John Thompson, retired teacher and historian, has pondered how the media should cover Trump. He lies with such frequency that his lies are barely worth mentioning, whereas any error or overstatement by Harris or Walz is a news story. For instance, CNN’s Dana Bash questioned Governor Tim Walz about a 1995 drunk driving arrest and how he characterized it in his campaign for Congress in 2006. The media doesn’t have to ransack through Trump’s statements to find a lie from nearly two decades ago. Just listen to whatever he said today. He still claims that he won the 2020 election, without any evidence.
Thompson writes:
This post began as a nuanced response to the USA Today’s fact-checking conclusion that “Project 2025 is a political playbook created by the Heritage Foundation and dozens of other conservative groups, not Trump, who said he disagrees with elements of the effort.” Although the USA Today acknowledged the role of “numerous people involved in Project 2025 who worked in Trump’s first administration,” it failed in fact-checking Trump’s statement that, “I know nothing about Project 2025.”
Neither did it challenge the Heritage Foundation’s claim that this was just a plan for the next conservative President, as opposed to Trump!?!?
When I read Diane Ravitch’s reposting of Dan Rather’s Don’t Believe Donald Trump, I knew that now there is no need for the nuance I planned. Rather cited the CNN video of Russell Vought, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, and a key author of Project 2025, who was recorded on a hidden camera.
Rather linked to the video, posted on CNN, when “Vought described the project as the ‘tip of the America First spear.’ He said that after meeting with Trump in recent months, the former president ‘is very supportive of what we do.’”
Vought also said that Trump’s current attempts to disassociate himself from Project 2025 are “just politics,” and “distancing himself from a brand.” He said Trump is “very supportive” of their efforts and has raised money for “us.”
In other words, it is clear that Rather is correct in saying, “I cannot state it strongly enough: Project 2025, with Donald Trump at the helm, is the greatest existential threat to American democracy in recent history.”
But, but as Trump and his allies continue to double-down on lies, the need to converse with journalists about how they fact-check and report on MAGA-ism will continue and, perhaps, become more complicated. And that gets me back to discussing USA Today’s fact-check as a case study in journalism’s norms during this crisis. As Slate wrote:
Of all Trump’s recent lies, his attempted dissociation with Project 2025 may be the most important—because he’s trying to convince the American people that the choice between dictatorship and democracy that they face is not before them at all.
Being a former academic historian, I believe journalists should consider how a historian would fact-check this issue, covering the recent history of Trump and the Heritage Foundation, as well decades of rightwing propaganda seeking to reduce government “to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” and the history of Edward R. Murrow standing up for democracy in 1954.
At a minimum, the history of Trumpism and of “astro-turf” think tanks over the last half-century, should have reversed the burden of proof for fact-checking; given that history, fact-checkers would have had to first show evidence substantiating Trump’s and his allies’ claims.
I would then recommend a 2016 Columbia Journalism Review analysis by David Mindich, For Journalists Covering Trump, a Murrow Moment. Mindich starts in 1954 with Murrow’s “now-famous special report condemning Joseph McCarthy.” Murrow said that McCarthy”:
Didn’t create this situation of fear–he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. … This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, … “We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Mindich then explains that “American journalistic goals of detachment and objectivity are long held.” They made a good trade-off, “Journalists would avoid taking sides, and they would be given access to newsmakers–and news consumers–from both parties.” He then praised journalists who moved beyond “the usual practice of studied balance” to reveal the threatening nature of Trump. Moreover, it is time for “mainstream journalists to abandon their detachment … when a politician’s words go way beyond the pale.”
In the last eight years, Trump has gone farther and farther beyond the lines of democracy. And in the next few months, his rhetoric (and that of his supporters) is likely to go more dangerously beyond the pale. And as Mindich wrote, “journalists have been more likely to become advocates when they see others, like politicians and protesters, speaking loudly in dissent.”
So, we must join together and commit to Murrow’s principles in our fight for democracy.
