Donald Trump recently sat down for an interview with the Spanish-language media outlet Univision, which went pretty well. That has scandalized the Washington Post.
The “friendly” November 7 interview has raised a number of red flags among Democratic activists. It “was arranged with the help of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.” It was “notable for its gracious tone” and “lack of follow-up questions.” It included an admission from Trump that Univision’s owners and executives “like me.” Worst of all, according to the Post, Trump’s interlocutors didn’t treat the former president like the threat that he is.
“It’s a sharp contrast to the long history of tension between Trump and Univision — a fact that alarmed both Democrats and journalists inside Univision,” wrote reporter Michael Scherer. That observation preceded the unspooling of an elaborate plot in which it was alleged that Univision’s executives are colluding with the Trump camp to promote the candidate. “This was Mexican-style news coverage,” said former Univision president Joaquin F. Blaya, “a repudiation of the concept of separation of business and news.”
What we’re treated to here is an example of the misbegotten belief among some in media that the press has a moral obligation to dispense with professional commitments, such as reportorial neutrality, when covering Trump. In service to the country, to posterity, and even to democracy itself, journalists cannot provide Trump with the benefits enjoyed by more conventional candidates.
At least, that’s what media critic Margaret Sullivan sees as the press’s responsibility. Rather than “devoting equal numbers of words to each side of a political argument, we should be thinking about what coverage serves the public best,” she wrote. That would involve devoting disproportionate attention to “Trump-style Republicans” and reminding audiences that their subject “is an election denier” even when “covering such a politician in other contexts.” If media outlets followed Sullivan’s advice, they’d likely sacrifice what little faith the American public still has in them.
The outrage that followed Trump’s Univision interview suggests the press will allow its pique and wildly overinflated sense of influence and authority to overcome its better judgment. And if the polls continue to suggest that he could be restored to the White House, the media’s efforts to undermine Trump’s appeal will only become more frenetic.