Katie talks to veteran journalist Margaret Sullivan about the tumultuous second term ahead.
Way back in August 2022, I was struck by something that my friend, columnist and editor Margaret Sullivan, wrote in the Washington Post: “Journalists certainly shouldn’t shill for Trump’s 2024 rivals — whoever they may be — but they have to be willing to show their readers, viewers and listeners that electing him again would be dangerous. That’s a tricky tightrope to walk.”
Two years later, the coming second Trump administration is a pretty daunting challenge for journalists and the media at large. It’s a moment that requires reflection on balancing fair coverage with accountability, in an era defined by political polarization. During his first term, Trump’s confrontational relationship with the press reshaped the media landscape, challenging norms while exposing vulnerabilities in how the industry handles misinformation. Approaching this second term, the stakes are even higher.
How should the media respond to any falsehoods without amplifying them? What’s the best way to report on anti-democratic rhetoric while maintaining impartiality? And how can newsrooms build trust with an audience that’s increasingly fractured along ideological lines?
Reporters everywhere are already dreading “Trump fatigue” caused by the 24/7 news cycle the former and future President creates. I asked Margaret, who’s one of the most ethical journalists around (and whose newsletter, American Crisis, is a must-read), for advice on how to cover the 47th President.
Margaret, here we are. Before I ask you how the media should cover Donald Trump, shouldn’t we examine what the word media actually means these days? It’s a lot different than it was when we entered the industry.
Katie, that’s a great point. It’s almost impossible to define media right now. It is a very broad category, covering everything from legacy newspaper companies like the New York Times and the Washington Post to cable news, including the right-wing Fox News, and nontraditional offerings, from extremely popular podcasts to YouTube videos from so-called influencers. So when people say “I don’t trust the media,” I think it’s important to drill down on that and ask “What about the media that you personally choose to consume?”
You believe that Donald Trump represents an existential threat to democracy and is unfit for office. The Harris campaign certainly promoted that idea in the closing days of the campaign. Do you think it was emphasized enough in legacy media?
There was a lot of coverage of the threats to democracy but I’m not sure it was presented in a way that really sank in. Did the public really get it? Vast numbers did not. Now that we’re seeing these outrageous Cabinet choices — I mean, Tulsi Gabbard? Matt Gaetz? Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? — and Trump’s effort to push them through as recess appointments without the usual vetting and approval, it is becoming clearer. And he’s only getting started.
What did you think of the decision by the Washington Post and the L.A. Times to not have their editorial boards endorse a candidate?
I was appalled, in both cases. I think you can make an argument for not doing presidential endorsements but you don’t yank an endorsement just days before an extremely important election. The cancellation of the Post by 250,000 subscribers is a clear sign that loyal Post readers were offended and saw through to the real reason — the two billionaires’ desire not to offend Donald Trump and to avoid retribution.
I was surprised that many people didn’t understand the difference between an editorial board and the news staff. But given a lack of trust in the overall media, should newspapers rethink the endorsement question? Some have suggested that it might be better to use that space to help voters better understand local races.
In this realm, I think newspapers can do a service to their readers by endorsing local candidates for office. Most people don’t have the time to do a research project into city council members or local judges; the media outlet can do that, including by interviewing candidates, and present their findings to the public. Obviously, voters can absorb that and come to their own conclusions.
One problem with coverage of this past election, according to Michael Tomasky, editor of the New Republic, is right-wing media. He wrote, “Today, the right-wing media — Fox News (and the entire News Corp), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeartMedia (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more — sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.” First of all, do you agree with this assessment?
I do think that right-wing media is extremely influential in the U.S., and Fox News is at the center of that. We would never have seen a first Trump term without Fox laying the groundwork; and certainly not a second term. The idea that there is a lot of distorted information promoted there was made very clear by the settlement that Fox made — nearly $800 million! — to Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit following the 2020 election.
I recently interviewed Tomasky and we discussed the fact that Democrats or progressives in general don’t have a left-wing industrial media complex that is nearly this powerful in shaping voters’ attitudes. Is that the answer?
I would prefer to see more civics education and more news literacy being taught so that citizens know the difference between propaganda and legitimate news. There are efforts underway on that — for example, the News Literacy Project, which has gotten its excellent message out to millions. Adults, as well as kids, need to know how to compare and contrast, and not just swallow what’s being blasted out at them.
There has been a lot of handwringing by reporters and columnists about what they got wrong covering this election. Many feel the media has gotten out of touch with everyday Americans and their struggles. What do you think they got wrong?
I haven’t seen much self-scrutiny by large news organizations. I’d like to see more. Did they really serve their mission of accurately and fairly informing the public, or were they more interested in the horse race, in polls, and in clickbait? I think we know the answer!
Moving forward, how should Donald Trump be covered? Some of the things he has done and said didn’t seem to impact the majority of voters — this idea that he is dangerous and unfit. So are there some guiding principles when it comes to covering the incoming administration?
Most of all, we in the media need to approach the Trump term with a stiff spine — not buckling under, not giving way to fear about being attacked or sued. Tell the truth. Be courageous. Be prepared for legal challenges — they are coming; in fact, they are already here.
What is the answer to the crisis in the industry today? You’ve written about local news deserts and how damaging that is to democracy. Now it’s not just local news but national news organizations are in the midst of significant layoffs and a turn to digital. How do these institutions continue their mission and regain trust?
Katie, there’s a book or two or three needed to answer that question fully. But to give you a very partial answer, I think we as a nation need to bolster local news. The growth of news deserts where there is no, or almost no, source of verifiable, trustworth local journalism is a crisis unto itself, and it affects everything else. If people are interested in this subject, I’d suggest they take a look at the website RebuildLocalNews.org. Some good things are happening in this area, and there needs to be a lot more if we’re going to survive as a democracy. I have a pin that reads “Democracy Demands Journalism,” and I believe that.
Recently Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went to Mar-a-Lago and had a 90-minute meeting with Donald Trump to restart communications. They’ve been criticized, but was this a necessary step if they want to cover the administration?
That visit to Mar-a-Lago has a strong whiff of “kissing the ring” — especially after the extreme (and valid) criticism of Trump that has been a drumbeat on Morning Joe for many months. They can comment on him and cover him without groveling. After all, they aren’t White House beat reporters. They’re TV commentators and talk-show hosts. I’m sympathetic to those viewers and network staffers who feel sold out. Also, did I miss the tough-minded, no-holds-barred interview this visit produced? I didn’t think so.
Margaret Sullivan is the former public editor of the New York Times, former Washington Post media columnist, and now a Guardian columnist. Read (and subscribe to) her newsletter, American Crisis: Can Journalism Save Democracy?
