The readings this week made clear that a fight over the truth has been raging in the United States on multiple fronts, including social media and the court system. When analyzed together, the readings present a clear and startling message: discourse in the United States has been impacted by President Donald Trump’s efforts to extinguish political opposition. As the articles point out, this effort by Trump allows for the emergence of concentrated influence, coercive legal and political tactics, and even extreme fragmentation amongst the general public.
The Guardian’s article on President Trump’s war against the media, for example, helps demonstrate the impact of financial threats. President Trump is not only winning lawsuits and copious amounts of cash. Ultimately, his lawsuits are a warning for any other organization that dares to challenge him. When a figure with as much influence as the President of the United States successfully sues any news organization, other organizations are likely to also be intimidated. The financial drain on these organizations is an obvious threat, but it’s important to acknowledge that these successful lawsuits undermine public trust in the media as well.
The Harvard Kennedy School article also highlighted another facet of the problem: audiences are often getting information from those closest to them. This imposes a financial hardship on news organizations and increases the likelihood that unreliable sources “contaminate information streams.” Shared facts suddenly become nonexistent in this environment, and fragmentation allows the general public to live in separate realities. Ultimately, this makes me wonder if audiences should be responsible for seeking out diverse, reliable information, or if that responsibility should fall squarely on the journalist? Likewise, if the media has changed, as Gibbs states, is journalism really failing at all, or is the industry just dealing with changes they have no control over?
Hamilton’s Just Security article builds on this by pointing out that the trends and changes highlighted in these articles do not occur in isolation; rather, they are deliberate actions that aim to harm the free press. When reported independently, the full thrust of the problem is not outlined effectively for audiences within a media landscape that is dominated by quick bursts of information. This is why the lead is so important. As John McPhee points out in his book, the lead is like a promise of what’s to come. In a saturated media environment and a world of competing truths, it is important that the media works to explain developments completely, effectively, and early on in the article.
Finally, the Forbes article also stood out because it helped outline the corruption that can take place in these situations. If media organizations can broker “deals” with the President, then what sort of independence can these organizations ever have? The White House executive order that targets both the NPR and PBS helps shed further light on this issue. By weaponizing government funding, even the few organizations not driven by profit—and therefore also less vulnerable to Trump’s financial threats—end up being harmed.
Overall, these articles highlighted the gravity of the problem journalists and the public face. But above all, these struggles highlight why journalism is so important because despite these changes, many journalists have continued to be extremely effective in disseminating important information.
