By Zach Weigel
Donald Trump is more than our president; he is also a king when it comes to publicity, thanks to years of basking in the public limelight, a lavish supply of money, and an undeniable aura of charisma. Since President Trump is a ratings king, the news media love to cover him. Because of this, CNN took it as a major slight when it was banned from a White House press briefing this week, because it feared losing the ability to cover a man who is a boon for business. Furthermore, some proclaim that barring CNN violates the freedom of press, but I’d like to advance the argument that it could actually be a good thing.
Originally, news media were born out of the need to hold politicians accountable through making their actions transparent and communicating their views to the public. Now, however, in an era of niche journalism that caters to specific viewers, many segments of the so-called Fourth Estate seemingly must balance accountability with profitability. In today’s world, a news outlet needs to make money above all else, and a popular way to do this is by crafting narratives that sell.
Interject this realism into the current political environment, and you can begin to see two factions of news coverage have developed: pro-Trump propagandists and anti-Trump critics. And while both factions still largely observe the norm of holding politicians accountable, it appears that the anti-Trump factionists adhere to exposing the truth more than the pro-Trump factionists, which broadcast “alternative facts” as truth.
One thing the two opposition factions do have in common is their motive to make a profit. However, the two factions go about it in different ways, either by objectively analyzing Trump or by subjectively choosing to see beyond the president’s apparent blunders, such as his recent false claim of having the biggest Electoral College margin in the modern era. Consequently, pro-Trump news outlets such as Breitbart and Fox News have curried the favor of the Trump administration, while the more critical anti-Trump news outlets such as CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have been dubbed “fake news.”
Perhaps most notably, CNN in particular has been ostracized by Trump. It has been one of his most ardent critics, but maybe CNN deserves the treatment it’s getting, at least if you look at things through the eyes of Trump.
In a way, it’s almost as if Trump is a bully and the anti-Trump news outlets are the annoying kids that keep pestering him, causing him to lash out. Could it be that by covering Trump all the time, these anti-Trump news outlets are riding the tiger, fearful to hop off of the beast and leave him alone? By this I mean to ponder, are the anti-Trump news sources driving Trump’s furious condemnation?
What if CNN and other anti-Trump news sources instead chose not to pester Trump by poking and prodding his every mistake? By now, we know that Trump is apt to proliferate erroneous information, so will it really work to keep blasting his blunders from a megaphone?
Rather, could CNN and the anti-Trump news outlets actually be doing Trump a disfavor by not allowing him to pick on them? Maybe, just maybe, the anti-Trump outlets could “starve the beast” in this case by ignoring his every move and choosing to cover other stories. I know it’s unlikely to happen, but to me it just seems like trying to cover Trump in a traditional way isn’t working for the anti-Trump faction.