The media’s capitulation to Trump has done irreversible damage
Through intimidation and the smashing of precedents, Trump is trying to turn the legacy press into his lap dogs. So far, it’s working.
As political journalists gather in Washington this weekend to toast themselves and their profession at the annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner, the state of American media - and a free press - could not be more in jeopardy. In his second term, Donald Trump has shown us that he is a leader who will stop at nothing to strong-arm and sideline reporters and media outlets whose coverage he disagrees with. As you all have seen with your own eyes, Trump and his team have made shocking moves to punish those in the media who do not cave to his every whim. In response, many corporate-owned legacy outlets have met this challenge with either acquiescence or outright capitulation.
The most recent example of this coming from 60 Minutes’ Executive Producer Bill Owens (who I worked with at the start of my journalism career at 60 Minutes nearly 18 years ago) when he announced earlier this week that he was resigning because he would no longer “be able to make independent decisions” about the longstanding program’s reporting. What Owens didn’t say explicitly but that has been reported widely since is the increasing pressure he and his team have been under from CBS parent company Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone. Redstone is reportedly eager to settle a lawsuit brought against 60 Minutes by Trump in order to secure the administration’s approval for a multibillion-dollar sale of Paramount to Skydance. This story is unfortunately not the first of corporate media executives publicly capitulating to this aggressively anti-press administration - and it won’t be the last.
This cowardly and greed-driven capitulation has already done irreversible damage to the media industry and Americans’ ability to access factual information about the actions of this administration. It has created an even bigger pending disaster for our democracy. Let me explain.
Capitulation
In response to overt threats from Team Trump, many in the mainstream press have responded with outright capitulation. Some have made small or trivial efforts at appeasement, like deciding to use the White House’s chosen, highly politicized vocabulary. Other examples are far more serious:
The corporate owners of major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post have signaled to the administration that their editorial pages will be Trump-friendly.
At least one major TV news network literally paid off their new overlords, forking over millions of dollars in contributions to Trump’s Presidential Library out of fear of reprisal.
Some legacy outlets, like the Post, have actually had conversations about how to fill their news reporting teams with more MAGA-friendly journalists.
The country’s largest newspaper chain, Gannett, recently scrubbed its website of all mentions of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
You can’t make this stuff up. Every time the corporate media - or any part of civil society - preemptively yields to Trump’s demands in these ways, the President is given new power to overstep new boundaries.
Command and control
Coming off an election in which social media influencers and podcasters played a pivotal role in their campaign’s victory, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on day one that she would be opening up the White House briefing room to “new media voices.” At face value, it was a smart, common-sense move - Americans increasingly receive news and information from non-traditional sources, and the White House should engage those outlets and influencers. In practice, this announcement was a backdoor way for the Trump White House to fill the briefing room with friendly, pro-MAGA voices. Most occupants of Leavitt’s “new media seat” in the briefing room have been administration allies or conservative content creators, feeding Trump’s team softball questions and positive social engagement online.
Another example of the White House’s push to dominate the traditional press is their ending of the White House Correspondent Association’s control over pool access. Historically, the WHCA selects a rotating group of members to cover the president as a “pooler” during small, closed events. By taking over the selection of the presidential press pool, Trump’s team has given privileged, exclusive access to historic events to fringe right-wing media figures. This was on full display in March, when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s boyfriend, a reporter for far-right Real America’s Voice, was called on to ask a question of Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. His “question” was just a snarky, anti-Zelensky remark meant to reinforce the White House’s hostility to the Ukrainian leader.
How did the White House Correspondent’s Association react to this move? They issued a sternly-worded statement. Oh, and they also cancelled their planned comedic talent for the WHCD this weekend, Amber Ruffin, presumably not to upset the King, err - President.
Then, just last week, the New York Times reported that the White House wants Congress to slash funding for public broadcasting, putting millions of dollars for PBS and NPR in jeopardy. This has been a dream of right-wing politicians for decades, and it appears that Trump may actually be the one to make it happen.
Taken in aggregate, these moves have unfortunately and irreversibly established a precedent that any future President could follow. After all, why would a political communications team not want to seize the opportunity to select their own press corps? Why not use friendly questioning to reinforce their talking points?
Irrelevance
All of this is happening at a time when these mainstream outlets are becoming less relevant to most Americans’ daily lives. The majority of paying subscribers to the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times likely have a college degree and probably vote for Democrats. Gannett’s network of local newspapers implement fierce paywalls, making their reporting inaccessible to the vast majority of Americans. In the relentless pursuit of monthly subscription revenue, these corporate-owned media giants are leaving millions of Americans behind.
For the press to truly support and defend the democratic precedents they care so much about, they should first recognize their own blind spots and understand how they’ve lost so many people who no longer consume traditional news.
Winning back Americans’ trust, restoring democratic norms, and building new, lasting precedents requires reaching beyond the mainstream media’s elite audiences. It means explaining what’s happening clearly and fearlessly, in simple terms, on platforms where Americans spend their time. And it means transparently standing up for the right thing and confronting power, no matter the stakes or the consequences.
Day in and day out, we’re doing this at COURIER. Our 100+ staff, reporters, and local and national news creators are fearlessly covering the Trump administration, localizing its impacts, and working to increase civic engagement in this country. Our coverage always puts our values front and center, and our growing audience of 6.5 million followers and subscribers follows us because they want our team’s unique perspective on what’s happening.
In order for legacy corporate media outlets to make it through the next three years with some semblance of independence, they will have to show the kind of courage and solidarity we are starting to see from others under similar threats from this administration. They will need to upend conventional business models, distribution channels, and even editorial postures - and lawyer up. If they don’t put up a bold fight, right now, for a free and independent press in America, they are not only surrendering their industry, but our democracy. And very soon, it will be too late.
- Tara
What I’m reading this week:
Now comes the ‘womanosphere’: the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican (The Guardian, 4/24)
“There are the beginnings of an organized effort to create a similar alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences – one of the few demographics that has, until now, leaned substantially Democratic.”
The Trump regime should be covered as a criminal enterprise (Press Watch, 4/22)
“And yet news articles that routinely inform us about Trump’s individual acts, and the ensuing court battles, treat each like a one-off. They describe them as controversial, sure, and sometimes quote critics calling them illegal. But they don’t explain how so much of what he’s doing is illegal that it’s basically his standard operating procedure.”
They Criticized Musk on X. Then Their Reach Collapsed. (NYT, 4/23)
“The New York Times found three users on X who feuded with Mr. Musk in December only to see their reach on the social platform practically vanish overnight. The accounts are the starkest signs yet that Mr. Musk or others at the company have the power to punish critics and that they may be willing to use it, startling free speech advocates who hoped that the billionaire would be their champion.”
Is There a Better Way to Fight Misinformation? (Psychology Today, 4/21)
“Instead of directly countering an inaccurate statement about a topic that someone feels negatively about, you provide a positive and truthful statement on the same topic.”
Judge halts shutdown of Voice of America (Politico, 4/22)
“U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said the administration’s rush to dismantle the VOA and related news organizations funded by the U.S. Agency for Global Media resulted in the suspension of hundreds of journalists and employees. It put some overseas correspondents at risk of being deported to their home countries, the judge noted. And Lamberth said the silencing of VOA — for the first time in 80 years — also deprived hundreds of millions of listeners of a reliable source of news in parts of the world that lack a free press.”
White House Correspondents’ Weekend: In Trump 2.0, The Parties Continue, But The Dinner Will Be Very Different (Deadline, 4/23)
“Instead, the dinner at the Washington Hilton looks to reflect the moment — which is to say a state of anxiety for journalism in general, with the Trump administration not just bucking tradition but doing its utmost to undermine traditional media.”