Media Madness
In presidential politics, is "make believe news" better than "not enough news?"
I’m not much of a media basher. Journalists play a vital role in a democracy. Without them, there’d be no one to hold anyone in power to account. Which is precisely why Thomas Jefferson wrote this back in 1787:
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Still, this doesn’t mean I don’t smack my head at times over some of the bizarre decisions made by the media. Consider two recent moments in this year’s presidential election.
1. Kamala Harris: Not making enough news?
Ever since Kamala Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee, the press has been clamoring for her to do more interviews and unscripted appearances. So after spending spend her first month or two as a candidate picking a running mate, planning a convention, and preparing for a debate, Harris is finally doing what the media has been asking for.
In the past couple of weeks, she’s made multiple appearances on local media outlets around the country, answered questions at an event hosted by the National Association of Black Journalists, taped an appearance with a Spanish language radio host, and did a town hall style event with Oprah Winfrey.
All unscripted appearances. Exactly what the media wanted, right? Eh. Actually, the media’s response has been more along the lines of this report in Politico, with a headline reporting that “Harris refuses to veer off script.”
Kamala Harris largely stuck to her script during an interview Tuesday with a panel of National Association of Black Journalists members, carefully parrying questions about hot-button issues … though she spoke passionately at times about abortion rights and other policies, she did not break much ground.
Harris is giving interviews but not saying anything the media didn’t already know. So, yawn.
Compare Politico’s coverage of Harris at this event with its reporting on Trump’s appearance before the very same group six weeks earlier. Harris talked more about policy, which everyone claims they want to hear, but few people saw it in the news because she didn’t “veer off script.”
Trump, meanwhile, said less about policy but still made a ton of news because he was combative, criticized the journalists, and suggested to an audience of Blacks that Harris wasn’t really Black.
O.K., well, we already know the media is more likely to cover provocative news. But what happens when one candidate says something that is not only provocative, but is also demonstrably false and a load of utter nonsense?
2. Donald Trump: Thriving on make believe news
“They’re eating the dogs! They’re eating the cats!” Yes, this clip is from the debate nearly two weeks ago. And by now everyone knows that it’s a thoroughly debunked, made up story.
The Republican Mayor of Springfield, Rob Rue, had this to say about the rumors regarding Haitian migrants:
“It’s frustrating when national politicians, on the national stage, mischaracterize what is actually going on and misrepresent our community,”
The Republican Governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, said this:
“This is a piece of garbage that was simply not true. There’s no evidence of this at all.”
“I am saddened by how (Donald Trump, J.D. Vance) and others continue to repeat claims that lack evidence and disparage the legal migrants living in Springfield.”
And yet. Despite this criticism from fellow Republicans. Despite being told by city leaders that all the rumors were false. Despite bomb threats that have closed local schools and government buildings, and forced the cancellation of sporting events. Despite turning an entire city and the lives of thousands of legal residents upside down. Despite all this, Trump and Vance keep doubling down on the story.
And the media keeps covering it.
According to Vance, it’s acceptable to make up such stories in order to get the media to pay attention.
But pay attention to what? To a make believe story? Why?
3. Yes, why?
In the face of actual reality, why would Trump and Vance keep pushing this story? Because they want to keep it in the news.
On the surface, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Most normal politicians would see their poll numbers spiral downward after spouting such nonsense. But in today’s upside down political world, it actually sort of works for the Trump campaign. There are reasons they want to keep talking about it, despite knowing that it’s a made up story.
First of all, it’s about immigration. It doesn’t matter if not a single thing is true. If it’s in the news, it’s keeping the topic of immigration in the forefront of everyone’s mind. From this perspective, facts don’t matter, only headlines do. So if voters are thinking about immigration, Trump is winning.
Second, it’s keeping Harris out of the news. Think about what was happening in the race less than two weeks ago. Harris was gaining ground in the polls, she had positive momentum from a successful convention, and in the opinion of most viewers she had just demolished Trump in a debate.
What have we talked about since then? Not Harris’ debate performance. Not abortion or women’s rights. Not Harris’ economic platform. Not even her town hall with Oprah Winfrey.
Harris can’t break through in the news cycle because she isn’t being controversial or incendiary. She isn’t saying anything nearly as exciting as a lie about Haitian immigrants eating their neighbors’ pets in Springfield, Ohio. So the headlines are all about Trump. Harris’ momentum has stalled.
Here is how Jonathan Last aptly describes the situation:
Trump’s grand unified theory is that politics, like entertainment, is an attention economy. His strategy—always—is to dominate the news and make himself into the main character of every story …
It doesn’t matter what the issue, or context, is. Trump wants it to be about Trump. He believes that if he owns the spotlight—even if it is a very unflattering spotlight—then he can maneuver and find angles …
In Trump’s mind, you cannot win just by dominating the conversation. But you cannot win unless you dominate the conversation.
But, but, it’s all a lie, you sputter. Presidential candidates just can’t go around lying about everything, can they? Well, maybe some of them can. Here is Last, again:
People seem to think that the Springfield story is bad for Trump because it is predicated on a lie.
This is incorrect.
The Springfield story is good for Trump because it is predicated on a lie …
Because it’s a lie the story can’t end. It swirls (and) gathers strength. The media and local governments try to debunk it. Lots of people believe it anyway. The narrative progresses to trying to get Trump and Vance to admit that they’re lying. They refuse; or equivocate. And there is no advantageous angle for the Harris campaign to take.
The thing is, everyone knows that Trump lies. And makes things up. And is outrageous. It’s already baked into his vote. In fact, one study showed that fact-checking his false statements just makes some of his supporters double down and believe them even more strongly. So, unlike most other politicians, lying doesn’t seem to hurt Trump.
But it does keep him in the headlines. And it keeps Harris out of them. If voters aren’t going to penalize you for lying, well, that’s sort of a win-win, right?
In this respect, then, “make believe news” does beat “not enough news.”
4. Media Madness
The whole thing feels like a form of media madness. Some unreal form of alternate political reality.
I mean, sure, the media should fact check the story. Give it a day or two of coverage if you need to, but when you find out there’s no basis for the rumors maybe you should move on? Because if it’s really all make believe, why are you covering it?
We all know the answer. The media is covering the story because it’s controversial, because it’s incendiary. From their perspective, if Harris won’t “veer off script” and Trump will — well heck, we need viewers and readers. So we’ll cover the Trump story even if we know it’s all a bag of lies.
So yes, we need the media. Without the media our democracy — or any democracy — wouldn’t survive. But then again, with this media our democracy might not survive either.