🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Can journalists fulfill their vital role in a free society when that freedom itself might be at risk and when democracy itself may also be in danger? That question is at the heart of today's fights over proper media coverage and the answers to this dilemma are much more elusive than simply demanding, as many on the left seem to be doing, that the media unyieldingly announce that Donald Trump is a menace and that he must not be allowed to reside in the White House ever again. Although we think that proposition is obvious, many Americans do not, and we believe the media has not yet quite figured out how to properly cover that dangerous and quite real dilemma.
Truth and facts are under nightly siege across major media outlets supporting Donald Trump, such as Fox News. The consequence is journalism is failing us as legacy media outlets shy away from labeling Donald Trump's rhetoric as racist, sexist, or, most alarmingly, neo-fascist and anti-democratic as many Americans believe it to be. There are also no shortage of essays and op-eds that do not favor Trump but are extremely critical of Kamala Harris.
The critical reaction goes beyond political pundits and social media folks yelling invectives at each other. Kevin Kruse, a Princeton historian, recently bragged publicly about the cancellation of his subscription to The New York Times over its coverage of the election. Entire books have been written by journalists devoted to the difficulties of covering current politics and the alleged failure of the media to do its job properly. All of this despite the fact that the Times, for example, has unequivocally called for Trump to lose and routinely publishes opinion pieces that are highly critical of him.
However, we often see the framing of stories that cover Trump's lies and misdeeds take a tone that is less critical than we believe is deserved. For example, his lies are rarely called lies, they're "mistruths," and his clearly racist and sexist rhetoric is a "race attack," or a "crude sexual remark." Words and labels matter. Lies are lies and bigotry is bigotry. Meanwhile, opinion pieces that are exceptionally kind to Trump or that call for his reelection are routinely published.
At the same time, the media continues to churn out coverage that is critical of Kamala Harris. We are not arguing the media should treat Harris differently than any other candidate, but we do think it would be helpful for those outlets that unequivocally called for Harris to win to remind readers more often that her victory is the entity's bottom line.
The tendency of major media companies to pull their punches when it comes to Trump and to platform those who support him has numerous causes. The often-underappreciated driver is the traditional quest by good-faith journalists to report the news of the day as fairly and objectively as possible.
While we think the media is subject to fair criticism over its reluctance to more vigorously report on Donald Trump's incompetence and utter lack of moral compass, we also acknowledge that reporters and their employers are in a difficult situation given that the Republican Party consists of tens of millions of loyal Trump supporters.
What are responsible journalists to do when roughly half of America's voters favor Donald Trump? Is it clear that major media outlets should tell over 70,000,000 people that they are voting for evil? Such a position reflects a fair bit of arrogance, even if we and even the journalists themselves think it is true.
The challenges are especially difficult when it comes to covering Trump's anti-democratic actions and threats. By not overtly and incessantly calling out Trump's attacks on the foundations of our democracy as an existential threat to the nation, the media effectively normalizes behavior that we should all condemn. This misleads the public and provides cover for those seeking to undermine democratic institutions. It may also lead to a vacuum often filled by more extreme voices at both ends of the political spectrum. Remarks like Trump saying he will be a dictator on day one and he will punish his enemies simply are not business as usual statements, but they always seem to rapidly fade away as Trump says his next outrageous lie or threat.
How to improve media coverage of our politics is not a simple question, but it begins by acknowledging the problem is difficult and the solutions unclear. We need a frank discussion about the media's quest for fairness to the millions of Americans who do not view Trump as the threat many believe him to be. Simply hoping the Times, CNN, and The Washington Post report only Trump's failings and never frame his actions in the light the political right sees them is too extreme and dangerous.
A free press is not just free from government intervention, but also from the fear of alienating 70,000,000 million Americans when the media entity believes them to be in the wrong. Our democracy depends on newspapers and other media outlets willing to report the news plainly, which in the current environment often requires a rethinking that all issues should be covered from the vantage point of both sides.
Eric Segall is the Ashe Family chair professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law.
Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
