‘Trump Said A Thing’ Journalism Must Stop

from the feature-not-a-bug dept

One obvious byproduct of letting what’s left of U.S. journalism consolidate in the hands of a bunch of giant corporations is the end result winds up being a feckless mess. Generally corporations don’t want to upset advertisers, ownership (usually Conservative, white, and male), event sponsors, or potential advertising targets, so their journalism winds up being hollow, performative, and toothless.

One end result of this is something I affectionately call “CEO said a thing!” journalism, which kind of looks like journalism, but generally involves mindlessly parroting whatever a wealthy executive (or politician) says without context, correction, or even third-party objective analysis.

You’ll endlessly see this in corporate press coverage of corporations and tech. But it’s more generally reflected in their coverage of all rich men. Especially guys like Elon Musk or Donald Trump, who have found it incredibly easy to manipulate what’s left of our press into parroting every brain fart they have, regardless of whether there’s any useful new information or meaningful tether to factual reality.

This has been on particularly proud display when it comes to Trump and his unpopular and pointless war in Iran, with each week bringing a new headline of a plan that doesn’t exist, a pivot that never happened, or a strategy that isn’t coherent — or even real. The U.S. press, with occasional refreshing exception, endlessly just repeats whatever Trump says, regardless of whether what he’s saying is useful, real, or true.

Media critic Dan Froomkin has it right when he calls for a moratorium on “Trump says” headlines where every statement by our mad idiot king is mindlessly repeated without context or correction:

“It’s simple: Newsroom leaders should ban headlines based on what Trump says if there is legitimate reason to suspect that he may not be relating truthful, accurate, and durable information.

I’m only a tiny bit more tolerant of the Trump “claims”, “maintains”, “blames”, and “insists” headlines, but at least those impart an iota of doubt.”

The problem is this has been going on for generations. We’re more than ten years into Trump authoritarianism and propaganda. There’s no more room for giving meaningful credence to the idea that newsrooms and top editors are doing this simply because they don’t know any better.

They do this because corporate consolidated media isn’t interested in truth-telling journalism, they’re interesting in journalistic simulacrum and infotainment kayfabe that props up the interests and values of the extraction class. The public interest, hard-nosed journalism, and a properly informed electorate is the last thing on these gentlemen’s minds.

This isn’t some funny accident and it’s not subtle. Republicans and most rich white men are treated with kid gloves by 75% of the U.S. press because the corporations that own what’s left of these companies don’t want to rock the boat. They want their latest giant shitty merger approved. Their ownership likes tax cuts. Journalism that tells the truth isn’t what they’re here for.

Froomkin remains hopeful all the same:

“Surely our top newsroom leaders don’t see themselves as being in the business of spreading disinformation. But that’s what happens when they use the headlines and the tops of their articles to tell us what “Trump says” without caveats or pushback — when their headlines and leads should instead be devoted primarily to those caveats and pushbacks.”

Froomkin is right, though I’d argue this isn’t something that a compelling letter to the editor can fix. This sort of abject cowardice is systemic and by design. And while there’s still great journalism that can occur at many modern media companies, it’s increasingly becoming the exception, not the rule. We’re not debating our way out of this. The fix is massive structural reform.

The fixes are obvious and have always been there, and they involve things large media company owners don’t like: like reforged media consolidation limits, real antitrust enforcement, media ownership diversity requirements, improved media literacy and education standards (an informed audience that demands more of our journalistic institutions can shape coverage), a restoration of U.S. public media, and creative new funding models for real independent, worker-owned (and inevitably unionized) journalism.

We’re way past the point where we can assume this isn’t intentional, or can believe that simply asking better of these companies will result in the outcomes we’re all looking for.

Filed Under: ceo said a thing, consolidation, dan froomkin, donald trump, journalism, media, reporting