How should the press cover a presumable Trump-Biden presidential rematch? More pointedly, how should it cover Donald Trump?
The history that precedes that question is well known. In 2015-16 the media, having discovered that Mr. Trump was a walking talking ratings bump and being honestly fascinated by his rise, turned the airwaves over to him knowing he couldn’t win. He won. In a great cringe of remorse and ideological horror, many did penance by joining the “resistance.” The result: Mr. Trump wasn’t stopped—he got a whole new fundraising stream out of “fake news”—but journalism’s reputation was drastically harmed.
George Packer, in a December 2023 piece in the Atlantic, noted that 58% of Republicans now say they have no trust in the news media. “If half the country believes most of what the mainstream media report and the other half thinks it’s mostly lies, this isn’t a partial win for journalists.” Their purpose isn’t to be the opposition but “to give the public information it needs to exercise democratic power.” Mr. Trump made American media more like him: “solipsistic (foreign reporting nearly disappeared), divisive, and self-righteous.”
Many in media are reflecting on how exactly to cover 2024, the question seemingly made more urgent by the decisions of MSNBC and CNN to forgo live coverage of Mr. Trump’s victory speech in Iowa. That deprived viewers of legitimate information while reinforcing the networks’ reputation for anti-Trump bias.
Here we take a stab at what kind of coverage might help the country.
A first and guiding principle: The temperature will be high throughout 2024; some fear actual political violence. So if you can’t make things cooler, don’t deliberately make them hotter. This will require a new and heavier emphasis on evenhanded coverage. Will everyone in America appreciate it? No. People are so used to seeing bias that they imagine it when it isn’t there, and Trump supporters label as biased any coverage that isn’t fawning. But it would be a boon to the country and the profession to do it, and some will notice. So do it.
Second, know where you are. Former Washington Post editor Marty Baron told NPR in December that journalists must earn back public trust. “Make the assumption that people won’t believe a word we say, and then say, OK, here’s the evidence.” Much of the 2024 news cycle will revolve around court cases. “We need to lay out the evidence,” Mr. Baron said. “If we’re talking about a court document, we need to show that court document.” Annotate it to show on what sections interpretations are based.
Third, he who fact-checks A must fact-check B. A fact-check that persuades isn’t “Trump here is lying because he’s a lying liar who lies.” Both candidates lie, or at least mislead. You might say Mr. Trump lies more. Fine, his fact check will be longer. But when Joe Biden says his policy on illegal immigration hasn’t contributed to the border problem, that needs a serious, detailed, nonpartisan fact check.
If either candidate says something interesting and important in a rally or speech, show it. Show as much as you can that captures the tone and feel of these events. If Mr. Biden isn’t holding them, that’s a story, get it. Don’t use Mr. Trump to get ratings if he proves to be still a ratings magnet. Don’t manufacture your own showy rally for him to enhance your reputation for fairness. That was the CNN mistake last May. But do have sit-down interviews with Mr. Trump, and make them tough. If he insists on specific terms—that, say, he be addressed throughout the interview as “Your Highness”—it is your responsibility to refuse the terms, tell your audience exactly what he demanded, and why you took a pass.
If Mr. Trump has a bad moment on the trail, show it. It’s not bias, it’s news. If he goes wild in a rally and promises death for his foes, show it. If Mr. Biden has a bad moment, if he voices some rambly disconnected aria and has to be saved by the Secret Service from walking off the stage into the orchestra pit, show it. It isn’t your job to protect him.
Demand interviews with Mr. Biden, who gets away with not sitting for long grillings. His own staffers have so little confidence in his ability to withstand scrutiny that they’re not allowing him to do the traditional softball Super Bowl interview. In an election year, with a hundred million watching. What a story. Why has it been played down? Who made the decision?
Two other items specific to 2024 itself. Mr. Baron warned that newsrooms aren’t ready for the impact of wholly believable but fake video, audio and images that come from artificial intelligence. Newsrooms should be setting up dedicated units to catch, verify and immediately report AI abuses. The first newsroom to dominate that space will become a boon to its owners and institution.
Also, newsrooms are going to have to make big and consequential decisions on coverage of third party candidacies. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., No Labels—someone is going to start to get substantial ballot access, and that is a potential game-changer for the 2024 outcome.
Finally, this week Mark Halperin, in a meeting on his video platform, 2WAY, asked veteran journalists what guidance they’d give regarding 2024 best practices. They said: Calm down and dig, no one needs your florid disapproval, they need information.
The writer Todd Purdum, a New York Times veteran, said: “There’s way too much heavy breathing in the daily coverage of Trump in the so-called mainstream media, and to me the tone of, ‘In another goddamn outrage Donald Trump today did—.’ I just think, tell me what he did, let me decide what to make of it. Don’t lean so heavily on the pedal to tell me with loaded phrases and words how dastardly and disastrous this is, let me discern that myself.”
Jill Abramson, a former editor of the Times, saw great stories to be reported that would broaden public understanding. The press should be “driving the point home how incredibly influential Trump has been in what he’s doing in real time. He’s getting rid of Ronna McDaniel, he’s trying to get rid of Mitch McConnell, which could succeed, he did blow up [the immigration bill].” He’s a driving force in what’s happening, it’s a big story. On Mr. Biden: “People are writing that he’s quote-unquote laying low right now, and that may be tactical but it also could be physical.” Dig, find out.
I would add that Susie Wiles, a top Trump campaign adviser, is right now the most important woman in American politics. Who is she, in a deep way? What drives her? What does her rise foretell?
The answer to how to play the 2024 story, and to refute a reputation for bias, isn’t to “ease off criticism” or “pull punches.” It’s to dig. It’s to get off the company Slack channel, grab your jacket, go out and get the story. The country will benefit. People will respect it. And it will make reporters what they really want to be and should be: dangerous.