Veteran news editor expects Trump 'to go after the press in every conceivable way' (delusional drama queen alert)

Heading into a second term, New Yorker editor David Remnick says Donald Trump's anger "has been never so intense as it's been against the press." The president-elect has referred to the news media as the "Enemy of the American people," has threatened retribution against outlets that have covered him negatively and has suggested that that NBC, CBS and ABC should have their licenses revoked.

Marty Baron, the former executive editor of the Washington Post, says he expects the incoming administration "to go after the press in every conceivable way ... [using] every tool in the toolbox — and there are a lot of tools."

"I think [Trump's] salivating for the opportunity to prosecute and imprison journalists for leaks of national security information — or what they would call national security information," Baron says. "I would expect that he would deny funding to public radio ... and TV. And that he will seek to exercise control over the Voice of America and its parent company, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, as he did in his previous administration, trying to turn it into a propaganda outlet."

Remnick sees parallels between Trump's approach to the media and that of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both men, he says, challenge traditional notions of the truth. "The Putin regime shows us when there is no truth, everything is possible," Remnick says. "Lying has come from White Houses for decades and decades. But Donald Trump has changed the game."

Baron adds that Trump's target goes beyond the press: "The objective here is to suppress free expression by anyone. ... So this is just the first step. And I think people should keep that in mind."

Interview highlights

On the Washington Post's announcement in the weeks before the 2024 election that it would not be endorsing either presidential candidate

Baron: I don't think there's any great explanation for this decision 11 days before the election [other] than that [Post owner Jeff Bezos] was yielding to pressure from Donald Trump on his other interests, which are substantially larger than The Post, particularly Amazon, which has many contracts with the federal government, particularly in terms of cloud computing, and Blue Origin, a commercial space enterprise that is essentially wholly dependent upon the federal government for its contracts. …

If this had been a decision that was made three years ago, two years ago, a year ago, maybe even six months ago, I would say fine. It's not that important to me whether news organizations like The Post make a presidential endorsement. Of course, people can make up their own minds. They don't need The Post to help them. But I don't think there's any logical explanation for this decision other than "Don't poke the bear." And I think this was an effort to not poke the bear. And I think it was notably unsuccessful, because nobody can reasonably argue that trust in the Washington Post today is higher than it was prior to this decision. It is substantially lower. I've never seen a reputation for a company so severely damaged in such a short period of time. And I think it was a regrettable and deeply wrong decision on [Bezo's] part.

Remnick: If you look at the waning influence of what's called the mainstream press, and if you look at statistics about trust in the press and the ecology of the press, the combination of economic pressures combined with Trump's pressures has been of immense concern to all of us who were involved in this activity. ... These pressures are immense. And Trump knows it. And he knows how it's affected his political fortunes in the most positive way.

Baron: When [Trump] talks about his triumphs during his first term, he's cited the undermining confidence in the mainstream press — he's called it one of his greatest successes. ... It's not the only reason the confidence in the press has declined. There are a variety of reasons. ... But the big factors have been market fragmentation and the fact that people can find any site that affirms their preexisting point of view and any conspiracy theory, no matter how crazy it is, they can find somebody who says that's true.

Baron: I don't think that we've accurately and adequately reflected the concerns of a lot of Americans in this country. I've often been asked whether we had failures in our coverage of Donald Trump in 2015 and 2016. And I say that the greatest failure came well before that in that we did not anticipate that this country could produce a candidate like Donald Trump. We did not understand the level of grievance and anger toward the so-called elites, including and maybe especially the press — although if you look at the salaries of most journalists, they don't qualify as elite. And so I think we didn't really do a good enough job of getting out in the country and really understanding the concerns of ordinary Americans. ...

I'm concerned that a portion of the journalistic community, if you can call it that, have engaged in what I would consider to be advocacy and activism of a sort. That's not true of everybody by any means, not even true of the majority of the journalists. But there's a segment out there that believes in that. And I think that that has hurt us. And we should aim to be an independent arbiter of the facts, try to put them in context in an effort to get at the truth over time. And we should be more focused on the kinds of questions we want to ask and trying to get answers to those questions than thinking that we have the answers to those questions before we embark on reporting. Otherwise, the so-called reporting is merely an exercise in confirmation bias.

Remnick: There are all kinds of news deserts all over the country that have been created by this new news ecology, so that small newspapers and medium-sized newspapers have either shriveled to the point of disappearance or they've closed their doors completely. Newsrooms across the river here in New Jersey, for example, that used to have a couple hundred people in them have a couple dozen, at best. They're hanging on by their fingernails. If that had been replaced by websites with equally aggressive, or even better, news gatherers, of reporters and editors, that would be one thing, but they haven't.

Baron: Many people in communities, they've never even seen a reporter. They've never met a reporter. Their impressions of what journalists are is formed by arguments that they see on cable news, partisan arguments, what they see on cable news. And that is really unfortunate, because that is not the way that most journalists carry themselves.

Baron: The sad reality today is that we as a society do not share a common set of facts. But it's actually a lot worse than that. We cannot even agree on what a fact is on how to determine a fact, because all of the elements that we have used in the past to determine what a fact is have been devalued, dismissed, denigrated, denied. All of that things like education, expertise, actual experience, and above all, evidence. …

So the idea here is to obliterate the idea that there is some truth, independent truth that can be determined by independent arbiters of truth, whether it be not just journalists, but the courts as well, or anybody else, and that the only truth, at least in Trump's mind, is the one that comes out of his own mouth.

Our authority is not just being questioned today, but our authenticity is being questioned today. And these influencers are coming across as much more authentic and therefore people think they're more authoritative.

Baron: We have to be better communicators. We have to recognize that the way that people are receiving information today is radically different from the way that we received information when we were growing up and the way we maybe prefer to receive information today. So we have a lot to learn from influencers, actually, in terms of how to do that. Our authority is not just being questioned today, but our authenticity is being questioned today. And these influencers are coming across as much more authentic and therefore people think they're more authoritative.

Is it “going after the press” to re-assign their little seats at press conferences? I want to turn on Karoline’s first press conference, and see the first two rows with the butts of people from Benny Johnson, Charlie Kirk, Joe Rogan, etc. Waaaay in the back rows, and standing around the perimeter of the room, will be the arrogant pissants from the MSM who used to sit in the front.

It would make me happy.

Baron: The sad reality today is that we as a society do not share a common set of facts. But it's actually a lot worse than that. We cannot even agree on what a fact is on how to determine a fact, because all of the elements that we have used in the past to determine what a fact is have been devalued, dismissed, denigrated, denied. All of that things like education, expertise, actual experience, and above all, evidence.

This is an interesting comment because the average liberal newsroom has ZERO problem having a 'common set of facts'. And that's one of their credibility problems. A newsroom filled with culture elites sees the world (and facts about that world) different than the people of any given city see it. Sixty-five years ago in the South where I lived 'newsrooms were male and white. The viewpoints and 'facts that mattered' to women and minorities weren't covered. Today 'facts and concerns that matter' to the 85% of a city that are NOT white liberal 'elites' don't matter. And it's not working. Blacks are covered as if it's 1965 and the civil rights movement is active and vital. The right to vote and the right 'not to be offened aren't the same. The black community doesn't connect to retrospective showing them as victims of the KKK when the issues they deal with in today's world are things like crime, inflation, and lack of jobs. White liberal elite group-think defines everyone wrong - including how the rest of us see 'white liberal elites'. So a small group writes for the benefit of each other and the rest of us don't buy the product. It's really that easy. The connection between papers and their readers died... about 30 years ago. And it's NOT going to get better by 'moving on the internet' or 'moving into podcasts'... and papers still have a place if they would diversify into different ways people experience reality. A black liberal reporter, a white liberal reporter, a Hispanic liberal reporter, a gay liberal reporter and trans liberal reporter etc etc etc IS NOT DIVERSITY. IT'S SELF DELUSION.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.