Donald Trump and the media: a look back and a look ahead to the next four years

What a week.

Donald Trump completed one of the most improbable comebacks in U.S. political history, shaking off a loss in the 2020 presidential election to regain the White House with a decisive victory over Kamala Harris.

Trump is one of the most polarizing, confounding and controversial figures our nation has ever seen. His unorthodox political style started a movement that, clearly, has resonated with at least half of the country. He has controlled the Republican Party for the past nine years and has now won the White House twice, despite running campaigns and doing and saying things that, at any other time in our history, would disqualify him from being taken seriously to lead a nation. Some of that includes a relentless barrage of attacks on his enemies, which includes the press.

It’s that style, as well as a constantly evolving media landscape, that has left the journalism world continually reviewing how it has covered Trump and how it should cover him in the future. And it asks these questions while wondering if Trump will follow through on many of the threats he has made against the press.

So I reached out to analysts and experts in the media world to get their take on how the press has covered Trump and what to expect over the next four years while Trump is the president.

Here is what they told me.

What role did the press have (or not have) in the 2024 election results? Were Trump and Harris covered accurately?

Longtime media reporter and former Washington Post staff Paul Farhi:

I’m no longer sure what “the press” is, and what speakers mean when they refer to it. Is it The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, USA Today? Yes. Is it The Atlantic, NPR, PBS, BBC and The Associated Press? Yes again. Is it a thousand local newspapers? OK. Talk radio? Well … Podcasts? Umm … TikTok, X and social media? Now hold on there! But all have “influence” and all contributed to the “news” of the day and the public perceptions thereof.

I think this gets even more complicated when you slice and dice what any news organization is. People like to say CNN (or The Washington Post or whatever) is biased or unfair. But what they really mean is, “I didn’t like what Scott Jennings said on the panel last night or what Jennifer Rubin said in her column this morning.” So the precision gets lost.

Do I think the relatively small number of beat reporters adequately covered the issues of this campaign? Sure. You can find solid reporting on virtually any aspect of the campaign with a few clicks (you can also find lots of lousy reporting, too). But that’s an infinitesimal part of the info-stream these days, and not how anyone gets the information that shapes their perceptions and votes.

Eric Deggans, TV critic of NPR and longtime media analyst:

I know there are a lot of people who will quibble with how mainstream news outlets covered Harris and Trump, alleging a double standard. I do think traditional news media have always struggled with covering Trump’s dysfunction and how to be honest about his extremism while remaining fair. I also think there was plenty of reporting across loads of news outlets to give the public a clear notion of who he is.

But there is an increasingly powerful alternative news structure, with Fox News at the center, dedicated to explaining away most criticism of Trump, overly criticizing his political enemies and supporting conservative causes. I sat on a journalism panel last year and said the biggest challenge mainstream media hasn’t faced is that there are millions of Americans who do not believe what we report, even when we get it right. And now, I’m afraid that dynamic has affected a presidential election in ways we are only now beginning to process.

Dan Kennedy, professor at the School of Journalism at Northeastern University, media observer and author of “Media Nation”:

For all the complaining from Democrats and critics about both-sides coverage by mainstream news organizations, especially The New York Times, the most harmful media outlet by far is Fox News. Essentially it’s the propaganda arm of Trumpworld, and its viewers seal themselves off from any sources of information that don’t conform to their preexisting views or to Fox’s agenda. That means a huge segment of the population is essentially unreachable when it comes to reliable news and information. But don’t get me wrong — the Times and its brethren need to clean up their act, too, put a greater emphasis on elevating truth over false equivalence.

Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute and former editor of the Tampa Bay Times:

A role in the results? I’m not sure about that framing because that suggests that press coverage should be assessed based on a specific result. The press is vital in helping people be informed so they can participate in the elections, form their own views, decide what’s right for themselves and make sense. Media sources — from the big national outlets, to local news sources, to social media content creators, to podcasters, to these and more — offered people information that they found helpful, entertaining, thought-proving, maybe stirred their feelings or that they could dismiss or ignore. That’s the role.

It seemed to me there was no shortage of coverage of Trump or Harris in many, many forms. Overall, I’d argue the press did a good job and that there’s not any tangible misunderstanding of the two candidates as a result of inaccurate or insufficient media coverage.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER

Crime coverage is changing. Are you evolving?

Transform your newsroom’s impact on the community by reimagining your reporting on criminal justice and crime. As a team, you’ll work together over six months to make both big and small changes to your crime reporting, implementing adjustments that elevate your newsroom’s focus on public safety and better serve your audience. Apply by Dec. 6 for early bird tuition.

Read more and apply now.

Where do we go from here? What will the next four years under the second Trump presidency look like?

Paul Farhi:

Buckle up. Trump has made trashing the mainstream media part of his brand since 2015. He’ll continue to do so (because it’s effective), and he’ll be better at it (because he had a lot of practice during his first term). And this time around, there won’t be anyone standing in the way of his worst and angriest instincts.

Eric Deggans:

I think fearless, independent journalism is at serious risk now. When the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, issues a complimentary congratulatory text to Trump not long after his newspaper lost over 200,000 subscriptions from his action to kill a Harris endorsement, consumers are left wondering which news outlets they can trust. And journalists are wondering how Trump, who talked often about seeking revenge against news outlets he felt had wronged him, will respond to incisive coverage.

The bubble of conservative-oriented media has distorted what many people even believe is fair news coverage and increased the amount of misinformation and disinformation in the public space. But I think one of the biggest problems facing mainstream news outlets now is the belief among nonconservative consumers that coverage of this election cycle let them down by “sanewashing” and normalizing Trump’s excesses. Traditional journalists who have already lost the confidence of conservative consumers are now facing diminishing trust from the news consumers who are left, which is not a great combination.

Dan Kennedy:

Worse than the first four years, when the Trump White House was disorganized and filled with aides who leaked to the press in order to stop the president from acting on his impulses. I suspect we’re going to see a much more disciplined operation now. While Trump will continue to spew venom about the media being “enemies of the people,” and telling sick jokes about reporters being shot, the folks around him will try to translate that anger into policy such as weakening libel protections, challenging local broadcast licenses held by the networks and continuing to delegitimize truthful reporting.

Neil Brown:

For journalists and news companies, just like for politicians, it's all about the ground game. When we are swept up in conventions of macro analysis of things like the economy or crime or climate, consumers simply don't connect or find the relevance. Or they feel like our stories demand that they see a bigger picture that doesn’t actually resonate with their daily lives. When that happens, journalism becomes optional rather than essential. We need to bridge the reality gap between our so-called nut grafs of meaning and what audiences and communities truly experience. So the challenge isn’t entirely new. Don’t define all your news based on “Trump.” If he or those in power take action, dive deeper into what it involves and what is happening as a result. Our stories should be narrower and deeper if they are to be relevant to people.

Donald Trump’s very open disdain for the media creates complications to be navigated, obviously. He must continue to be held accountable for his actions and words — the national press corps is now well-practiced at this after years of covering him. Still, there is a balance between being drawn into his attempts to paint us as adversaries and coverage that feels stenographic. We need coverage of Trump and all those in power that is rigorous, provides context and is as transparent as possible about where information comes from. And we should avoid the trappings of sounding breathless at every new development.

At the local and small newsroom level, we need to commit to ground-level beat coverage that smacks of reality to people. If the saying goes “all politics is local,” we really need to embrace that all news is local.

And now for more media news, tidbits and interesting links for weekend review …

• The Atlantic’s Jennifer Senior with “Focus on the Things That Matter.”
• The opinion columnists of The Washington Post with “He’s back. Thirteen columnists on what worries them most about Trump’s return — and their reasons for optimism.”
• My Poynter colleague, Angela Fu, with “After the first ‘podcast election,’ the medium is likely to continue playing a role in future campaign cycles.”
• Another from Poynter. Fernanda Camarena with “The mainstream media misunderstood Latino voters once again.”
• The Boston Globe’s Aiden Ryan with “How Trump avoided the mainstream media — and won the presidency.”
• The New York Times’ Eric Lipton, Kirsten Grind, David A. Fahrenthold and Theodore Schleifer with “Elon Musk Helped Elect Trump. What Does He Expect in Return?”
• The Associated Press’ Rob Gillies with “Canada orders TikTok’s Canadian business to be dissolved but won’t block app.”
• The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin reports that Washington Post CEO Will Lewis has informed staff that they are expected to work in the office five days a week starting in February. Mullin also reports the Post Guild is unhappy with the plan, saying they are “distressed” at the announcement and that “The Post plans to institute an inflexible and outdated work-from-the-office policy that does not reflect the reality of our jobs or lives.”
• The Wall Street Journal’s Neil Shah with “Bob Dylan Is on X. Is He Messing With Us?”
• Last week, ESPN analyst (and former NFL star) Jason Kelce had a run-in with a sports fan that resulted in Kelce snatching a phone from the fan and slamming it to the ground (for good reason, many thought). Anyway, Kelce apologized, saying that he felt bad for greeting hate with hate. The Washington Post’s Candace Buckner writes, “Jason Kelce and a devilish question for us all: How to respond to hate?”

More resources for journalists

• Lead With Influence is for leaders who manage big responsibilities but have no direct reports.
• Are you an up-and-coming newsroom manager?
• Encourage an outstanding colleague to apply for Leadership Academy for Women in Media.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected].