The simmering conflict between Donald Trump and the American media escalated into full-scale warfare last week.
Several news agencies abandoned the guarded language traditionally employed when questioning a politician’s veracity, such as “misspoke himself” or “erred in his facts.” Instead, such venerable outlets as the Los Angeles Times accused Trump of flat-out telling “lies.”
On Trump’s side, his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, sat down with the New York Times (which also used that epithet) and advised the media to “keep its mouth shut.”
This all began during last year’s election campaign, when Trump repeatedly assailed reporters at rallies, calling them biased and dishonest. His supporters, of course, lapped it up.
In one respect, the reservations American conservatives have about the press are not entirely without foundation. In the first eight months of 2016, 96 per cent of donations by identifiable journalists went to the Democratic party, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization. That’s scarcely a picture of balance and centrism.
However, something else is going on here. Trump’s strategy in the political arena is the same one he used in the corporate world — hit the other guy hard, keep raising the ante, then see who blinks first.
Insulting reporters, in other words, isn’t necessarily an indication of some inner conviction — if indeed he has any. Rather, it’s simply the way he does business.
The question is how the media should respond. The instinctive reaction, of course, is to answer in kind. Let him get away with it, and you’ll merely encourage him.
But emotionally satisfying as that is, there are risks in such an approach. Foremost among them: I suspect Trump wins any mud-throwing match. His supporters already mistrust most journalists. If the latter come out swinging, they merely confirm that suspicion.
For here is the harsh reality (at least as I see it). Trump is a gutter fighter. It has worked all his life for him, and he isn’t going to change now. Indeed, he relishes it.
Moreover, there is a longing across the U.S. for someone to drain the swamp that official Washington has become. You saw that in the huge turnout for Hillary Clinton’s opponent, Bernie Sanders. Equally, Trump won on this platform.
So who resides in that swamp? Both mainstream parties, for sure. More than half the American electorate say they would defeat every member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, if they could.
But the media occupy a perilous position here. It would have been unthinkable 30 years ago for news reporting to be considered part of the problem. Indeed, most Americans (and Canadians) relied on reporters to keep politicians honest.
Yet with that elevated status comes an obligation: To stay above the fray, and treat both sides equally. Has that happened? Our neighbours to the south don’t believe so.
Last year, the U.S. media sank to their lowest approval rating since Gallup began polling. Only 36 per cent of Americans now say they have a great deal, or a fair amount, of trust in the media. Abandoning traditions of poise and composure seems unlikely to help.
So how do you deal with a bully like Trump? With decorum.
His roguery is easily dissected. His exaggerations invite calm rebuttal. The man can’t even speak in finished sentences. He’s a sitting duck for the carefully placed dart.
I recall a gunner with one of the London anti-aircraft batteries during the Second World War saying the most terrifying sight was a Stuka dive bomber hurtling straight at you. But if you kept your nerve, and aimed a single shot with care, you couldn’t miss.
That’s how to deal with Trump. Blazing away with indignant fury might light up the sky, but how much harm does it do? Instead, stay cool, skewer him with an elegant phrase, and he’ll go down in flames.
