This week’s readings focus on government attempts to discredit media outlets that print information the Trump Administration disagrees with or does not want propagated. These efforts are taking the form of legal action against media conglomerates, attempts to limit citizen access to government information, and even intimidation of reporters. Several of this week’s sources emphasize press freedom as a litmus test for democracy, as a free and independent press often reflects the health and functionality of a democratic system. Attempts to limit and undermine press freedom, therefore, trigger concerns regarding the state of democracy in the U.S.
One aspect of media censorship that I had not given as much thought to previously was internal censorship of media outlets fearing political retaliation from the Trump Administration. Examples of this type of censorship include the Washington Post removing cartoons that depict President Trump unflatteringly prior to publication and the L.A. Times altering a reporter’s view on a Trump appointee. These outlets have begun to censor their own staff out of fear that contrasting or criticizing government positions will negatively impact the financial capabilities and reporting potential of their papers or sites.
This fear is founded. The Trump Administration has advanced lawsuits with questionable legal bases against Meta, ABC, CBS, and the Des Moines Register. Meta, ABC, and CBS have all settled their suits, while the Des Moines Register continues their legal battle. Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has reinstated previously dismissed complaints against CBS, NBC, and ABC regarding Trump’s claims of unfair pre-election coverage, as well as launching investigations into the National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). These punitive measures form a hostile and fearful media environment that can lead to the self-censorship witnessed in media outlets.
Conversely, platforms that align themselves with the Trump administration have received favorable treatment, including increased time in the Oval Office and superior reporting opportunities. The Department of Defense removed the NBC News, Politico, New York Times, and NPR offices from the Pentagon, replacing them with pro-Trump outlets outside the mainstream. These fringe media sites are more likely to propagate false or misleading information, including the claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. In doing so, they contribute to a widespread fragmentation of shared facts and erode the idea of a common truth that supersedes partisan politics. Individuals who receive news from different platforms may be exposed to opposing sets of information, effectively enabling people to live in separate realities. What does ‘truth’ mean in a world in which media outlets promoted by the White House can write anything and declare it factual? As media outlets settle cases they know lack legal standing in order to appease the President’s false narrative, have we moved past an objective truth that is provided to citizens through the news? Furthermore, when we lose the media as a watchdog for accuracy and accountability, have we entered a world in which the truth itself loses all meaning? Where do consumers of media, as well as media platforms themselves, go from here with three years remaining in the Trump Administration and attacks against media seeming to continue relentlessly, if not intensify?
