What a mission-driven press must do in this time of crisis

It keeps getting worse, doesn’t it?

In the past week, the president of the United States has trashed the Supreme Court justices who ruled against his unilateral imposition of tariffs, calling them a “disgrace” to the nation.

That’s “the language of autocracy, not democracy,” said Ken Dilanian, who covers the justice department and intelligence agencies for MS Now.

“That’s not the kind of language that presidents have ever used” — especially shocking in a week when Trump hoisted his own image onto the exterior of the Justice Department, exactly what you’d see in an authoritarian regime.

A couple of days later, he made a threat against Netflix that sounded right out of the mob-boss handbook. If the company didn’t immediately fire Susan Rice from its board, there would be “consequences.” Rice, who served in the Obama and Biden administration, had talked on a podcast about accountability for corporations that break the law to please Trump. Off with her head, therefore!

And even though his approval rating is low, and judges keep handing him losses in court, Donald Trump remains at the controls of a wrecking ball. And he’s doing everything in his power to stay that way by undermining voting rights, in obvious fear that this year’s midterm elections will spell trouble for him if they are conducted fairly.

And how is the mainstream press responding? The same way it has for the past 10 years. By dutifully covering, in news articles or analysis pieces, what’s happening day to day. By commenting on developments in opinion articles and punditry. By sometimes doing a deeper-dive investigative article on one aspect or another.

In other words, business as usual. Given the stakes and the severity of the situation, I find it maddening. Just watch the coverage of the State of the Union address tonight, and you’ll get yet more proof of what I’m talking about. “In a fiery speech ….” etc.

What could the American press do that’s beyond merely documenting developments as they occur, normalizing all the way? And, maybe more to the point, what should it have been doing for a long time now?

Is it asking too much of journalism to rise up and meet this moment? It surely shouldn’t be.

Consider, as context, what happened after the attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001. The New York Times rose to the occasion with a daily print section called A Nation at War, and with a variety of other creative approaches that shouted, “we are not in normal times here, readers.” They didn’t just sleepwalk through a crisis.

In December, I called for a more aggressive, more focused, more clearly aware response by the press, especially after the publication of an important study in Foreign Affairs. It stated that “in less than a year .. the United States has moved swiftly from democracy to a form of authoritarianism.” I believe that millions of Americans don’t fully understand what’s happening, and yes, I blame the press whose job it is to clearly inform the public.

Consider these normalizing Times headlines from just this past weekend: With ‘Tremendous’ Deals at Stake, Trump is Bringing Russia in From the Cold.

How Trump is Upending Who Can be a Guest on Late-night TV

It all sounds quite harmless, doesn’t it? A regular president but with better deals; just ask him.

In that December post, I proposed three immediate changes: collective action by news organizations when Trump attacks journalists or disparages the truth, public mission statements at news outlets that acknowledge that things have changed and that the press must change, too, and an absolute end to the “both sides” coverage that equates truth and lies in the name of supposed fairness. (I spoke about that last part in an interview published last week in Public Information.)

I also asked for your ideas.

Here’s some of what you, the readers of American Crisis, said then that is well worth bringing to the surface here. I am condensing in rather extreme fashion here, but the fuller versions are available. So are good comments from many other readers; this is just a sampling.

Will the powers-that-be listen? I can tell you, for sure, that editors and reporters at major publications, including the New York Times, do read this newsletter, and sometimes I hear from them in response.

So I’m amplifying your voices here.

Lex Alexander: “How can news organizations do better? Context, context, context. … News outlets should not merely report what Trump does but also how it compares with the law and with our norms and customs — why what’s going on is a five-alarm five, in other words.”

Lorene Kennard, calling for an end to false neutrality by the press: “It’s not neutrality to leave context out of stories that the president is in serious decline and the country is not a democracy anymore. It’s not neutrality to minimize or misdirect what is really happening. We need more news leaders like (the late Washington Post publisher) Katharine Graham. She understood when a President was a threat and wasn’t afraid to publish stories about it.”

Richard House: “It will be a long journey out of the last ten years. When a country willingly accepts fascism, the moral blight is immense and the failure of guardian institutions from the press to the churches to the financial institutions won’t be cleaned up quickly, neatly or perhaps ever.” … (He also calls for) acknowledgement, not avoidance, “that Trumpism is just the latest manifestation of white supremacy, anti-intellectualism and anti-science superstitions that have hindered the American dream since its founding.”

Dean Wright: “I, for one, would like to see so-called mainstream media report more transparently on something that seems irrefutable: that the president — in his public appearances and social media posts — often makes absolutely no sense. Instead we see reports that seek to ‘translate’ or ‘sane wash’ his statements and posts.”

Kathy Fagan: She calls for a more aggressive and sweeping coverage of Republican-driven threats to voting rights, noting that an insistence on neutrality should stop at that door. “Is there not a responsibility to move beyond reporting separate news stories to note any such patterns such as which party is overwhelmingly taking these actions? That’s not propaganda, that’s factual info that helps us decide how to vote — and not reporting it may make our future votes meaningless.”

On a related matter, I wrote in the Guardian recently about the campaign by billionaires Larry and David Ellison to win the battle over control of Warner Bros. Discovery. Their company, Paramount Skydance, is in competition with Netflix. I think we know whose side Trump is on, and —given that CNN is part of the package — we know why.

I wrote in part: “So much of what’s happened at CBS — the back-of-the-hand treatment of (Stephen) Colbert and the rightward drift of the news division — are ways of signaling that the Ellisons are more than willing to serve Trump’s interests.”

Especially if it brings them the prize they want so badly, the winning bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. When Anderson Cooper last week decided to leave ‘60 Minutes,’ this surely was a factor, in addition to his stated desire to spend more time with his kids. But if Paramount wins out, Cooper’s main employer, CNN, may suffer the same fate as CBS News. It’s all connected, and it’s the job of the press to make sure that’s understood.

I’m disheartened but determined to do my part here, and I’m so appreciative and grateful that you are, too.

Separately, the estimable Joumana Khatib, an editor at the New York Times Book Review, offers this report (gift link) about a gathering last weekend at the Washington, DC bookstore Politics and Prose. Hundreds attended to mourn the loss of the Washington Post’s Book World, a recent victim of the paper’s tragic cost-cutting spree. . I especially appreciate the words of the store’s co-owner, Brad Graham, a former Post journalist: “It is heartbreaking and infuriating, not only a blow to the literary world, but it leaves a further cultural void in our alarmingly eroding democracy.” And those of former Post editor Marty Baron: “It is difficult to contemplate, and hard to forgive, a decision to sever The Post’s relationship with books.”

Thank you all for caring, for contributing your thoughts and ideas, and for subscribing. If you become a paid subscriber for $50 a year, you’ll help me keep the paywall removed so all may read and comment.

Here’s why one reader decided to become a paid subscriber, and below that, some information for newcomers.

 

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