Thereās No Reason to Turn Airtime Over to Trumpās Deceptive Coronavirus Campaign Rallies
By Julie HollarĀ –Ā April 13, 2020
After the 2016 election, many journalists (e.g.,Ā New York Times,Ā 3/27/16) lamented their role in elevating Donald Trump to victory by handing himĀ billions of dollars of free publicity, in exchange for theĀ ratings and clicksĀ his outrageous rhetoric and behavior generated for them. And yet they will never learn their lesson: Despite weeks ofĀ open discussionĀ about Donald Trumpās daily briefings serving as little more thanĀ campaign ralliesĀ full ofĀ harmful misinformation, television networks continue to broadcast them live (now with some cut-aways and factchecking), and some reporters continue to cover the tension as just another partisan battle with no clear right or wrong.
For weeks now, Trump has been seizing on the Covid-19 crisis gripping the nation and the world as an opportunity to snag free air time. The primetime briefings have been a campaign bonanza for Trump: Democratic nominee-apparent Joe Biden had 13 media appearances from March 14ā28, according to his campaign (The Hill,Ā 4/3/20), reaching a total of some 20 million people. Trumpās briefings during that time had an averageĀ dailyĀ audience of 8.5 million (New York Times,Ā 3/25/20)āand thatās not even counting his other media appearances.
Airing the presidentās briefings about an unprecedented crisis at first made sense, but it very quickly became apparent to some of the more clear-headed observers that Trumpās errors, lies and self-aggrandizement were not, in fact, newsworthy. Pundits like Margaret Sullivan (Washington Post,Ā 3/21/20), Rachel Maddow (MSNBC,Ā 3/20/20) and James Fallows (Atlantic,Ā 3/20/20) began calling for networks to stop airing the briefings live, while others clung to the fantasy that limiting Trumpās airtime would be ācensorshipā (Chicago Tribune,Ā 3/30/20; seeĀ FAIR.org,Ā 3/31/20).
But move away from the opinion columns, and too many journalists have fallen back on the safety of ābalance.ā AĀ New York TimesĀ piece (3/25/20) about the coverage offered a perfectlyĀ Timesian on-the-one-hand-on-the-other headline: āTrumpās Briefings Are a Ratings Hit. Should Networks Cover Them Live?,ā followed by the subhead: āThe presidentās viewership has rivaled the audiences for hit reality shows and prime-time football. But some worry about misinformation.ā
RELATD CONTENT: These Photos Show the Staggering Food Bank Lines Across America
At theĀ Washington PostĀ (4/10/20), Amber Phillips even went so far as to give readers a pros and cons list of whether Trump should continue his briefings. (The first pro: āItās a way for him to project that heās in control of the crisis.ā)
Timeās Tessa Berenson (3/30/20) gave a master class in how not to cover a journalistic dilemma, under the headline, āāHeās Walking the Tightrope.ā How Donald Trump Is Getting Out His Message on Coronavirus.ā Berenson wrote that the briefings, which she acknowledged āhave become his new rallies,ā appear to have given Trump a polling boost.
She explained: āSome experts say thatās because Trump has found the right balance between the competing demands of the public health crisis and a spiraling economy.ā Which experts, exactly? Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who told Berenson, āHeās walking the tightrope, but so far so good.ā And, later, Matt Benyon, identified as āa former communications adviser to Rick Santorumās presidential campaigns.ā Note that part of how Trump is getting out his message is byĀ TimeĀ letting a Republican spin doctor write its headlines.
CNNĀ andĀ MSNBCĀ have seemed to settle on a policy of airing the briefings, but cutting away at times from Trumpās monologues, and to offer some after-the-factĀ factchecking. But there is no reasonāother than a desire for ratings, or aĀ seriously misguidedĀ understanding of what journalism isāto continue to give Trump airtime for his briefings, factchecked or not. Not every presidential utterance is inherently newsworthy; naturally the actions of the powerful have impact, but reporters can cover that impact without handing Trump the mic.
As theĀ Washington Postās Erik Wemple (4/8/20) pointed out, factcheckers canāt possibly keep up with unspinning all the lies and distortions Trump disgorges in his typically lengthy briefings; asĀ Politifactās editor told Wemple, if they tried to do that, they wouldnāt be able to factcheck anything else.
Yet Wemple draws from this an impossible conclusion: āThe only response is to work harder.ā
The real response here ought to be clear: If the powerful are spreading life-threatening lies, do not freely give them a huge platform to reach more people with those lies. By offering Trump live airtime for his coronavirus briefings-cum-campaign rallies (and by covering that decision with a shrug), media repeat the same mistakes of election 2016āwith even more harmful consequences.
