeed have BOTH aspirations - because Trump's openly stated signal regarding "terminating parts of the Constitution" threatens the integrity and viability of its profession and other American institutions in a way that renders the old (never fully achievable) aspiration of "benign journalistic objectivity" as a response to this threat as archaic as the Fairness Doctrine would be if applied to the present media ecosystem of cable news, the internet and social media.
Trump’s self-portrayal as a "counterpuncher" during the 2016 campaign as justification for an assault against the press under the guise of "defending himself” has gradually and subtly broadened into what could become an undeclared war on the entire media apparatus of the United States.
Journalists must push back hard - but in a way which is also precise, fair and professionally principled.
The journalistic community must OPENLY and EXPLICITLY (for the good of the nation) stand up for the preservation of a free press as the "4th Estate of American constitutional democracy" with same vigor that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government defend their own respective institutions.
Unfortunately too many in the American media have failed to properly focus on the issues that most truly matter regarding countering this Trumpist threat, or to acknowledge the biases that are already built into the mainstream of their reporting.
American journalists must concede that for decades (to their CREDIT) they have had an implicit advocacy bias towards such standards as racial justice, sexual equality, freedom of speech and democracy itself.
Why should journalists now pretend that they are "impartial observers" in a struggle against an authoritarian movement that threatens the very existence of their profession?
The journalistic aspiration towards objectivity must be preserved, yet updated and MATURELY redefined to more directly confront Trumpist authoritarianism:
There must be an elevation of what subject matter serious journalists cover and emphasize, as well as how this is put into a proper context; a concurrent elevation of the solemnity, tone, honesty and genuine objectivity with which this is done; and a stronger emphasis on how what is reported is followed up upon.
Journalists must SPECIFICALLY and narrowly focus this approach on the authoritarian threat they and the country are facing, and must be sure to properly place coverage of other issues within that context (in a way similar to what the BBC did in order to not allow legitimate reporting on climate change to be lost in a deluge of disinformation).
Nor should journalists allow a visceral impulse to "get Trump" to overwhelm the most critical subjects of the national conversation.
The impulse to "get Trump" by vindictively and gleefully trying to "nail" him with successive, increasingly futile "revelations" about the relatively minor issues concerning his character and less important legal or financial problems actually enables Trump to bury his most extreme and dangerous statements in "double talk" that gets lost in an ocean of trivia.
This in turn facilitates Trump's use of his (often faked) image as a "buffoonish wanna be dictator" to camouflage the true meaning of his most outlandish, dangerous and yet OPENLY STATED intentions - and allows Trump to manipulatively distort such statements and make them seem less "real" to the independent and open-minded voter who most acutely needs to be alerted to, and to fully and clearly understand the full danger of what Trump "might be" planning.
Trump - and especially his spokespersons (who can't simultaneously hide from the media and still get his message out to those very people he will most sorely be compelled to communicate with in order to be reelected) - must be PRESSED and OBLIGED to discuss the subjects that matter without evasion or diversion into minor side issues.
Making Trump explain in more depth and detail what he means concerning matters such as “terminating” portions of the nation's constitutional processes - and by focusing the attention of independent and moderate voters and donors who have any iota of an open mind on THAT - will peel away consequential layers of Trump's support in an election that may be determined by only a few thousand votes.
Trump's use of disrespect, bullying and intimidation (and then his network’s extension of that into domestic terrorism through death threats to judicial witnesses, election officials, and actual assassination and coup attempts) should be treated as an act of war against the institutions of the United States.
However, such a defining moment in American history must be responded to with a disciplined, FIRM INTELLIGENCE and a higher degree of solemnity and sophistication than it currently is. Just as a law enforcement or security team undertaking to disarm a hostage holder or to diffuse a bomb would neither irrationally and provocatively mock a person holding a gun or "blow up the bomb with a bigger bomb," this crisis must be approached with proactive professional expertise.
Journalists must rebuke Trumpist assaults on American institutions with the same disregard for "bias" (yet with the same clear-headed sobriety) with which they would denounce an act of war against the nation by a foreign adversary.
If this sounds like hyperbole, consider that legendary CBS News anchor Dan Rather often said that in covering a war if he had to make a choice between being a journalist first or an American first, he would choose to be an American.
In the present context it would be more accurate to say that it is American liberal democratic VALUES (such as a modicum of trust in the American electoral process and system of law - biases which most journalists already HAVE) which need to put ahead of their conflict with "journalistic standards and ethics."
Journalists must defend American liberal democratic VALUES by insisting that any players in the political arena will be treated as "legitimate" and accorded the aspiration of "benign journalistic objectivity and fairness" only insofar as they conduct themselves within the "non-violent democratic framework" of that arena. By not adhering to the rules and principles of the legal and electoral systems of a democracy, a candidate places himself in opposition to that very democratic system itself.
Refusing to EXPLICITLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY state that he would accept a peaceful transfer of power in the run-up to the 2020 election, while simultaneously telling the Proud Boys who invaded the United States Capitol only months later to "stand back and stand by" is NOT within "the legitimate non-violent democratic framework of the political arena" - nor is promising to pardon such criminal thugs as "patriotic political prisoners," while also now evading the question of whether he will accept the results of the 2024 election.
Equally important (and much more will be presented about how this needs to and can be applied to lower-level office seekers in future parts of this series): Anything less than an outright rejection of such stances from any down-ballot candidates should similarly disqualify them from being treated with the standards of legitimate contenders for democratic office in the context of how their candidacies are covered by serious journalists. Answers to questions like "Will you accept the result of YOUR election?" and "Will you demand that other candidates accept the results of their elections, as well as a peaceful transfer of power at the presidential level?" require a response nothing other than "Yes, absolutely."
Furthermore, pronouncements such as Kari Lake's threatening “public service announcement” of potential violence by millions of gun owners (which includes a very specific warning to journalists), especially when placed against the backdrop of Trump's subsequent intimation of a "bloodbath" if he loses, demand total repudiation from any candidate who expects to be treated with "benign journalistic objectivity."
Serious journalists and the institutions that support them must counter this Trumpist autocratic movement by using their power to ask the above and similar questions to clarify the struggle against authoritarianism as the preeminent issue of the 2024 election - and to compel Trump and his spokespersons to answer such questions in a forthright manner with the respect that the thinking public deserves and can USE to prevent an authoritarian corruption (if not actual takeover) of the institutions of the United States of America.
Too many journalists and organizations are pulling their punches in this confrontation under the banner of "journalistic objectivity" (or else veering wildly to the opposite extreme of blindly opposing anything that might accrue to or against Trump's benefit, even if it's legitimate from a broader perspective). Both poles of this journalistic spectrum (including those who support Trump, but oppose political violence and champion American institutions) must confront this primary immediate threat to the American constitutional system of governance head-on and not let a FALSE objectivity of any sort stand in the way of the intense scrutiny it demands.
It is not the role of journalism to provide a precise "roadmap" with a set of directions for achieving solutions to the critical problems we face, but it is the role of journalism to make sure that the canvas on which the issues themselves are mapped is clear and accurate and not distorted by disinformation.
Serious journalists have both the opportunity and responsibility to unapologetically ask the right QUESTIONS. And beyond that, they have an equal responsibility to ensure that those questions are answered FORTHRIGHTLY - or to very clearly and forcefully point out when they are not.
In subsequent parts of this series it will be discussed HOW in an era when the integrity of the journalistic process itself has been hijacked and corrupted by media savvy political operatives and the very spokespersons being interviewed, serious journalists can defend their profession and elevate the standards of the national discourse by amplifying the power of their questions with their editorial judgement and analytic expertise.
Remember: He who asks the questions controls the debate.
Originally published at LinkedIn.com.
Thanks for reading “Which Will Prevail: Trumpism or a Free Press?” Click here to read Part 2 of this series: The Specter of Trump Still Looms
Subscribe to Safeguard to be notified of subsequent installments of this series in which in will be explained HOW journalists can amplify “the power of their questions,” as well as further ideas regarding how to counter Trumpist authoritarianism politically, legislatively and in the electoral arena.
Please share both this article and Safeguard freely by reposting them on your social media sites and forwarding them to others in order to advance the cause of protecting our constitutional democracy.
MSNBC, The Economist, the Atlantic, and Drudge - integrity in media.