Donald Trump’s war with the media has deadly implications
Simon Tisdall
The president’s press attacks don’t just threaten truth:
they create an atmosphere in which journalists are in real danger
Sat 4 Aug 2018 18.02 BST Last modified on Sat 4 Aug 2018
21.15 BST
Shooting the messenger, metaphorically speaking, is a
long-established practice among American presidents and prickly politicians the
world over. But by repeatedly insisting journalists should be treated as “the
enemy of the people”, Donald Trump has hit a new low – with dangerous
international ramifications.
From the start of his presidential odyssey, Trump made media
purveyors of “fake news” a primary target. His attacks played well with
partisan crowds encouraged to believe journalists were bag-carriers for the
“liberal” establishment elite which, he said, was betraying the American dream.
Insecure Trump craves adulation and unquestioning praise. So
as critical, intrusive reporting intensified following his election victory, so
too did his personal vendettas with media organisations. Those most frequently
singled out are among the most respected: the New York Times, the Washington
Post, CNN.
In a tense exchange on Thursday, Jim Acosta, CNN’s
much-abused White House correspondent, finally kicked back. He challenged Sarah
Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s press secretary, at one of her increasingly rare
briefings, to withdraw the “enemy” slur. Sanders declined, complaining instead
of her shabby treatment by the press.
Acosta upped the ante: “This democracy, this country, all
the people around the world watching what you are saying, Sarah... the
president of the United States should not refer to us as the enemy of the
people,” he said. “All I’m asking you to do, Sarah, is to acknowledge that
right now and right here.” Sanders ungraciously refused, again.
Trump purposefully aggravated matters that evening at a
rally in Pennsylvania, mocking the reporters present. “They can make anything
bad because they are the fake, fake disgusting news,” he shouted. His
ostensibly triumphal meetings with the Queen, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North
Korea’s Kim Jong-un had been reported negatively, he claimed.
The White House press corps, senior correspondents, can be a
bit pompous and self-regarding. (I know. I was a member of it in the 1990s.)
But it is, on the whole, a highly professional body. They take their work
seriously and mostly do it impartially and well.
Despite his endless whingeing, Trump is not subjected to a
higher level of scrutiny, or held to a higher standard, than previous
presidents. The big difference now is that his definition of “fake news” has
expanded to include any news he does not like. The commander-in-chief wants to
be editor-in-chief.
Why? Maybe because he’s a control freak who cannot stand
being questioned. Or maybe because he is feeling the heat from the FBI
investigation into alleged collusion with Russia – and possible new allegations
about past Trump Organisation money laundering.
Trump describes the Mueller inquiry as a witch-hunt fed by a
hostile media. Such language carries distinct echoes of paranoid Richard Nixon,
who had much to hide. White House insiders say the president’s private
obsession is impeachment.
Yet Trump’s behaviour suggests a more fundamental lack of
understanding of the role of a free press in a free society. Sanders said last
week the president supported press freedom. “We also support freedom of speech.
And we think that those things go hand in hand,” she said.
The proliferation of rightwing websites, “shock jock” radio
talkshow hosts in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh, and TV networks such as Fox
News that make little or no pretence at objectivity or impartiality, and which
ruthlessly lambast opponents, is justified by the same freedom of speech
argument – even though the speech in question is often hate-filled and
mendacious.
A prime example cropped up last week when the parents of
children murdered at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut in 2012 sued
Alex Jones, the far-right founder of the Texas-based Infowars website who
claimed, falsely, that the government staged the massacre to justify tougher
gun controls.
Trump is adept at recycling favourable coverage from tame
media outlets to further boost his agenda. Thus the hard-right Breitbart
website recently regurgitated his comments lauding “celebrity” commentators who
back his threat to shut down the federal government before November’s elections
– thereby forcing a showdown with the Democrats. “You know who thinks it should
be [shut down] before?” Trump asked. “Rush Limbaugh says it should be before
the election, Sean Hannity [of Fox News], a lot of them. Great people.” How did
it happen that a US president needs endorsement by hacks?
Trump’s divide-and-drool approach is contagious. The UK is
breeding its own cohorts of rightwing, multimedia rabble-rousers aiming to
upturn “political correctness” (meaning anything they don’t like) – regardless
of facts, or considerations of accuracy, fairness and balance. Katie Hopkins
springs to mind.
But it’s worse than that. Trump’s loathing for honest
scrutiny has lethal implications. Staff at the Capital Gazette in Maryland,
paid with their lives in June when a gunman decided he did not like what they
wrote. Truth is not the only casualty in Trump’s media wars.
The knock-on threat is considerable. Regimes like that in
Russia, where inquisitive journalists die suddenly, or in Turkey, where they
are jailed in large numbers, look at Trump’s reckless shenanigans and see a
green light for repression. His unpresidential message to independent voices
everywhere: “Shut it or else.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário