Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP
Over the last few years, as it grew increasingly likely that Donald Trump would mount a third campaign for the White House, leading press critics and others in the media vowed that this time had to be different. The press couldn’t fail in its coverage of Trump once again.
This time, it must aggressively investigate Trump while focusing coverage on the threat that he poses to democracy. The stakes for the nation in the election, not just the odds of who was likely to win the campaign, should be front and center in the press coverage, New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen argued.
But the change in coverage hasn’t happened. Instead, the press has doubled down on horse-race coverage, proving unable to alter its traditional formula for campaign coverage. Distracted by the campaign’s dramatic moments, highlighted by the attempted assassination of Trump and President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race, day-to-day, process-driven coverage of the campaign remains paramount. Horse-race coverage is back in full force, and the threat Trump poses to democracy is now an afterthought.
The calls for reforms in covering Trump emerged because of the litany of failures in past coverage. When Trump first ran for president in 2016, the press was caught flat-footed, flummoxed by how to report on a racist demagogue. Journalists tried to cover Trump like every other candidate they had covered in the past, seeking to fit his lunacy into their traditional coverage formulas. But that disastrous effort led to recriminations over the inadequate coverage that failed to capture his malevolence.
In 2020, the press was caught flat-footed once again, this time after the election, when Trump refused to accept defeat and tried to mount a coup to stay in power. During the campaign, the press had largely ignored the mounting evidence that Trump was planning to reject the results of the election and later failed to adequately track the warning signs of an insurrection, even as it was openly discussed among right-wing extremists.
Finally, after January 6, 2021, it seemed certain that the nation’s press was ready to cover Trump like a dangerous demagogue, rather than as a normal American politician. The fact that Trump was also convicted of a felony early in the 2024 campaign made changes in coverage seem inevitable.
But the press seems to have amnesia. It is as if journalists have forgotten that Trump was impeached twice, criminally indicted four times, and already convicted once. He should be facing three more criminal trials this year in the midst of the campaign, but he’s so far been saved from that fate by a series of shockingly partisan rulings by judges that he appointed.
Yet the insurrection, the indictments, the criminal conviction, the impeachments tend to receive little more than brief mentions in the Trump campaign coverage today. Poll-driven horse race stories now dominate, overwhelming the scattered attempts by the press to hold Trump accountable.
Just over the last few days, political coverage has been overwhelmed by endless stories about an endorsement of Trump by independent candidate and conspiracy theorist Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. is featured in discussions about Trump’s wavering on debating Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris on ABC News. The constant flow of horse-race trivia and bite-sized stories on major news sites like the New York Times and the Washington Post fail to highlight the warnings about Trump’s threat to American democracy. This lack of scrutiny can be attributed to the historical, technological, and financial shifts that have reshaped the news industry.
The evolution of modern political coverage can be traced back to the 1960 presidential campaign between Kennedy and Nixon, which changed the way journalists covered campaigns. Television’s emergence as a political force, highlighted by the Kennedy-Nixon debates, shifted the focus of campaign coverage from substance to imagery and symbolism. Books like “The Making of the President 1960” and “The Selling of the President 1968” further influenced how reporters framed their coverage, emphasizing the narrative of the campaign and the marketing strategies behind the candidates.
Technological advancements, such as the shift to video in broadcast television and the rise of cable news and social media, have fueled the demand for quick campaign updates and content. Politico’s founding in 2007 set a new standard for fast-paced, horse-race-focused political reporting, which has since become the norm in political journalism.
The financial pressures faced by news organizations have also played a significant role in shaping political coverage, with a focus on generating web traffic and quick news updates to capture audience attention. This emphasis on speed and brevity has made horse-race coverage a staple of today’s news landscape, overshadowing in-depth reporting on policy issues and ethical considerations.
During a time of heightened political division, the focus on horse-race coverage not only serves as a way for news organizations to appear impartial, but it also comes with its own set of drawbacks that many fail to recognize. This type of journalism lacks substance, simply reporting on which candidate is ahead or behind without delving into important issues or policies.
Campaigns have learned to take advantage of the media’s fixation on the horse race, using it to their benefit. However, some are now bypassing traditional press altogether to communicate directly with the public, posing a threat to the relevance of political journalism.
In 2016, Trump capitalized on this shift by leveraging social media to speak directly to his supporters, sidestepping traditional media channels. This tactic allowed him to control the campaign narrative and overshadow the horse-race coverage dominated by his tweets.
More recently, the Democratic Party embraced a similar strategy by credentialing over 200 online influencers during their National Convention to reach younger audiences and those disenchanted with conventional campaign coverage. While this move upset some in the traditional political press, it highlights the growing trend of campaigns bypassing traditional media.
Despite these developments, many in the political press fail to grasp the connection between their fixation on the horse race and campaigns seeking alternative communication channels. As a result, horse-race coverage continues to dominate political journalism, leaving candidates unchecked, crucial questions unasked, and voters uninformed. This status quo plays into Trump’s hands as he seeks to exploit the media landscape to his advantage.
