Donald Trump's alt-right problem

In last week’s interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump pointedly distanced himself from the alt-right. “I don't want to energize the group, and I disavow the group," he said. Steve Bannon, his chief strategist who many link to the alt-right movement, has no connections to this rogue fringe, according to the President-Elect. According to him, there is no evidence that Bannon is a racist or anti-Semite. If he were to see such evidence, he said, he would be willing to fire him. In addition, he invited reporters to present him with evidence to the contrary.

For Donald Trump, hosting a website that reports news through an alt-right lens is not enough to link Bannon with the movement. Neither is feeding stories that he knows will be devoured by its blievers. On the Media calls this Bannon’s Jekyll and Hyde strategy. On the Hyde side, Bannon uses Breitbart to whip readers into a frenzy. His story choices determine issues and mold narratives that are then parroted by other alt-right sites and if viral enough, receive mainstream media coverage. Bannon channels Jeckyll by using his non-profit, the Government Accountability Institute, to conduct research on his political adversaries. Bannon then takes this packaged – and politically convenient – research and hands it over to mainstream media investigative reporters. The stories achieve legacy media credibility while helping Bannon’s agenda.

But does this make him a racist, bigot, anti-Semite etc…? Like Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro says that there is no evidence that Bannon is. Instead, an alliance with the alt-right is convenient: “I think Steve’s a very, very power-hungry dude who’s willing to use anybody and anything in order to get ahead, and that includes making common cause with the racist, anti-Semitic alt-right.”

Donald Trump recognizes the power of the alt-right and the influence that Bannon has over this community. Even though alt-right leaders don’t consider Trump part of their movement (Richard Spencer for one), his winks and nods to the movement are not un-noticed. Spencer calls Trump the “first step” for their agenda.

Legacy media coverage of the alt-right has focused extensively on Bannon’s connections and implies guilt by association. Ben Shapiro and some guests on BBC’s World Have Your Say note that the alt-right has achieved mainstream recognition purely through heavy media coverage. Shapiro says that they are “mainstreaming” the alt-right and thus helping the group expand its tent; some people now think the alt-right means that you support Trump and disavow Paul Ryan. Hardly.

In this situation, what’s an editor to do? You’re damned if you do (increase exposure for alt-right) and damned if you don’t (you’ll be criticized for missing something important and accused of complicity by not exposing ugly beliefs). To what extent is guilt by association valid? (Read this)

This has parallels to how Americans are dealing with the election. Are Donald Trump supporters racists because they supported someone who made race-based judgments? Is Donald Trump responsible for the opinions and actions of his followers? The more time we spend talking about this brings more attention to these groups. Where’s the proper balance between reporting the news and glorification through media coverage? 

I wish I had an easy answer.