Donald Trump’s return to power is a hinge point for the American media – in ways big, small, and to be determined. His defeat of Kamala Harris is raising questions about the media’s credibility, influence, and audience. Some of the questions might not be answerable for years.
But journalists are asking each other: What does this “red wave” election say about the information environment in the United States?
In the hours after Trump won reelection Tuesday, some of his loyalists asserted that his victory is a complete repudiation of the news media. For a time on Wednesday morning, The Federalist’s lead headline was not about Trump, it was about the “corporate media industrial complex” being “2024’s biggest loser.”
Legacy media “is officially dead,” The Daily Wire podcaster Matt Walsh wrote on X overnight. “Their ability to set the narrative has been destroyed. Trump declared war on the media in 2016. Tonight he vanquished them completely. They will never be relevant again.”
That’s wishful thinking on Walsh’s part — Tuesday’s marathon election coverage was a testament to the media’s relevance — but the point is that many Trump voters share his wish. They believe the national news media is a big part of what ails America. Not only do they distrust what they read, they often don’t read it in the first place. Can anything be done to change that?
A quote in a recent New York magazine column channeled that question. The quote, from an anonymous TV executive, was recirculated on social media Wednesday morning. “If half the country has decided that Trump is qualified to be president, that means they’re not reading any of this media, and we’ve lost this audience completely,” the executive said. “A Trump victory means mainstream media is dead in its current form. And the question is what does it look like after.”
“Dead” is gross hyperbole, of course, but the comment reflected real concerns that many members of the media have. A severe trust deficit exists between the Trump base and big institutional media outlets. In a text message, a Trump campaign aide suggested that the press should show more humility.
That raises another question: Do major networks and publications have enough columnists and commentators who reflect the Trump majority’s views?
“Maybe we have a point,” the aide remarked. “Maybe ‘misinformation’ is a lazy word that was never applied to press coverage of Biden’s health or the border. Maybe ‘offensive’ things aren’t offensive to most.”
The mainstream media “has held less clout every four years,” Semafor’s Dave Weigel wrote Wednesday morning. “On Harris-friendly cable news, ex-Republicans broadcast their horror at who Trump was and what he’d done; in the new social media and podcasts favored by Republicans, all of that was whining disconnected from what voters really cared about.”
CNN political commentator Scott Jennings hit that point hard during the 3 a.m. hour of CNN’s election coverage. He said Trump’s win was “something of an indictment of the political information complex.”
“We have been sitting around for the last couple weeks and the story that was portrayed was not true,” Jennings said. “We were told Puerto Rico was going to change the election. Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley voters, women lying to their husbands. Before that it was Tim Walz and the camo hats. Night after night after night we were told all these things and gimmicks were going to somehow push Harris over the line. And we were just ignoring the fundamentals. Inflation; people feeling like they are barely able to tread water at best; those were the fundamentals of the election.”
Jennings added: “I think for all of us who cover elections and talk about elections and do this on a day-to-day basis, we have to figure out how to understand talk to and listen to the half of the country that rose up tonight and said, ‘We have had enough.’”
Liberal commentator Ashley Allison responded: “I think we have to listen to everybody, actually.” She said, “the people who voted for Kamala Harris are struggling too. They are feeling ignored too. A Republican’s pain is no greater or less than a Democrat’s pain.”
What lies ahead for the press
If history is any guide, Trump is never, ever satisfied with news coverage. He always wants a more pliant, propagandistic media. He even complains about Fox News on a regular basis, despite the network’s overwhelming support for him. Last month, he complained to Fox patriarch Rupert Murdoch about the network airing Democratic ads.
Thus, Trump’s reelection portends a new period of hostility with major media outlets that strive for impartiality as well as partisan outlets that oppose him. This raises another set of questions.
Will the Trump administration turn his words against the press into actions? Will he move to revoke licenses for TV stations, as he has suggested more than a dozen times this year? Will he limit press access to the White House, barring reporters he doesn’t like?
Further, will media outlets engage in self-censoring to appease Trump, and if so, how will readers and viewers who oppose Trump react?
On Wednesday morning, newsroom leaders and owners are reassuring employees that they will have their backs in the uncertain months to come. “Now, more than ever, we are steadfast in our mission to uphold the principles of independent journalism,” Conde Nast chief Roger Lynch wrote in a memo to staffers. “A thriving, independent press, as protected by the First Amendment, is vital to democracy and the future we all share.”
