NOT MUCH WILL CHANGE DESPITE MEDIA STANCE AGAINST TRUMP

Ina remarkable show of unity, nearly 350 American news organisations have published editorials highlighting the dangers of Donald Trump’s ceaseless attacks on the media.

The Boston Globe, which made the initial call to action, sought to remind the president that “journalists are not the enemy”. The Post-dispatch in St Louis argued that they are, indeed, “the truest of patriots”. The New York Times said Trump’s anti-press comments were “dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy”, while the Topeka Capital-journal – which endorsed Trump’s run for the presidency – described his actions as “sinister” and “destructive”.

That these critiques should come just as the media and the president are engaged in a row over whether to give credence to the remarkable claims by Omarosa Manigault Newman – former contestant on The Apprentice, ex-white House staffer, and now Trump critic-in-chief – adds an extra layer of piquancy.

It was notable, however, that some outlets expressed scepticism over the media’s moment of solidarity. A few supported the Globe’s initiative but wondered whether it would make any difference to Trump’s behaviour – “not a whit”, in the view of the New York Post. Meanwhile, The Baltimore Sun noted the danger that “a coordinated response from independent – dare we say ‘mainstream’ – news organisations feeds a narrative that we’re somehow aligned against this republican president ”.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal declined to participate for that very reason, contending that news organisations should recognise the president’s right to free speech as much as their own. Given that Trump’s hectoring of journalists sometimes seems to border on incitement, that is perhaps an arguable analysis.

Nonetheless, there is certainly a dilemma for media organisations (aside from those which are slavish in their devotion and which cast themselves as alternatives to the dreaded “MSM” in any event). On the one hand, Trump’s regular invective at “traitors” in the media who he claims are peddling “fake news” is plainly a matter of genuine concern. His supporters, following the president’s cue, have become ever bolder in their harassment of journalists – both online and with verbal harassment in live settings. There can be no doubt whatsoever that his tactics are both deliberate and that they provide grim echoes of the type of political leader many thought had been consigned to history.

It is also obvious that Trump’s polemic has been effective, at least in consolidating his base – even while deepening broader divisions. After all, there seems no reason to be confident that Trump would not, given half a chance, take direct steps to interfere in the rights of journalists to go about their legitimate business. He has so many hallmarks of an autocrat – the disregard for truth, the paranoia about plotters, the thin skin, the love of spectacle – that the US media’s unease about how his criticism of journalists might manifest itself in the future (especially if he wins a second term, as seems highly possible) feels absolutely justified.

At the very least, it seems eminently sensible to cry foul now (loudly and regularly) than wait until it’s too late.