Lonely Planet avoids any appearance of conflict of interest by assuring its readers that, among other practices, it does not “accept payment for listing or endorsing any place or business”. In a 2010 lecture on how to improve trust in government, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, a prominent advocate of reforming Congress campaign finance laws, used Lonely Planet’s practices as an example. This test takes its name from the popular travel guide. If they are serious about addressing the conflict-of-interest problem, they should adopt what I will call the Lonely Planet test. This type of political behaviour encourages voters to cast their ballots in accordance with a tribal vision of politics – one based not on merits but on rage.Īs another Trump term emerges as a real possibility, US media outlets can and should do more than throw their arms up in resignation. In this political environment, every policy – even benign public health measures like the face mask mandate during the pandemic – can become grounds for toxic, polarising politicking. He has turned political life into a mud-slinging arena where politicians are viewed as cynical, self-dealing hacks whose goal is to inflict the greatest humiliation possible on their opponents.

The media’s fixation with Trump – his antics and insults, his taunts and vulgarities, his gleeful breach of norms – has indirectly affirmed a brand of politics that the former president embodies and thrives in. This type of profit-seeking coverage is not just bad for journalism, but also for democracy. That has worked better for ratings and clicks. The media have increasingly mirrored the information bubbles of social media. Otherwise excellent journalists, like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper, have too often slipped into unseemly editorialising monologues. Many in the news media have capitalised on the political polarisation that Trump stoked, further deepening it. National newspapers have featured his tweets about political non-sequiturs on their front pages, online and in print. TV networks have aired hours of Trump’s rallies, unfiltered and unscrutinised. Much of the Trump coverage has been just click-bait in various incarnations, a ceaseless stream of alarm bells for the distressed liberals and catnip for the gleeful MAGA crowd. In effect, many media outlets have relinquished a core duty and privilege: determining what is newsworthy. Journalism standards have declined as news is becoming “almost indistinguishable from fluff and lies” and media outlets are abandoning “independence for activism”, Packer wrote. They have become more “solipsistic … divisive, and self-righteous”. That is bad for journalism and, by extension, for democracy.Īs American journalist George Packer noted in a December article for the Atlantic, while newspapers and TV channels are raking in record profits from milking the Trump phenomenon, they are starting to resemble him.

It is clear that media outlets stand to benefit from their coverage of Trump.

The words that even the thoughtful voices seem reluctant to use are “conflict of interest”. Instead of soul-searching, we are getting disclaimers. “In crude material terms,” The New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote in January, “Donald Trump’s presidency benefited the media, with subscriptions, ratings and clicks all soaring.”Īcknowledgement is important, but stopping at that without changing conduct seems like a shrug of resignation, a self-serving free pass for coverage and business as usual to continue. The possibility of another Trump term has led to a bout of public acknowledgements among media professionals that while the former president threatens democracy with his incessant falsehoods and norm-busting practices, he is actually good for business. The real estate mogul has now returned to the centre of American politics as the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party after Nikki Hailey dropped out of the race. The boost continued throughout the Trump presidency but wore off as soon as he left office. Online subscriptions soared for The New York Times and The Washington Post. Interest in the new, unorthodox candidate – whether it was fascination, alarm, or glee – boosted profits for media outlets left and right. The year he first ran for election was the most profitable in CNN’s history. “There is no doubt about Donald Trump’s impact on ratings,” Cooper responded, amiably. Keep reading list of 4 items list 1 of 4 Summer Lee’s primary race tests fallout for critics of the US’s Gaza policy list 2 of 4 Full jury panel seated on third day of Trump’s New York hush-money trial list 3 of 4 Columbia president faces anti-Semitism Congress hearing: What’s at stake? list 4 of 4 Biden calls for higher taxes on the rich on visit to Pennsylvania hometown end of list

Election nytimes