Jessell: Stations Need A Louder Voice For Free Press

We found a few broadcasters joining in yesterday on the Boston Globe-led effort of newspapers to counter President Trump’s frequent, vitriolic and often indiscriminate attacks on the news media, including characterizing them as the “enemy of the people.”

Brad Ramsey, GM of Tegna’s WFAA Dallas, took to the air during the evening news yesterday to decry how the overheated rhetoric was undermining local  journalism.

Bernice Kearney, news director at Graham’s KSAT San Antonio, wrote a strongly worded piece for the website and had her anchors direct viewers to it.

Erik Schrader, GM of Raycom’s WOIO Cleveland, said he was doubling down on his early criticism of the president because the president was doubling down on his media attacks.

There were some others, but it was not a big showing by the electronic press.

RTDNA Executive Director Dan Shelley, who had urged broadcasters on Monday to participate, said that the TVEyes media monitoring service reported more than 4,200 mentions of “First Amendment” and “free press” on TV and radio this week.

Shelley can’t say what was behind all those mentions, but he feels it is certain evidence that stations were stirring things up. “At least for a moment, millions of people across America yesterday were thinking about, or having a conversation about, the free press and the role of the free press in our society.”

I read a small sampling of the newspaper editorials — a couple dozen of hundreds reportedly published — and was impressed by their eloquence and how they came to the same basic points from many different angles. And they did it in a non-Trumpian way — with all due respect to the president and his supporters.

Some journalism class or news organization must gather and organize the commentary. Collectively, they constitute a powerful defense of the press and clear warning of how its freedom can be eroded by demagoguery.

Of course, not all the papers joined in. Some simply ignored it and others explained that independent news media should never operate in lock step and that doing so might give credence to Trump’s claim that the media are conspiring against him.

I agree that media should act independently — with one narrow exception. That is when the principles underlying the free press and the integrity of journalists come under frequent attack by a president with an uncanny power over half the electorate. If he says it, they believe it.

I would have liked to have seen many more stations take Trump on. The good news is they still can. There was nothing special about this week and no need for doing it all at the same time, although an expression of solidarity carries extra force.

Because stations are primarily focused on local news and Trump is primarily targeting national broadcast and cable networks, stations might figure it really isn’t their fight.

Of course it is.

Trump’s language is sloppy. He may have CNN, NBC or The New York Times in mind when he tweets about “FAKE news,” but most of the tweets are shotgun blasts striking all media, national and local, big and small.

This was the thrust of Ramsey’s editorial on WFAA. “With the national rhetoric building against seemingly all journalists, I could no longer stand by,” he said. “The team at WFAA is too honorable and talented to be associated with anything considered ‘fake.’

“Our journalists are authentic, brave and passionate. Lumping all media into one big, negative bucket is reckless and irresponsible. And I would respectfully ask anyone who does so to please reconsider.”

What Trump is essentially doing is giving his followers a license to ignore or disbelieve everything they don’t want to believe.

So, if a TV station uncovers corruption involving a popular mayor or local football coach, it may find viewers who, conditioned by Trump, simply dismiss the charges or, worse, attack the station.

What’s more, Trump is creating a hostile environment for journalists, one that could eventually lead to violence against any reporters. “Journalism organizations are now forced to take seriously the threats — often physical — hurled at them during certain political events,” WOIO’s Schrader pointed out in his piece.

I can see why some stations and station groups may be reluctant to weigh in on Trump’s attacks. Controversy is bad for business, and no matter how measured the tone or how much deference is afforded Trump supporters, any strong criticism of him will produce a backlash of at least equal force.

But I would hope that in this case the principles are so vital and the safety of reporters so important it would overcome broadcasters’ reticence to irritate some viewers and advertisers.

There is also a role for group executives. They should not dictate that stations editorialize, but they should make it known that it is OK if they do.

So, it was good to see Scripps CEO Adam Symson take a stand. In a memo to employees that he had the PR folks copy here, he blasted Trump for trying to discredit all media that criticizes him — a favorite tactic of authoritarians like Putin and Hitler.

“I’ve long settled into the belief that we live in a highly polarized society, but this isn’t about left, right or center,” he said. “I’m afraid what the press is experiencing is the kind of demonization and scapegoating that will lead this country down a dark path.”

Other CEOs could also signal to their GMs, NDs, anchors, reporters and producers that they don’t think Trump anti-media rhetoric is good for America by speaking out. They should let them know that they have their backs.

And what about the NAB? Isn’t President Gordon Smith supposed to represent broadcasters and all they do in Washington?

I know what kind of man Smith is. I know he doesn’t believe his members are “the enemy of the people.” He should find a suitable and prominent public forum and say so in no uncertain terms.

Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. He can be contacted at 973-701-1067 or here.