Morning Reading - "Truth-Telling In The Public Interest"

This column by Margaret Sullivan, media writer at the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle, should be required reading for all reporters covering the 2016 election -- starting with those at the Bezos Bugle:

Fairness is of utmost importance, no doubt, whether the reporting is on Trump, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. But what, exactly, does it mean in campaign coverage? It should mean keeping an open mind, not bringing preconceived ideas to one’s reporting, and listening seriously to candidates’ explanations. 

It should never mean false equivalency, where equal time and emphasis are given to candidates or dissembling is allowed to go unchallenged. In fact, this perceived need to push for “fairness” for Trump — as if he has been mistreated or put at a disadvantage — baffles me. Trump gets far more media attention than other candidates, if only because he says such outrageous things, commanding the daily news cycle over and over. 

News outlets ought to rethink the purpose of their campaign coverage. It’s not to be equally nice to all candidates. It’s to provide Americans with the hard information they need to decide who is fit to lead the country.  [snip]

Rather than promoting the same treatment for each candidate, how about this: rigorous and sustained truth-telling in the public’s interest. Citizens deserve some fairness, too.

It’s time for tough follow-up questions, time for TV news to pick up on some of the hard-hitting reporting being done elsewhere, and maybe — radical notion alert! — it’s even time for news organizations to get together and prepare to defend themselves. 

That won’t come naturally to these highly competitive outfits, but given the assault on press rights that surely would come with a Trump presidency, strength in numbers is a far better idea than providing even-handed, non-confrontational coverage.

We're highly skeptical that the corporate media -- especially broadcast and cable "news" -- will forego the lure of Trump- fed ratings, combined with their fear of offending the offensive, to provide "truth- telling in the public interest."   With the exception of a few recent examples of backbone, they seem far more likely to continue the "non-confrontational" approach when it comes to Trump (but not, of course, when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her "scandals" nothing-burgers!).  After all, "both sides!"  Not to mention "not authentic!"

Tellingly, though, Sullivan ultimately attempts to rouse news organizations into "truth- telling" not by an appeal to journalistic standards or their  sense of moral outrage at Trumps's neo- fascism, but by warning them that a Trump presidency would come with an "assault on press rights."  Always best to appeal to their craven interest rather than the public interest when dealing with the corporate media!

BONUS:  Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog shows how another media critic (at the New York Effing Times, no less!) conflates Trump the showman with Trump the neo- fascist pol.