Herb Strentz was dean of the Drake School of Journalism from 1975 to 1988 and professor there until retirement in 2004. He was executive secretary of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council from its founding in 1976 to 2000.
To illustrate problems with the news coverage of the 2024 presidential campaign, this essay begins with a comparison and ends with a contrast.
First, the comparison:
Much of the news coverage of this year’s presidential race can be likened to stewards on the Titanic arranging the deck chairs in 1912 so passengers could get a better view of icebergs.
Every election, the press says it strives for fair and balanced coverage of the candidates and the issues. So, the thinking goes, coverage of previous elections is a good model for this election.
For their part, the Titanic stewards handled routine responsibilities in the 1912 maiden voyage just as they had done on other ships, but they had no way of grasping the danger ahead.
Today’s news coverage should not be oblivious to what lies ahead. Whereas 1,517 of the 2,240 passengers and crew on the Titanic perished, millions of people are now at risk.
There’s only one side to the 2024 election: Donald Trump is not fit to be president. Other issues pale before that reality.
Yet in an apparent effort to appear “balanced,” most mainstream media news coverage offers contrasting views of the candidates on, say, the economy, climate change, border security, or other issues that have been salient in past elections. Those reports rarely clarify that presidents are unable to deliver on most campaign pledges without the support of Congress or approval by the judiciary.
Similarly, this year’s televised debates between presidential and vice presidential candidates have followed longstanding media conventions. With no good way to handle lying, debate moderators have rarely intervened to point out false statements, lest they be accused of being unfair to one side.
Nevertheless, MAGA supporters were outraged about how the moderators treated Trump and his running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio. In fact, Vance inaccurately complained during his debate with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.”
But this year, the candidates’ stands on various issues are almost irrelevant when it comes the damage Trump has already done to the country, and what he has vowed to do if returned to the White House.
NO “BOTH SIDES” TO A FALSEHOOD
Attempts to provide “fair and balanced” news coverage of the campaigns cannot cope with the continuing lies by Trump and Vance.
Courier Newsroom, a digital news operation that describes itself as a “pro-democracy news network,” recently highlighted this problem. (Courier’s benefactors include major Democratic donors such as George Soros, who is often demonized by Trump and his MAGA or Christian Nationalist followers.)
Courier’s editorial put it this way:
Donald Trump has consistently used the legacy media’s obsession with so-called “both sides” coverage and the quest for “balance” in election reporting. He knows that this approach falls apart in the face of his relentless lying.
There are no “both sides” to a falsehood. Yet, when the legacy media covers Trump, they often end up amplifying his conspiracies by [downplaying] his rants …to maintain the illusion of balanced reporting and protect their profits and ratings.
Robert Reich, who served in the Ford and Carter administrations and was secretary of labor in in the Clinton administration, put it bluntly in a commentary last year: “the media’s ‘balance’ is killing democracy.”
LESSONS FROM THE PANDEMIC
The U.S. president wields significant power and global influence, with many opportunities for executive action and a pulpit to preach to the world. Others have looked to us for leadership, and we’ve offered it even when they don’t ask. It’s scary to think of putting that power back in Trump’s hands.
He would not be a loose cannon in the White House; he’d be more like a loose nuclear bomb thrower.
Consider his role in the COVID-19 pandemic, a crisis without obvious political overtones, which called for a leader anchored in facts.
Over several months in 2020, then President Trump declared at least 38 times that the novel coronavirus would “just disappear” or was already disappearing.
To compound that fantasy, Trump used his White House pulpit to encourage those concerned about COVID to take the unproven treatment of the anti-malarial drug Hydroxycholoroquine. He said the drug could be “one of the biggest game-changers in the history of medicine.” He also assured worriers: “What do you have to lose? Take it.”
Nearly 17,000 deaths, including 12,000 in the U.S., were linked to the drug Trump hyped, due to its adverse effects on some patients. It was indeed a “game-changer” for those who had something to lose because “clinical trials showed hydroxychloroquine led to serious heart problems in some people, did not effectively treat COVID [and] did not prevent infection with the virus that causes COVID-19.”
Notably, Trump did not recommend the drug to Russian President Vladmir Putin. But in the early months of the pandemic, when COVID tests were scarce, the U.S. president sent nineteen testing kits to Putin.
Bob Woodward revealed that previously unknown shipment in his new book, War. The Trump campaign initially denied the Abbott test kits were sent to Russia, but that was another lie. The Kremlin confirmed what Woodward reported.
THE TRUMAN-TRUMP CONTRAST
Trump’s rampant lying, and the way his supporters (including top Iowa Republicans) accept or amplify the falsehoods, underscores another flaw in today’s “fair and balanced” reporting.
As you consider issues that may affect your vote, you may have specific concerns about some policies. But while we may be able to guess many of the issues, threats, and dangers the next president will confront, the coming four years will inevitably bring some unexpected and alarming developments.
Facing an uncertain future, we want trustworthy people in charge. We need honest people who will listen to others, and even some who may question the president’s plans or decisions.
How well will the next U.S. president weigh advice from those who are better-informed? For Trump that’s a dumb question. No matter the issue, he does not acknowledge any subject matter expert knows as much as he does.
Here’s a contrast to wrap up this essay.
Nowadays, the huckster billionaire Trump—perhaps the richest person ever to be president—has endless things other than Hydroxycholoroquine to peddle. His Trump-branded goods (watches, perfume, sneakers, Bibles, and so on) are literally for sale. Former President Barack Obama recently ridiculed Trump’s “constant attempts to sell you stuff. Who does that?”
Harry Truman is ranked as the poorest U.S. president, having spent most of his life in financial turmoil. Yet, as he began his retirement, Truman rejected invitations to serve on various corporate boards at salaries in the range of $50,000 or more a year (almost $600,000 today). In effect, he told those making such offers: “You don’t want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.”
That contrast is another reason there is one central issue in the 2024 campaign: Trump is unfit to be president.