By Berl Falbaum
If you follow politics, I am going to make a wild guess that you are aware that CNN gave Donald Trump more than a free hour of prime time for a "Republican Town Hall" meeting.
I am confident you heard more than you wanted from the mainstream media how CNN violated responsible journalism and, basically, is picking up where the fired Fox News right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson left off.
The media was awash in criticizing CNN, lambasting the network for its abrogation of responsible journalism; the breast-beating was endless. My chest hurt just reading the condemnations.
Now, it's not that I disagree with the criticism, but what the media are missing-intentionally or not-is that they were complicit in violating what they described as hallowed journalistic principles. To explain:
Why did they cover the broadcast? If they believed Trump was onerous, lying, repetitious, etc., which he was, why not ignore the event?
But they would reply: He is the leading candidate to win the Republican nomination for president, and recent polls show him beating Joe Biden in a head-to-head matchup.
The problem with that argument: That's exactly what CNN said in defending its decision to air the town hall meeting.
Which leads us to a "what if?," admittedly a huge, huge "what if?"
What if 20-30 of the largest media organizations had met before the broadcast and agreed to black out all coverage, they would not publish anything.
Or they would watch the broadcast but only report on it if Trump said something "new" and was "truthful?"
There was nothing novel in Trump lying that he won the 2020 election, or stating that January 6 was a "beautiful" day, or that he refused to criticize Putin.
Surely, they would be able to work out criteria on which to make their decision and, most important, it would not be the first time the media censored themselves in reporting on presidential politics. Two cases in point:
(1) The media never ran a photo of FDR in his wheelchair, cropping photos at his waist. Indeed, that was wrong because the public was entitled to information about the president's health.
(2) They did not report on JFK's serious illnesses nor that he was taking medications that could impair/affect his decision-making.
They also did not publish articles on his womanizing even though he had affairs which endangered national security. (He had a liaison with the girlfriend of a Mafia boss and, reportedly, a German spy.)
The media was wrong in this instance as well.
When I covered the Detroit City Hall, I frequently did not report on press conferences I covered for a variety of reasons: the press conference was staged for publicity; the "news" had been reported previously; it was not newsworthy, etc.
In the eight years of Donald Trump, I have written hundreds of thousands of words on Trump, including publishing a 500-page book. But about two to three years ago, while I still discussed Trumpism, I have not said a word about Trump himself.
I suddenly realized it was all too repetitious. How many times and in how many ways can you write that Trump is a demagogue, a swindler, a pathological liar, a narcissist's narcissist, a sexual predator, a man who stokes hate, racism, anti-Semitism or, to paraphrase New York Times Columnist Charles Blow, that he is a disgusting human being.
If the media felt compelled to report on the town hall meeting, how about a brief three-paragraph story, stating that the former president repeated his constant lies, i.e., he won the 2020 election; denied even knowing E. Jean Carroll who accused him of rape, etc.
What was new that we learned about Trump from the town hall? Exactly!
True, the media, at times, have to give morally and legally compromised public officials coverage and publicity to inform the public of their views. But, I think, after eight years and trillions of words, we know who Trump is and what he stands for.
Basically, the media are repeating the same mistakes they made in the 2015-16 campaign. Studies reported that the media, in effect, gave Trump $3 billion worth of advertising with its coverage.
Surveys reported that the CNN town hall was watched by a little more than three million people. The coverage was consumed by tens of millions of Americans. Somewhere in Mar-a-Lago, Trump is dancing on a table top. What's more, even the debate on the merits of the CNN broadcast, gave Trump valuable PR.
Of course, I understand the difficult complexities involved in making decisions on what to cover. The point is that we are in a "new normal" and the media need "new" journalistic principles in the interest of defending our democracy. No one is suggesting to ignore him. But we need a more sophisticated media approach.
This issue will not go away. As we move toward a full-blown presidential campaign, the media will cover debates, press conferences, interviews, etc.-that will require "new" and fresh thinking. They would be well advised to have in-depth conversations on what needs to be fixed and how to do so.
Meanwhile, they can take a collective first baby-step: Never again publish Trump brandishing the Big Lie that he won the 2020 election.
–––––––
Berl Falbaum is a veteran political columnist and author of 12 books.
