Why is Trump coverage so feeble?

I have been struggling for a week now to put my finger on why and how the mainstream media’s coverage of Donald Trump’s second term has been so disastrously feeble and insufficient.

What is it missing?

And I finally came to this conclusion:

You simply cannot cover Trump’s second term accurately and responsibly if you are not willing to situate his acts as part of a terrifying descent into authoritarianism, racism, and cruelty.

And the mainstream political media – for a variety of reasons — is not willing to do anything of the kind.

Instead of explaining what’s really going on, therefore, they are just telling you what happened – and with Trump, that’s really only a small part of the picture.

Rather than speaking truth to power, they have become stenographers with amnesia, hiding the truth through the use of anodyne adjectives, convoluted phrasing and buried leads.

In some cases they have been explicitly muzzled — told by their bosses to “be forward-thinking and to avoid pre-judging Trump,” as CNN chief Mark Thompson told his staff, according to Oliver Darcy.

In some cases, it’s all internalized; they’re so into being “above the fray” that they’re unwilling to render judgments that might alienate Trump and his voters and subject them to accusations of having “taken sides.”

But for whatever reason, by failing to properly situate Trump’s individual acts, they effectively play down the significance of what he is doing. They normalize it.

Let’s Be Clear

Most of what Trump is doing is coming right out of the authoritarian playbook.

Journalists, I should note, were given any number of heads-ups about this, including a particularly excellent guide called “The Authoritarian Playbook” published by Protect Democracy in June 2022.

It was explicitly intended for reporters to help them “contextualize and cover authoritarian threats as distinct from politics-as-usual.” It broke the playbook down to seven key points:

• Politicizing Independent Institutions
• Spreading Disinformation
• Aggrandizing Executive Power
• Quashing Dissent
• Marginalizing Vulnerable Communities
• Corrupting Elections
• Stoking Violence

Sound familiar? I would say that covers most of what Trump is doing — with a little virulent racism, personal retribution, and gratuitous cruelty added to the mix.

It’s not hard to see. It shouldn’t be hard to explain.

A Brief Moment of Outrage

Frankly, I’d like to see more than just better explanations in the mainstream media news coverage of Trump. I’d like to see some outrage in the institutional voice.

I think Trump’s authoritarian moves are blatant attacks on long-held American values and should be called out as such in news articles, not just in opinion pieces.

My view is that if you’re writing about outrageous things without a tone of outrage, you’re actually narcotizing your readers. You’re part of the problem.

I see opinion writers like the Washington Post’s Philip Bump (here and here) and Ruth Marcus (here and here) and the New York Times’s Jamelle Bouie and Michelle Goldberg writing opinion pieces that I think would work fine as news analyses – while the news analyses are full of understatement and obfuscation.

The only reason I’m not advocating more vociferously for a more outraged tone is that I realize our corporate media overlords have less than zero interest in being seen as moving to the left. Quite the contrary.

So I’m focusing on simply asking them to put things in context.

What We Get Instead

Instead, what we get is bland, flat reporting about the outrageous thing that Trump just did, without much if any pushback in the institutional voice — maybe with a quote from a “critic” several paragraphs in.

The requisite pushback could come in something as simple as a lesson in civics, or in American history.

For instance, I find it particularly galling when, in articles like this one about Trump moving to eradicate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, there’s no explanation of why those programs exist in the first place, or why Trump is so opposed to them.

Every article written about Trump’s blitzkrieg against DEI should have at least a short section explaining in the institution’s own voice why these programs were needed and how  diversity is valuable. Not doing that is journalistic malpractice. And I haven’t seen anyone do it.

When Trump actually revoked a key program from 1965 intended to limit segregation, the Washington Post called it “a move that scholars underscored as a historic turning point.” But a turn to what? And why attribute such an uncontroversial statement to “scholars”?

In fact, what’s needed is the use of much stronger words, like racism and segregation. It’s manifestly obvious to me that as Joshua Holland posted on social media, “People who rail against DEI are segregationists” and that as Akilah Hughes posted on social media, “DEI only existed because white people were racist.”

Why shouldn’t a news article explain that?

The Most Recent Whiff

Late Friday night, Trump illegally fired more than a dozen inspectors general – a brazen move to pave the way for corruption, incompetence and abuse of power in federal agencies. (And right out of the authoritarian playbook.)

Inspectors general, who report to both their agency heads and Congress, are intended to be independent, nonpartisan officials who prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse.

“IGs are the best articulation of the theory of checks and balances that our government is based on,” Danielle Brian, the head of the Project on Government Oversight, explained to me. “Firing IGs makes it far easier for corruption and the abuse of power because you don’t have that check anymore.”

And the message to federal employees is clear. “It’s the most chilling action I’ve seen so far,” she said. “Who would want to be a whistleblower under these circumstances?”

But the mainstream-media coverage didn’t really explain that.

The New York Times simply cast the firing as “the latest wave of abrupt upheavals following the inauguration of Mr. Trump that have put the government in increasing confusion.”

The Washington Post called the removals “one of many first-week actions that have shown Trump’s willingness to purge the federal government of dozens of leaders — both career officials and those who are politically appointed — he views as disloyal to his agenda.”

(A New York Times follow-up story on Monday quoted one of the fired IGs saying “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government.”)

As it happens, in one of the few attempts to Trump-proof the executive branch, Congress in 2022 required the president to give it 30 days’ notice of any intent to fire a Senate-confirmed inspector general. So it’s not even clear that the firings are legal.

A group of inspectors general is pushing back, challenging the firings, and some House Democrats have urged Trump to “withdraw your unlawful action.”

“It is axiomatic that corrupt governments eliminate those responsible for policing corruption,” Creighton University law professor Michael J. Kelly wrote on Saturday. “Absent independent institutional whistleblowers, a significant check on power is now missing.”

This is an ongoing story that deserves more coverage and way more context.

Frames Matter

In a New York Times article initially headlined “Trump Asserts a Muscular Vision of Presidential Power as He Takes Over,” Charlie Savage wrote about how Trump has “asserted a muscular vision of presidential power” with “new claims of sweeping and inherent constitutional clout.”

With that one cowardly bit of word choice, Savage undermined his entire article. Gil Duran, co-founder of the Framelab newsletter, beautifully explained:

This headline from the New York Times applies a metaphor of physical strength and dominance – “muscular vision” – to our political system. The verb “asserts” then adds even more muscle to the frame. The headline also frames power as something Trump “takes.” All of it adds up to an image of Trump using physical power to dominate the political system…

The headline does not hint at… the threat Trump poses to the Constitution, democracy, and the very idea of law. It does not mention checks and balances or democratic accountability. Instead, it portrays governance as an act of pure force.

Such language gives Trump an advantage. It promotes his preferred frame of personal power. Further, it portrays him as a strongman flexing his “muscle,” asserting his dominance over American democracy. “Strong” is exactly how Trump wishes to be seen.

This “muscular” metaphorical framework aligns with the “strict father” model of moral politics. In this model, authority flows from strength. The president becomes a strongman, not a public servant. He is the ultimate authority – a leader who does what he pleases regardless of what anyone else thinks.

The Understatement. It Hurts

Even in their ostensibly tougher news stories, our top political reporters pull their punches – especially in what’s called the “nut graf,” – where the main thrust of the article is summarized. .

The Associated Press, for instance, ran a troubling article about how would-be government employees are facing loyalty tests that include being asked to describe their moment of “MAGA revelation.”

But consider this sad little nut graf:

The intense screening has led some federal workers to question whether Trump’s team cares more about loyalty than competence. There is concern that his team is ousting foreign policy and national security diplomats and others who could offer the administration expertise and institutional knowledge at a time of conflict worldwide. (my italics)

One New York Times story about Kash Patel blandly concluded that “Mr. Patel’s pattern of peddling misinformation is at sharp odds with Mr. Trump’s proposal to put him in charge of the nation’s premier agency charged with figuring out what is true.”

The master of understatement, however, is the Washington Post’s “chief correspondent” Dan Balz, who authored a big news analysis on Sunday headlined: ”Trump shocks the system. Will he solve problems voters care about most?”

Gee, that’s a tough question.

His lead paragraph was a master class in saying nothing:

For President Donald Trump, the first week of his second term was everything he had promised, with multiple attacks on executive agencies, undocumented immigrants, perceived enemies and other obstacles. It was, however, only Week 1 of a four-year term and far too early for him to hang up any banner proclaiming mission accomplished.

The article was full of weak word choices. He described Trump’s extreme, destructive, and cruel acts as “audacious.”

Imagine summarizing Trump’s DEI vendetta this way:

Getting rid of DEI offices and personnel will cheer his most loyal supporters and hurt a federal workforce in a nation becoming more ethnically diverse. It won’t necessarily help families struggling to pay bills. (My italics)

There was a hint of toughness buried in the 13^th paragraph:

His effort to claim extraordinary executive powers, however, threatens the independence of the congressional branch and the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He is operating as an all-powerful prime minister in a parliamentary system. Others would say he is trying to act as an authoritarian strongman. (My italics)

“Others would say” is an instant classic of enfeebled journalism, if you ask me. But more to the point: If you’re going to write a paragraph like that, how can you justify not putting it in the lead? I just shake my head.

Peter Baker’s Deceptive Toughness

Some of the more strongly-worded analyses about Trump have come from — of all people – the New York Times’s Peter Baker, the Great Normalizer of Trump I.

But even those articles dramatically understate the full scope of what Trump is doing

A Baker article headlined ”’The Return of the King’: Trump Embraces Trappings of the Throne” appropriately concluded that Trump’s “return to the White House has been as much a coronation as an inauguration, a reflection of his own view of power and the fear it has instilled in his adversaries.”

Baker continued:

His inaugural events have been suffused with regal themes. In his Inaugural Address, he claimed that when a gunman opened fire on him last summer, he “was saved by God to make America great again,” an echo of the divine right of kings. He invoked the imperialist phrase “manifest destiny,” declared that he would unilaterally rename mountains and seas as he sees fit and even claimed the right to take over territory belonging to other nations.

Good stuff. But you also need to explain to readers what’s wrong with that, rather than assuming they know. Here’s how Baker explained it:

The prospect of a king in America has always been a sensitive issue. After breaking off from Britain, the framers were determined to avoid even what one delegate to the Constitutional Convention called the “fetus of monarchy.” George Washington cemented that view by making sure he was called “Mr. President,” not some version of “your majesty,” and stepping aside after eight years. (My italics)

A “sensitive issue”???

It’s core to the country’s history and existence as a democratic republic.

Another Baker story – ”’People Will Be Shocked’: Trump Tests the Boundaries of the Presidency” – may seem tough at first glance, with Baker writing about Trump engaging in “norm-shattering, democracy-testing assertions of personal power that defy the courts, the Congress and the ethical lines that constrained past presidents.”

There’s even a particularly strong “critics say” 10^th paragraph:

“The theme of this week was vengeance and retribution when all other presidents have used their inaugurations to heal wounds, bring people together and focus on the future,” said Lindsay M. Chervinsky, executive director of the George Washington Presidential Library and the author of several books on the presidency. “That sounds like a norm, but it’s actually fundamental to the survival of the republic.”

But when Baker, as he is wont to do, reports as if he were inside Trump’s head, he is actually sympathetic.

Trump, in this telling, is not a cruel racist who craves absolute power, he is simply someone who “has never been too impressed with the argument that he should or should not do something because that is the way it has previously been done.” And he is now “more prepared and more determined to crash through obstacles and any supposed ‘deep state’ that gets in his way.”

So in the end, he lets Trump off the hook almost entirely.

It Can Be Done

They are hardly profiles in courage, but let me end by citing two news articles about Trump that were actually pretty good.

Here’s a Los Angeles Times article by Kevin Rector headlined “Trump talks ‘free speech’ while moving to muzzle those he disagrees with”.

It follows a familiar format: Reporting on what Trump did, followed by what the critics say. But in this case, the article is mostly about what the critics say – and that’s reflected in the headline.

Here’s that story’s nut graf:

However, many others said they found Trump’s order absurd — both because of his long track record of attacking speech he doesn’t like, and because of his new administration’s simultaneous efforts to muzzle people it disagrees with, including journalists, federal health officials, teachers, diplomats, climate scientists and the LGBTQ+ community.

This Washington Post article by Steve Thompson, Emma Uber and Dana Munro also did a nice job of tracing back one particularly toxic administration move – a directive to federal prosecutors to investigate and potentially prosecute state and local officials who don’t cooperate with mass deportation efforts – to its malign source: the extremist anti-immigration group America First Legal, founded by top Trump advisor Stephen Miller.

Here’s the thing: I believe our top political journalists know full well what is going on, and would actually like to explain it properly to their readers and viewers. They just haven’t figured out a way to do it yet.

Two ways, as exemplified by the two articles mentioned above, are to focus on the criticism, rather than the initial act, and to trace the origin of various Trump actions to their vile, authoritarian, and Christian nationalist sources.

But beyond that, our political journalists need to find a way to get over the view that putting what Trump is doing in its full context is somehow “taking sides” in a partisan political battle. Yes, it’s “taking sides” – but it’s taking sides for the truth. It’s taking side for an informed electorate. It’s taking sides for journalism.