Of course he isn't the first president to have problems and disagreements with elements of the press. Newspapers and television stations are going to report on what's happening, their opinion writers and commentators are going to give their opinion about what's happening. Not all of what's reported is going to flatter the president. Opinions will be at variance with what comes out of the Oval Office. Analysts and economists will reach different conclusions. None of this new.
What is new is that Trump's style begs for attention. His constant tweeting, as well as the out-in-the-open disagreements and sometimes outright feuding give the media plenty of grist for their mills. And don't forget that media outlets are not charities or nonprofits, they are for-profit businesses that need to outshine their competitors in order to turn a profit. So if some "insider" leaks information that paints the president in a bad light, someone is going to publish it, especially if it fits what we see publicly.
Trump's view of everybody, not just the free press, is that they exist primarily to support him and his agenda (if one can call something as vague and changeable as his utterances an agenda). Judges are only legitimate if they confirm his decisions; Congressional Republicans are disloyal if they disagree with him or speak out against him; Congressional Democrats "hate America"; bipartisanship means both sides doing what he wants them to do. He thinks that the press should act as a cheerleader for him and his actions. Since they don't, and he equates what he wants with what is best for America, in his mind, the press is obviously the enemy.
I read a lot of news reports, from a lot of different sources. Other than overtly partisan outlets, virtually all articles that I have read since Trump declared his candidacy have been neutral. By neutral I don't mean that they don't contain negative information about Trump. Take for example the recent Congressional testimony by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. If a paper reported that Cohen claimed that Trump was a racist and a con man, was this a negative article? If it was reported that Jim Mattis resigned as Defense Secretary and put in his resignation latter that he had differences of opinion regarding defense policy with Trump, would that be a negative article? If CNN reports record stock valuations and record low unemployment is that positive reporting? No, these are all examples of reporting. What Trump wants isn't reporting, he wants puff pieces lauding his decisions and his historic this and record that.
Trump is very much a "if you're not for me, you're against me" kind of guy. Since the media isn't behaving the way he wants them to, they're his enemies. And since he fancies himself as the "people's president", protector of the working man, therefore they're the enemies of the people as well. Trump also recognizes, as someone who has had his own pre-political reputation enhanced by the media, that the media can damage his repudiation as well. To counteract this, he does what he does to anyone who crosses him: he attacks them and their credibility. And among his core supporters, it's worked.
But it's one thing to question the accuracy of reporting, even his constant refrain of "fake news" doesn't rise to the level of "dangerous".
Calling the free press, or anyone for that matter, an "enemy of the people" is dangerous. Despite his disingenuous explanation that he's only calling "fake news" (which apparently is everyone other than Fox) the enemy, he has so effectively labelled news media as traitorous that those covering Trump rallies are in danger of being assaulted (in fact a cameraman at a rally was recently assaulted). Characterizing anyone as a national enemy puts the men and women of the press in bodily danger. Trump's authoritarian impulses put the very idea of a free press in jeopardy.
No comments:
Post a Comment