Keeping media honest in time of Trump

When President Trump said he would order all federal government agencies to cancel their subscriptions to the Washington Post and the New York Times, I chuckled softly to myself. 

For all his longing to be a dictator, Trump’s only hope of hurting the press is to cancel his subscriptions.  

How much he must envy his autocratic friends in China and Russia who actually own the media. He can only watch with disdain as the major newspapers print article after article about him, often repeating his own mindless messaging. 

Instead of hurting, the major media outlets are profiting from Trump’s chaotic presidency. Trump’s nature is so corrosive and corrupt that he practically spoon-feeds the media their stories. The owners of these companies hope beyond hope that Trump survives to fight a second term (but let’s not go there). 

This creates an interesting symbiosis between a polarizing president and the media. For networks like Fox News, Trump’s biggest cheerleader, the relationship is borderline corrupt. Their most popular host, Sean Hannity, is practically an advisor to the current president. If there was such a thing as state-owned media, or at least one owned by Trump, Fox News would be it. 

For other networks, like CNN and MSNBC, the relationship is entirely adversarial. Watching Anderson Cooper, host of CNN’s flagship show, is like watching a prosecutor in a courtroom with Trump continually on trial. By the time Cooper has completed his one-minute long questions, there’s really nothing left for his interviewee to say. 

This is in part why the public has become so polarized. There’s a lack of neutrality in the news. People watch the news channel whose viewpoint they agree with, where their worldview gets reaffirmed over and over again. And the news hosts, those “super tough” interrogators, become the star attractions. 

While most journalists in Canada tend not to become celebrities (alas, not even Peter Mansbridge), they’re still at risk of sounding biased. Educated, non-religious and often holding liberal values, most can’t relate to a significant portion of the population.  

 To offer a recent example, last week the Alberta finance minister was asked by a Toronto-based news host why he supported cuts to programs for the disabled while at the same time cutting the corporate tax rate. He explained quite clearly why they made this decision, yet was asked again and again the same question. It became obvious the interviewer didn’t appreciate his response.  

To be clear, cutting programs for the disabled never sounds good and should be questioned, but this was one small part of a budget that cut almost every aspect of government spending to reign in a significant deficit. Her repeated questioning sounded more like an attack from the official opposition than that of a neutral journalist. 

These subtle interactions may not sound like much, but they have the impact of turning many people off. In the Trump era, it’s understandable that journalists, more than ever, want to correct falsehoods and shine a light on the truth. But there’s a delicate balance of asking the hard questions while at the same time letting people speak their view. If the person being interviewed sounds disingenuous, let others say so. Leave that to the columnists and panelists (and bloggers), who can be as biased as they want. 

As bold and righteous as some journalists may feel, there remains a need to keep even Trump interested in reading what they have to say. 

Or, in the case of this president, watching what they have to say.