Five ways the media can do better in this critical moment

As a media critic, I often identify what I see as the failings of Big Journalism. I did that here last week in my post titled “The media’s double standard for Trump needs to stop.”

I gave examples of that double standard that too often gives this president the benefit of the doubt — or sane-washes his words — when that isn’t warranted. That does harm because it misleads the public.

I also promised to suggest some solutions or improvements, since it’s no good to criticize without suggesting a better way. That’s what I’m setting out to do here today.

First, don’t fall for every distraction. Trump is a master of this; it’s a key part of Steve Bannon’s advice years ago to “flood the zone with shit.” In recent days, Trump has been talking about making Venezuela the 51st state. It’s absurd, of course, but the claim captured its share of headlines and alerts. John Roberts of Fox News posted about it Monday morning, and outlets as disparate as the New York Post and the Daily Beast picked up on it, giving it headlines with varying degrees of seriousness. Didn’t we hear that about Canada and Greenland? Don’t chase every squirrel. Eyes on the bigger picture. Where, for example, is the sustained reporting on Trump’s physical and mental health?

Second, relentlessly provide historical context. How does a particular situation (for example, the White House ballroom or the golden-idol statue of Trump at his Doral golf club in Florida) stack up when seen through a longer lens? We often see the soft-focus word “unprecedented” but let’s be much more explicit whenever possible. I thought the AP did a good job with this in its story quoting preservationists and historians about the ballroom plans.

Third, don’t put lies or falsehoods into headlines or news alerts. Just because the president says something it doesn’t warrant handing over a megaphone. Here’s a headline from Scripps News that falls into that trap: “Trump Declares US has won the war with Iran as nuclear deal negotiations continue.” He can declare all he wants but it’s not true, and therefore should not be magnified — even if he is the president. The deference to the Oval Office may have been defensible in an earlier era, but not now. That practice is misleading, and that’s not the role of journalism. Our job is to seek and publish the truth.

Fourth, dig deeper to avoid taking Trump’s utterances at face value. I loved what NBC News did recently after Trump claimed he had spoken to a former president about bombing Iran. Reporters did the due diligence, getting in touch with aides for George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama — who all denied it — and ruled out Joe Biden as well. Straight-up reporting, nothing fancy, was the answer to the nonsense. More of this, please!

Fifth, use direct language. When Trump not long ago made a shockingly boorish joke about Pearl Harbor during a White House meeting with Japan’s prime minister, the New York Times described this as an example of his “penchant for tossing aside diplomatic norms.” That soft-pedaling is a close cousin of sane-washing. It takes something that’s way out of bounds and files off the rough edges to describe it with deference and politeness. Trump’s was a crude utterance and could have been safely described that way. There was more of the same in Politico’s credulous headline that accepts the premise that Trump ever really gave a damn about furthering a noble cause.“U.S. oil rush into Venezuela tests Trump’s democracy promises.” Mark Jacob suggests a truer version that acknowledges what Trump has cared about all along: “Trump’s in a much bigger hurry to get oil out of Venezuela than to bring democracy in.”

The newly expanded Washington-based outlet NOTUS (which is soon and wisely changing its name to The Star) published the ideas of 16 former Washington Post journalists about how to make DC journalism better.

Among them: Marc Fisher calling for fewer “suits yelling at each other on TV or YouTube” and more of the “harder work of gumshoe reporting” — the kind that happens door-to-door.

Jose A. Del Real wants to see reporters rewarded for something other than “palace intrigue and scooplets,” which rely on access reporting. Instead, he urges more reporting on “the texture and tenor of American life beyond Washington.”

And Dana Milbank wants to see more local news about the Washington region, noting that the decline of local news is a huge reason for our “political polarization and dysfunction.” He’s right.

As a former Post columnist, I got my say in the roundup, too, suggesting that the annual White House Correspondent’s Dinner — that glitzy and counterproductive schmoozefest — be radically rethought. I was happy to read in Brian Stelter’s newsletter that this year’s disrupted dinner may be rescheduled as a luncheon or a more “modest” dinner. That’s a good start, and one that could set the tone for following years.

I was also glad to see that ABC and its parent company, Disney, are standing strong for First Amendment principles — in contrast to the way they buckled in 2024 by settling a Trump defamation lawsuit rather than defending it. This time, they are taking the legal fight to the Trump-friendly FCC over its apparent attempts to censor The View by investigating whether the daytime talk show is breaking rules requiring equal time to candidates from both parties. As the only Democrat on the FCC, Anna Gomez, put it bluntly: “I’m glad Disney is choosing courage over capitulation.” More of this, please, too, since letting bullies get their way only encourages them. Here’s a gift link to the front page story about this gutsy pushback in the New York Times.

And finally, be sure to see this excellent tribute to CBS News Radio which is, sadly, signing off the air very soon. The 11-minute piece, which traces the storied history of the network, aired on CBS Sunday Morning this past weekend. Media is changing, of course; that’s inevitable. But this one hurts and could have been avoided. If CBS News hadn’t come under the sway of right-leaning new management (David Ellison, Bari Weiss et al), it surely would have lasted longer. As one veteran broadcast journalist told me, terming the tribute “magnificent” after he watched it Sunday morning: “The length and star power was a clear f-you to Weiss.”

Readers, thanks so much for being here, and for caring about how journalism affects our fragile democracy. I appreciate your comments, your subscriptions (paid or unpaid) and the way you share these posts on social media or with friends.

If you have the means, I’d deeply appreciate your upgrading to a paid subscription for $50 a year. It would help to defray the costs of publication and keep the paywall removed so all can read and express their views. (A tiny fraction of total subscribers here are paid, but I resist returning to a paywall.)

Do any of the suggestions above resonate with you? Do you have any improvements of your own to suggest? Let me know in the comments, please. I read your comments with interest and appreciation.

 

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment