The public doesn’t understand the risks of a Trump victory.
That’s the media’s fault
With democracy in the balance, the
press must relay the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a
Trump win
Thu 9 Nov 2023 06.11 EST
Whatever
doubts you may have about public-opinion polls, one recent example should not
be dismissed.
Yes, that poll – the one from Siena College and the New
York Times that sent chills down many a spine. It showed Donald
Trump winning the presidential election by significant margins
over Joe Biden in several swing states, the places most likely to decide the
presidential election next year.
The
poll, of course, is only one snapshot and it has been criticized, but it still
tells a cautionary tale – especially when paired with the certainty that Trump,
if elected, will quickly move toward making the United States an authoritarian
regime.
Add in
Biden’s low approval ratings, despite his accomplishments, and you come to an
unavoidable conclusion: the news media needs to do its job better.
The
press must get across to American citizens the crucial importance of this
election and the dangers of a Trump win. They don’t need to surrender their
journalistic independence to do so or be “in the tank” for Biden or anyone
else.
It’s
now clearer than ever that Trump, if elected, will use the federal government
to go after his political rivals and critics, even deploying the military
toward that end. His allies are hatching plans to invoke the Insurrection Act
on day one.
The US
then “would resemble a banana republic”, a University of Virginia law professor
told the Washington Post when it revealed these schemes. Almost as troubling,
two New York Times stories outlined Trump’s autocratic plans to put loyal
lawyers in key posts and limit the independence of federal agencies.
The
press generally is not doing an adequate job of communicating those realities.
Instead,
journalists have emphasized Joe Biden’s age and Trump’s “freewheeling” style.
They blame the public’s attitudes on “polarization”, as if they themselves have
no role. And, of course, they make the election about the horse race – rather
than what would happen a few lengths after the finish line.
Here’s
what must be hammered home: Trump cannot be re-elected if you want the United
States to be a place where elections decide outcomes, where voting rights
matter, and where politicians don’t baselessly prosecute their adversaries.
When
Americans do understand how politics affects their lives, they vote
accordingly. We have seen that play out with respect to abortion rights in
Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin and beyond. On that issue, voters clearly get that
well-established rights have been ripped away, and they have reacted with
force.
“Women
don’t want to die for Mike Johnson’s religious beliefs,” as Vanity Fair’s Molly
Jong-Fast said on MSNBC, referring to the theocratic House speaker.
Abortion
rights is a visceral issue. It’s personal and immediate.
Trump’s threats to
democracy? That’s a harder story to tell. Harder than “Joe Biden is old”.
Harder than: “Gosh, America is so polarized.”
Journalists
need to figure out a way to communicate it – clearly and memorably.
It was
great to see the digging that went into that Washington Post story about Trump
and his allies plotting a post-election power grab. But it was all too telling
to see this wording in its subhead: “Critics have called the ideas under
consideration dangerous and unconstitutional.”
So
others think it’s fine, right? That suggests that both sides have a valid point
of view on whether democracy matters.
Deploying
the military to crush protests is radical. So is putting your cronies and yes
men in charge of justice. These moves would sound a death knell for American
democracy. They are not just another illustration of Trump’s “brash”
personality.
We
need a lot more stories like the ones the Post and the Times did – not just in
these elite, paywalled outlets but on the nightly news, on cable TV, in local
newspapers and on radio broadcasts. We need a lot less pussyfooting in the
wording.
Every
news organization should be reporting on this with far more vigor – and
repetition – than they do about Biden being 80 years old.
It’s
the media’s responsibility to grab American voters by the lapels, not just to
nod to the topic politely from time to time.
Polls
can be wrong, and it’s foolish to overstate their importance, especially a year
away from the election, but if more citizens truly understood the stakes, there
would be no real contest between these candidates.
The
Guardian’s David Smith laid out the contrast: “Since Biden took office the US
economy has added a record 14m jobs while his list of legislative
accomplishments has earned comparisons with those of Franklin Roosevelt and
Lyndon Johnson … Trump, meanwhile, is facing 91 criminal indictments in
Atlanta, Miami, New York and Washington DC, some of which relate to an attempt
to overthrow the US government.”
So
what can the press do differently? Here are a few suggestions.
Report
more – much more – about what Trump would do, post-election. Ask voters
directly whether they are comfortable with those plans, and report on that.
Display these stories prominently, and then do it again soon.
Use
direct language, not couched in scaredy-cat false equivalence, about the
dangers of a second Trump presidency.
Pin down Republicans about
whether they support Trump’s lies and autocratic plans, as ABC News’s George
Stephanopoulos did in grilling the House majority leader Steve Scalise about
whether the 2020 election was stolen. He pushed relentlessly, finally saying:
“I just want an answer to the question, yes or no?” When Scalise kept
sidestepping, Stephanopoulos soon cut off the interview.
Those
ideas are just a start. Newsroom leaders should be getting their staffs
together to brainstorm how to do it. Right now.
With
the election less than a year away, there’s no time to waste in getting the
truth across.
