Alastair Campbell, of cherished memory, used to bang on about how the 24-hour news cycle had first transfixed and then transformed Downing Street’s press operation. But now try the next great leap in an unspecified direction: the 24-minute news cycle, as masterminded by Donald Trump. The shape and shrill sound of media things to come.
Trumpism means Trumpism. When attacked – by anyone from Meryl Streep to the CIA – the commander-in-chief of democratic righteousness will kick right back. He’ll say that she’s a lousy actor and Hillary hack. He’ll snarl about intelligence “Nazis”. And he’ll carry on tweeting incessantly.
Don’t expect much, if anything, from traditional daily White House press conferences. You won’t see many of them on TV – and the familiar cast of characters in the briefing room is also under dire threat. “Big media” doesn’t rule OK here any longer, according to his incoming press secretary, Sean Spicer. There’s a “proliferation” of new voices, “especially on the conservative media side”. They deserve “equal access” in the name of “perspective”.
All of which means that the Trump team is remixing the representational pot. “Next question, please, from our friends at Breitbart …” Meanwhile the president himself will mostly be cloistered far off stage, available for photo opportunities, interviews with Fox News and tweets unlimited. Ubiquitous but elusive. A scarlet pimpernel of social media. Last week’s mass presidential snarl-in, in short, will be the rarest of events.
So the strategy is clear enough already. Journalism’s twisted titans are supposedly out to get the Donald, out to distort and malign him as though the election had never been. (Variations on a Brexit theme by Sir Humphrey and his elite string quartet.) Worse, they’re part of a huge conspiracy peopled by spy chiefs, big drug companies, retired Brit spooks and occasional Russians. Keep them in that box – huffing and puffing while Middle America curls a lip – and you’ve a platform of infinite durability. Scandals of every kind, from bottom-pinching to lurid antics in a Moscow hotel room, never sink in. They’re a confected charivari, current for 15 moments. You can embrace triumph and victimhood simultaneously.
Thus far, all this seems to be working perfectly. Random effusions via Twitter still get newsdesks shifting after midnight. Rationed access to Trump still gets maximum replay (because it remains a scarce commodity). And “dishonest big media” are still in a bind.
On the one hand, if you’re some TV-cum-industrial giant with merger problems on your mind, you’re probably anxious not to declare a four-year war. On the other hand, if you’re a lofty, battling newspaper who’s seen subscription rates soar since the election, then readers have backed you as a voice of questioning-cum-opposition.
There are inevitable trade-offs here. One chunk of public opinion has already decided that “Giving Donald a chance, even though we didn’t vote for him” is today’s pragmatism. Another chunk is out on the streets. After Megyn Kelly’s defection, Fox has added yet another rightwinger to its primetime team. Fact checkers around and about are being laid off. And in a land of local, monopoly newspapers, there’s no easy way to launch or maintain a crusade against a Republican party that speaks for the readers who throng your supermarkets and country clubs.
In Trump terms, there are no “facts” – from Moscow, Prague or random bedrooms – that can bring him down. This is a post-factual administration. If you’re a walking, talking conspiracy theory, more allegations mean more of the same. And as for the great, disregarded legions of foreign correspondents based in DC, what balance can they strike? Trump near the edge? Trump sails through? Pity the poor BBC, thought worthy of Trumpian scorn already.
These are infernal difficulties. The Washington Post criticised Democrats last week for delivering long scripted speeches of complaint in the House, for staging routine rallies and banner-waving, for defining protest in traditional ways. No good, the Post seemed to think. Now newsgathering, like politics, seems to consist of making it up as you go along.
• Ethical bind time. You’re an editor who’s seen a sheaf of “unverified allegations” about the president-elect. You work away quietly at trying to verify them. But then these selfsame allegations are shown to the present president and Capitol Hill dignitaries as well as the PEOTUS himself by the FBI and CIA. Their very existence is news.
What do you do? Stick, or twist like BuzzFeed? Since you knew what’s alleged, what’s there on paper, there’s an imperative – with certain “unverifiable”, going on unbelievable, caveats – to stick the whole damned thing on the web. Otherwise you’re the metropolitan elite of professional news self-regard opting to keep Joe Public in the dark – and otherwise, too, there can’t be a rational, even halfway-informed discussion about a development of clear public interest.
Observe, too, the way in which, in digital times, one decision to post the whole thing on the net frees other papers to offer links to it. A single click of a decision covers all. There’s no need for everyone to publish: digitally, one is enough. Is that freedom to be righteous and practical, or a freedom to duck for cover? A very post-Leveson situation.
View all comments >