Covering post-election Trump

Over the past few days, the media has struggled to figure out how to cover Donald Trump. He is the antithesis of a traditional candidate and rallied crowds by bashing America’s unofficial fourth branch. There is a delicate balance to be struck between excoriating the president elect – because it is so easy – and showing respect for the man who just achieved the greatest feat in American politics. There are deep divisions in this country, revealed by this election, and I can’t help but wonder whether the media has a responsibility to mend those wounds? Yesterday, I looked at the home pages of legacy media: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. Nearly every front-page story was about one of four things:

• Emotion (shock, fear, elation and protests)
• Unification (coverage of the speeches by Trump, Clinton and Obama and statements from other pols about working together)
• Analysis (election data, what happened?, why did the polls fail to predict the outcome?
• The future (policy changes, administration picks, legislative priorities, first 100 days)

The outlier, ABC News, prioritized pettiness and shock value with this story front and center, “President Obama’s Long History of Insulting Donald Trump.” Today’s lead story also goes for click-value, “The Moment Donald Trump, Family Knew He Won the Election” as opposed to the more gritty story that led every other homepage: Mike Pence leading the transition. 

Now that I’m in this class I have a heightened appreciation of the ways media narratives affect absorption of a story. I’m also much quicker to criticize when I feel like integrity is being compromised for the sake of a sensational story. After all, as we read in this piece, sensationalism=eyeballs/clicks=advertising dollars; it’s not a complicated connection.

There have been plenty of reactions from on both sides after the election. I understand that there’s a journalistic duty to report what’s happening, but I also feel like there is a journalistic duty to moderate the rhetoric and refrain from stoking already fiery emotions. Check out the following headlines that report the same thing – in drastically different tones:

Christie, Newly Demoted From Trump Transition Team, Faces Calls For His Impeachment (National Journal) vs. Pence to Take Over Christie’s Role Leading Trump Transition (New York Times)

Meet the potential Trump cabinet picks most likely to make liberals squirm (WaPo) vs. Trump Team Reviewing High-Level Cabinet Appointments (NBC News) 

There’s a lot of anxiety right now – CNN reported coping mechanisms this morning and WaPo noted that suicide hotline utilization is up. Whether these emotions are warranted is not the point. The point is that it’s there. There are ways of reporting the news that don’t promote anxiety and suspicion, ways that may help people to mend the rifts so brutally torn. Headlines might not be as jazzy, but it’s worth it for the sake of peace. That’s journalistic integrity.