The world of liberal Twitter punditry has finally come across the most important reason for Donald Trump’s continued political success. It is not white rage, blue collar anger with trade policy, or the rural-urban divide. It is not the continued drift of educational polarization or the radicalizing power of social media. It is not even the Russians, who are still trying to cozy up to Trump and support his campaign in any way they know how.
Instead, the importance of Trump’s political power has been attributed almost entirely to the power of the mainstream media. Pundits have argued that Trump has not been stopped because the media treats him as a serious political figure and not as the horrific menace he actually is. Every day, they seize on a new headline from CNN or the New York Times that they believe is too centrist or unclear to properly convey the terror of a potential Trump second term. Mainly, they seize upon the unwillingness of newspapers to use the term “fascist” to describe Trump on a daily basis. The theory is that by using the term enough, the mainstream media can work through silos and blinders that voters have and accurately convey the threat posed by Trump to the American people.
This argument from pundits is unconvincing at best. But it is also inconsistent. Pundits are granting the mainstream media enormous power on the one hand and belittling its importance on the other. If they are going to spend much of their time engaging in media criticism, they need to be accurate when describing the power of the media complex and act accordingly.
How the Media Portrays Trump
The media-directed case for Trump’s rise and power goes all the way back to 2015 and 2016. At that time, he was viewed as a buffoon who had no chance of winning the White House. Democrats and members of the media acted accordingly. They often viewed his rallies and speeches as humorous spectacles. Their light approach left voters free to flirt with third-party candidates or remain overly critical of Hillary Clinton. Many voters took the election so lightly, in fact, that they joked about “trading” Clinton votes in swing states for Jill Stein votes in safe Democratic states. It came as a shock, therefore, when Trump defied all odds and won the presidency.
But Democrats and members of the media quickly corrected. They began a years-long blitz against the Trump administration, not purely for partisan considerations but because of the administration’s inherently corrupt nature. The New York Times and other outlets made millions highlighting Trump’s crimes, both proven and unfounded. The story of every morning was the latest Trump scandal, a trend that has not completely diminished in the years since Joe Biden was elected.
Does the Media Matter?
The mainstream media does not act with the outright hostility towards Trump that many of his opponents demand. But even if it did, there is no conclusive evidence that such a focus would work. It is hard to argue that headlines in the New York Times can win an election when everyone who reads those headlines is likely voting for Kamala Harris already. The staff at the Times or the Washington Post cannot influence podcasters, TikTok celebrities, and streamers much more than they already do. Many of these forces are unfortunately not convinced that Trump is the menace that Democrats believe he is. In addition, many Harris-skeptical voters are angry over Gaza and the supposed failures of the Biden administration, a position that cannot easily be shaken by labeling Trump a fascist day after day in a newspaper.
The inconsistency of the pundit attitude towards the media in the Trump era is clear when considering the months-long drive for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz to do more interviews. Many legacy outlets have critiqued the two candidates for their reluctance to sit down with CNN or the Times, with Axios arguing that the pair “is on pace to do fewer interviews and press conferences than any major party’s presidential pairing in modern U.S. history.” Their attacks have been rebutted by the same liberal pundits who attack New York Times headlines.
Such a position makes no sense. The logical endpoint of the Times-headlines argument is that the media is all-powerful and able to create or destroy a candidacy simply through its coverage choices. In that case, wouldn’t the wisest option be to do exactly what it says? Why should Harris threaten the headline writers by ignoring their employers?
Liberal pundits are both begging the New York Times to change their headlines to attack the former president while also insisting that the same paper should be ignored by the Democratic candidates because it has no power or influence in society. Such a position reflects the general anger and frustration of liberal pundits who still cannot believe that someone as racist, sexist, anti-intellectual, and increasingly addled as Trump still has even a one percent chance of becoming president, let alone a fifty-fifty chance. But such anger does not give pundits permission to substitute navel-gazing for effective policy and strategic analysis.
Kamala Harris may in fact believe that the media is all-powerful. In fact, she even appeared on Fox News on October 16. Such a move is wise, since the media really does have an influence in politics and may be able to swing some voters on the margins in the final weeks of the campaign. But even though the media has some power, it is not the primary reason for Trump’s rise and sustained strength. The responsibility for this strength lies with the American people, and it will take many years for them to fully deal with the ramifications of this movement that so many of them support.