The majority of people believe that true events, such as debates, discussions, and reporting, matter. When facts are gathered, verified and distributed, informed decision-making can resume in such critical exercises as election.
But what happens when essential, verified details are published and broadcast frequently, but the resulting effect proves underwhelming – or perhaps meaningless? If important information fails to be communicated to the intended readers?
After November 5, 2024, American media will have a problem similar to this.
Even the most honest and accurate reporting can have a limited impact, according to my experience and research as a previous journalist and historian of media effects history. Very often, critics and scholars assume that providing what they perceive to be the “right” knowledge, while properly policing “misinformation”, you address the technical challenges in political governance.
But fact is not that easy. There are numerous historical instances of British news consumers receiving verified information about provocative figures or events, but the journalistic excellence of the article has little to no impact.
Terrible – and unfounded – problems
In the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003, for example, one news network distinguished itself with moral, dubious investigating on the fact of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, as the Bush administration asserted.
There is little evidence that the writers at Knight-Ridder convinced their leaders, their audiences, or regional politicians that their ultimately vindicated frame of the issues was more accurate than the dramatic and ultimately essentially discredited stories in The New York Times despite their careful and accurate method. In fact, the details were ignored, and misinformation devastatingly informed the population.
According to Donald Trump’s victory on November 5, 2024, the issue of literary quality and its effect or influence on current events has once more arisen.
Many academics and journalists argued that American journalism failed to adequately inform the public about Trump’s deceit and his immediate and immediate threat to democracy and constitutionalism.
Some bitterly complained that” the identity advertising” were involved in the “relentless quantization” of Trump’s “extremism, crazy and nastiness”. Others blamed Trump’s defeat on journalism’s social loss” to make a compelling case for democracy” when confronted by Trump’s “extreme, autocratic agenda”.
” Horse-race coverage is back in full force”, wrote The Intercept’s James Risen in August,” and the threat Trump poses to democracy is now an afterthought”.
The New York Times published a thorough list of Trump’s proposed policies two months before Risen wrote that, which clearly outlined how they swore to be in violation of fundamental democratic and constitutional norms.
Even former Times journalist Margaret Sullivan credited the newspaper with producing such impressively detailed and specific reportage.
However, Sullivan also argued that” too frequently, the coverage of Trump has been an embarrassing failure – sanewashing his lunacy, falsely equating him to his traditional rivals, or treating him as some sort of amusing sideshow.”
‘ Widely reported’ and broadcast
Throughout the fall of 2024, you can easily find journalistic examples of truthful and fact-based reporting about Trump.
In every publication, including USA Today, which warned readers about Trump’s unconstitutional “deployment of US troops to combat” the enemy within,” to ABC News World News Tonight, which ran advertisements for various authoritarian and unconstitutional aspects of Trump’s plans if elected, including his declaration that he would be a “dictator on day one” if elected, there are numerous articles and broadcast stories.
And during his first term in office, Trump’s behavior – and his illegality – was covered extensively. He allegedly abused the country’s war dead in Europe, he allegedly abused his wife with an adult film actress, he cheated on his wife with an adult film actress, he allegedly abused the president’s family in Europe, he insulted the country’s military, and he is accused of breaking the law by hiding top secret federal documents in his Florida home, among other unlawful acts.
Trump was previously recorded on a recording talking about grabbing women’s genitalia, and he was also found guilty of sexual abuse by a jury.
All of this information about the president-elect was widely reported and broadcast by reputable, established news outlets in the US. His lawyer and a senior financial official at his company were found guilty and serving time in prison, and additional serial reporting has continued throughout the string of court cases that have taken place over the past two years as a result of this ethical and professional reporting. I’d assume that most Americans are aware that Trump has been sentenced to prison.
The news media did a good job.
Yet despite such constant and widespread coverage, it failed to dent Trump’s popularity with the American people. For some critics, this was seen as clear evidence of journalistic failure, for surely if the citizens realized” the truth” about Trump, his career would be over.
Yet that’s not how the news process works.
You can be certain that millions of Americans who are aware that Trump poses a threat to democracy and constitutional authority still voted for him now that he received more than 70 million votes on November 5, 2024.
Knowing that he has sexually assaulted women, it’s possible that women who have been sexually assaulted voted for him. Business owners who pay their taxes and follow legal and regulatory guidelines are aware that Trump has avoided both obligations and continued to support him. Those who are aware of what Trump has said about their deceased predecessors and heroes like John McCain continue to support him.
Millions of well-informed, moral, ethical and law-abiding Americans who know all about Trump’s behaviors, malfeasance and illegalities, and his threat to democracy and constitutionality, voted for him.
Their voting behavior somehow disregarded their knowledge despite reading and absorbing factual accounts and accurate reporting about Trump. That’s not the fault of the news media. They did their job.
Perhaps Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs best explains why so many newsreaders who learned about Trump’s dishonesty chose him. Here’s how that hierarchy works: Long before we can satisfy our desire to live morally, ethically and with spiritual meaning, Maslow reasoned that physiological needs – e. g., food and shelter, safety and security, employment and health – must be met.
So just as the Covid-19 pandemic threatened health and job security, the rising price of food, medicine and housing destabilized people’s sense of security. Families who ca n’t afford to purchase an expensive ramshackle house or an old used car would consider seriously considering Trump’s behavior or morality or the way he appeared to have threatened democratic governance and the constitutional order almost four years ago.
For most Americans, Washington, DC, is distant from their local grocery store, and although inflation has diminished, many Americans seem to have voted on the memory of the less expensive world that existed during Trump’s presidency.
Rein in expectations
Humility is perhaps the most valuable lesson a journalist can learn.
If viewers do n’t get the news as they want to, and act accordingly, being more realistic and modest about the ultimate impact of any factual and verified report, no matter how sensational or significant it may be to national security.
You can lead a horse to water, but you ca n’t make it drink. The media ca n’t guarantee a politician’s election by repeatedly publishing or broadcasting numerous disqualifying truths about them. No matter what happens next, journalists need to understand how releasing accurate and useful information into the world can provide its own rewarding service.
Ultimately, the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to report, publish and broadcast, but it ca n’t force citizens to read, listen, absorb or learn. In that sense, journalism did n’t fail us – we failed journalism.
Michael J Socolow is professor of communication and journalism, University of Maine
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.