How news outlets should cover a second Trump presidency

I have been on a bit of a cable news break since the election, but I am curious to know if there is a general strategy behind the coverage of Trump 2.0 for the news media?

Most news executives would likely say that their strategy is to cover Donald Trump fairly and hold him accountable to the truth. That said, there is a general feeling amongst the top bosses that the press went overboard covering his first presidency. Of course, the further one travels from the past, the more difficult it can be to remember the unbridled chaos that defined the first Trump term.

In other words, it is easy for media executives to say that they do not want their news outlets to engage in wall-to-wall coverage of politics and Trump for the next four years. But how that actually works in practice remains to be seen. Trump will certainly smash norms, seek to disfigure America’s institutions, and declare war on the truth. Will the press turn a blind eye to that type of conduct? And more importantly, should it? It’s hard to see how doing so would not be a grave error.

What can/should the news media be doing to call out lies and avoid both-sidings and whataboutism in this era of political polarization? I know that CNN has Daniel Dale but was wondering if there could be more done by the news media?

A lot more can be done. I think Daniel Dale is one of the most effective fact-checkers in the business, but CNN putting him on the air for two minutes after Trump unleashes a swarm of lies upon the public is not nearly enough to combat the toxic waste injected into the public discourse.

Trump is unlike any politician in modern American history. His dishonesty is unmatched and his willingness to operate in unethical ways cannot be overstated. Which is to say that traditional approaches to holding him accountable simply do not cut it.

So how should newsrooms approach Trump? There is a lot they can do. But, to start, they should abandon bothsidesism and stop elevating dishonest MAGA voices with their platforms, like CNN and the Los Angeles Times have done with Scott Jennings. They should use direct language when covering extremists and conspiracy theorists in government, describing these people and their actions in plain terms to the public. They should stop allowing Trump to abuse their platforms, by needlessly taking his remarks live and/or uncritically amplifying them to the public. They should be prepared when interviewing those who traffic in deceit. And, most importantly, they should not soften coverage and primarily worry about being offensive and/or alienating the right. The job of a newsroom is not to cater to the feelings of a political movement. It is to accurately describe the world as it is and write a strong first draft of history.

To be quite honest, I think Jeff Zucker’s CNN did an exemplary job covering Trump during the 2020 race. That’s not to say it was perfect, but it was fair and unafraid. Unfortunately, under new Warner Bros. Discovery ownership, the network — and most others — have shied away from similar hard-hitting reporting.

Why do some legitimate news stories get zero traction? A current example that comes to mind is the Trump transition team's use of private email servers. I'm sure you recall this was a huge deal when Hilary Clinton ran for president. I don't understand why the press is not running with this beyond a minor mention. Do they only pick a story like that up if they can get comments against it from lawmakers?

I’m not as knowledgeable about this story as I’d like to be (perhaps due to the lack of coverage you’re pointing out), but generally speaking, Trump is graded on a much different scale than others. It’s just the truth. He floods the zone and news outlets have to choose what to focus on, which means some stories don’t get as much coverage as they warrant. And, as I mentioned above, news bosses are really trying not to be the #Resistance, so they’re picking and choosing what to cover and some stories don’t make the cut.

It has been reported that there is a feud between ABC News anchors George Stephanopoulos and David Muir. I’m curious to know what you know about the dynamic between the two anchors and the impact it has on ABC News.

There certainly has been historic tension — to put it lightly — between the two anchors. That has resulted in headaches for the network’s bosses. But viewers may notice that, for the last few years, George Stephanopoulos has been absent during politics-focused special coverage, such as Election Night. Those duties now fall squarely to David Muir. Brian Stelter wrote a good primer on all of this back in 2021.

One of the things that drove me nuts this past year is the amount of time journalists of all media spend so much time devoted to breathlessly reporting top line poll results. My question is: Why?

Part of it is because news outlets crave something new to discuss. And, to be fair, poll numbers can be valuable indicators of the sate of the race. So I don’t want to dismiss their usefulness entirely. But I am also convinced a motivating factor is that chewing over polling data is perceived as non-partisan. Sometimes during the 2024 race it led to good news for Joe Biden. At other times, it led to good news for Donald Trump. News bosses love a story that feels balanced like that. And, instead of having to cover what the candidates were actually doing and saying, their journalists could cover the race while avoiding some of those pesky issues centered around lies, conspiracy theories, and political extremism.

When do you think digital advertising revenue will truly rival or surpass television advertising revenue?

Well, that is already happening. But if the question is about when digital advertising will be as lucrative for media companies as their linear businesses, I’m not sure that it ever will be. That’s the big problem for all these legacy companies. They need to find ways to supplant their linear revenue streams, which are deteriorating by the year, with other revenue streams. Remember, cable television channels in particular make the bulk of their money on carriage agreements with distributors, not through advertising. Meanwhile, on digital, Google and Meta dominate the advertising game. It all paints a bleak picture for these legacy media companies trying to transition to digital as the linear television business collapses. Digital subscriptions will help, but it’s still incredibly hard to fill the linear hole, especially in the short amount of time they’re operating within.

Will MSNBC be doing layoffs soon?

I’m not sure what is specifically in the cards for MSNBC. But, broadly speaking, early 2025 is shaping up to be a painful time for the news industry. A number of media outlets are slated to undergo layoffs.

Why does the mainstream media ignore the part of America far from the Acela Corridor and the Pacific Coast Highway known as "Flyover Country"?

There isn’t a single reason. Part of it is simply geography. Most journalists are based out of the Acela Corridor, so they personally see news and care about stories that impact the region. That is reflected in overall coverage. The other part of the equation is that New York, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Washington are the main centers of power. New York shapes business, Silicon Valley shapes technology, Hollywood shapes culture, and Washington shapes public policy. Which is why there tends to be an emphasis on those regions. All that said, as someone who grew up in Fresno, California, I do believe there are good and important stories elsewhere in the country that deserve more attention.

Bulletin Board