Journalistic Ethics and the Reporting of the U.S. Election Campaign

Source: Paul Krugman, in The New York Times, July 18

Edited version.

When Donald Trump began his run for the White House, many people treated it as a joke. Nothing he has done or said since makes him look better. On the contrary, his policy ignorance has become even more striking, his positions more extreme, the flaws in his character more obvious, and he has repeatedly demonstrated a level of contempt for the truth that is unprecedented in American politics.

Yet while most polls suggest that he’s running behind in the general election, the margin isn’t overwhelming, and there’s still a real chance that he might win. How is that possible? Part of the answer, I’d argue, is that voters don’t fully appreciate his awfulness. And the reason is that too much of the news media still can’t break with bothsidesism – the almost pathological determination to portray politicians and their programs as being equally good or equally bad, no matter how ludicrous that pretense becomes.

Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that distorted news coverage is the whole story, that nobody would support Trumpism if the media were doing their job. The presumptive Republican nominee wouldn’t have gotten this far if he weren’t tapping into some deep resentments. Furthermore, America is a deeply divided country, at least in its political life, and the great majority of Republicans will support their party’s nominee no matter what. Still, the fact is that voters who don’t have the time or inclination to do their own research, who get their news analysis from TV or regular news pages, are fed a daily diet of false equivalence….

And Mr. Trump is far from being the only current political figure who benefits from the determination to find balance where none exists. Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, has a reputation as a policy wonk, committed to fiscal responsibility, that is utterly incomprehensible if you look at the slapdash, fundamentally dishonest policy documents he actually puts out. But the cult of balance requires that someone on the Republican side be portrayed as a serious, honest fiscal expert, so Mr. Ryan gets slotted into that role no matter how much a con man he may be in reality.

Still, there are con men, and then there are con men. You might think that Donald Trump, who lies so much that fact-checkers have a hard time keeping up, who keeps repeating falsehoods even after they’ve been proved wrong, and who combines all of this with a general level of thuggishness aimed in part at the press, would be too much even for the balance cultists to excuse.

But you would be wrong.

To be fair, some reporters and news organizations try to point out Trump statements that are false, frightening, or both. All too often, however, they still try to maintain their treasured balance by devoting equal time – and, as far as readers and viewers can tell, equal or greater passion – to denouncing far less important misstatements from Hillary Clinton. In fact, surveys show that Mrs. Clinton has, overall, received much more negative coverage than her opponent.

And in the last few days we’ve seen a spectacular demonstration of bothsidesism in action: an op-ed article from the incoming and outgoing heads of the White House Correspondents’ Association, with the headline “Trump, Clinton both threaten free press.” How so? Well, Mr. Trump has selectively banned news organizations he considers hostile; he has also, although the op-ed didn’t mention it, attacked both those organizations and individual reporters, and refused to condemn supporters who, for example, have harassed reporters with anti-Semitic insults.

Meanwhile, while Mrs. Clinton hasn’t done any of these things, and has a staff that readily responds to fact-checking questions, she doesn’t like to hold press conferences. Equivalence!

Stung by criticism, the authors of the op-ed issued a statement denying that they had engaged in “false equivalency” – I guess saying that the candidates are acting “similarly” doesn’t mean saying that they are acting similarly. And they once again refused to indicate which candidate was behaving worse.

As I said, bothsidesism isn’t new, and it has always been an evasion of responsibility. But taking the position that “both sides do it” now, in the face of this campaign and this candidate, is an act of mind-boggling irresponsibility.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Journalistic Ethics and the Reporting of the U.S. Election Campaign

  1. King Townsend

    Please read the deeply relevant article “Trump’s Boswell Speaks” in the New Yorker (July 25) in which Jane Mayer reports in detail Tony Schwartz’s relationship with Trump during and after his stint as ghost-writer (actually writer) of The Art of the Deal and the chagrin he now feels for his involvement.

  2. mike holliday

    A journalistic desire for fair coverage can benefit those with a weaker argument or policy, but it would be very dangerous if journalists presented the facts as they viewed them and did not report statements they considered to be wrong.
    The danger from journalists (and their bosses) determining what people should be told, is obvious.
    We know already, from our own observations, that some news organisations have taken that very slippery slope.
    Paul Kruger himself demonstrates that in this article, for he ignores the very obvious elephant in the room.
    Rupert Murdoch’s news outlets are partisan to the point of propaganda. In Murdochworld Trump’s statements do not get critical analysis and Clinton’s every word and action is poked over and pulled at for real or imagined discrepancies.
    Rupert Murdoch is the enemy of democracy – in the US where he now resides; in the UK where he has media outlets with massive reach and in the country of his birth, Australia, where he has near monopolistic coverage.
    In those countries where Murdoch – once known as `1The Dirty Digger’ has comprehensive media power, the politics and the direction of the country has been subverted and distorted.
    Get used to it America. Your cherished institutions have been white anted.
    (NOTE: White ants are Australian termites that burrow into timber structures and eats them out from within. In the worst cases the building resident finds out about them only when the roof falls in.