Tony Karon
Tony Karon is an instructor in the New School’s Graduate Program in International Affairs. He was previously a Senior Editor at TIME magazine and Editorial Director of Al Jazeera America’s digital news operation.
NEW
YORK – US President Donald Trump’s administration has shocked the
mainstream press by bullying news outlets and unabashedly trafficking in
“alternative facts” (also known as lies). But Trump’s challenge to the
media status quo may not be an entirely bad thing: journalists
now have an opportunity to root out the bad habits associated with
cozying up to those in power.
Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, drew gasps recently when he told the New York Times
that the news media represent “the opposition party.” Bannon may have
wanted to disorient his interlocutors, but he also inadvertently
reminded them of the adversarial role they are meant to play. In a
healthy democracy, the press helps citizens hold the government
accountable, by vigorously interrogating official policies and behavior.
Unfortunately, it has
been decades since America had that kind of news media. Instead, the
press has allowed multiple presidential administrations to spoon-feed it
information. News organizations in the United States have prioritized
access to the corridors of power above all else, even when access is
conditioned on avoiding uncomfortable questions or accepting evasive
answers.
When “access
journalism” leads senior editorial decision-makers to identify with
political elites, explaining the government’s thinking to the public
becomes their primary purpose. Combine that with cuts to news budgets,
and political coverage becomes a mere endless cycle of sound bites from
politicians and their surrogates – not unlike a dedicated sports channel
covering a football season.
Even the more
meticulously factual media outlets have, in recent decades, confined
their coverage to a narrow range of topics that tend to confirm the
political establishment’s self-serving narratives. Because they had
exposed themselves only to elite perspectives, members of the mainstream
media were initially blindsided by the fact that many Americans who had
previously voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 either stayed home
or voted for Trump in 2016.
But no calamity
better captures the dangers of a press corps too beholden to power than
the invasion of Iraq, a cataclysmic blunder whose ghastly knock-on
effects afflict the Middle East, as well as Europe, to this day. In the
lead-up to the invasion, George W. Bush’s administration assiduously
courted journalists at mainstream liberal and conservative news outlets,
who then helped it win public support by disseminating what turned out
to be false claims about weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
In the US, the only
mainstream media organization that ran consistently skeptical articles
about the case for war was the Knight Ridder group (which has since been
acquired by McClatchy). As reporters Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay
later explained,
their middle-tier news service was not granted top-level access, so
they had to rely on sources from inside the intelligence community, who
forthrightly pointed out the flaws in the Bush administration’s claims.
Journalistic truth telling thrives when there is no need to nurture
access.
The Trump
administration is already shutting the door on some media mainstays,
with CNN the most prominent example. Trump’s media handlers may be
hoping that they can demand compliance as a condition for renewing
access. But this should liberate shunned media outlets. Having lost
direct access to senior officials, they can now focus strictly on
holding the administration to account.
To take this high road, media outlets will need to rethink longstanding editorial models. Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler,
for his part, recently called on his peers to cover the Trump
administration no differently than they would an authoritarian
government abroad. “Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official
access,” Adler wrote in a letter to the Reuters staff. “They were never
all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and
we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources.”
Trump hopes to
control the national conversation; and he need not worry that his
mendacity will alienate his supporters, because they already believe
that the “liberal” media detest them and the president they elected.
But, while we should commend the New York Times for describing
the administration’s palpably false statements as lies, we should also
draw attention to important unlearned lessons of the Times’ abysmal record in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Taking the Bush administration at its word about WMD, for which the Times later apologized,
was only part of the media’s failure in that debacle. News outlets not
only allowed the administration to marshal questionable facts to justify
the invasion; they also permitted officials to attach undue significance to those facts, with no questions asked.
It is worth
remembering that Germany and France concurred with the Bush
administration’s factual claims about Iraqi weapons, but vigorously
opposed the invasion, because they believed that the consequences would
pose a larger threat than Saddam Hussein ever could. They have since
been vindicated. Even if US forces had found stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons in Iraq, history would not judge the war any less
harshly.
Bannon’s “opposition”
remark should serve as a reminder of this recent history. To defend
American democracy against the threat of authoritarian populism, media
outlets must not stop at vigorously challenging Trump’s “alternative
facts.” They must tell a different story, based on observations,
investigations, and critical assessments of claims made by both
Republicans and Democrats in power.
The real story, as
2016 showed, is often playing out in places to which the media is paying
no attention. Adler instructed his staff to, “Get out into the country
and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and
hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not
to us.” Journalists should not fear being on the wrong side of power. On
the contrary, that is exactly where they belong.
No comments:
Post a Comment