ABOUT a fortnight before the US presidential elections in 2016, I attended a talk at a university in Chicago featuring New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and former Obama adviser David Axelrod. I was a tad late to the event and caught the panellists discussing how Donald Trump would react to his loss and how his candidacy would help a media organisation he was planning to launch. The next day, I told my professors that I was surprised Trump’s loss was discussed at the event as a foregone conclusion. They said they were surprised I thought Trump had a chance whereas I was surprised they didn’t. I think we left the conversation thinking the other was naive.

Two weeks later, on election night, I watched teachers and students dumbfounded and teary-eyed as the results poured in. It was especially a devastating blow for students who had not been adequately prepared for this scenario and let their partisanship or dislike for Trump guide their training. There is no style book that endorses making assumptions in journalism, anywhere.

Plenty has been written about how the media failed to accurately reflect the mood in the United States and how its coverage of the candidates resulted in Trump’s win. Fast forward to the present and it seems Trump is likely to win the Republican nomination, maybe even the presidency.

With that in mind, I read with interest last week the debate about CNN’s decision to host a town hall with Trump. There was anger that CNN was giving its platform to “a monster” and “liar” while others felt that journalists had to ask tough questions from a man who was investigated for serious crimes — from falsifying business records to his handling of secret documents to his payment of ‘hush money’ to an adult film actress. I’m sure audiences wanted to hear his replies to journalists trained to ask tough questions.

Journalism is about holding the powerful to account.

Instead, audiences saw Trump bulldoze his way through questions to the delight and cheers of his supporters. He did not adequately respond to questions about the Jan 6 attacks, immigration, Ukraine and made derogatory comments about the woman who accused him of rape, calling her promiscuous. Trump also called the moderator a “nasty person”. He repeated his accusation about the 2020 “stolen election”.

CNN has received a lot of negative feedback for the chaotic nature of the event and many staff members are angry their reservations were not paid heed to. The most high-profile criticism came from Christiane Amanpour during a speech at Columbia journalism school’s graduation ceremony where she said: “Maybe we should revert back to the newspaper editors and TV chiefs of the 1950s, who in the end refused to allow McCarthyism onto their pages.” She also said: “Maybe live is not always right. Some of the very best and even fieriest, compelling interviews are, in fact, taped and they are edited, not to change the context or the content or the truth or the intent, but to edit for filibuster and a stream of disinformation.”

I understand the rage is directed at CNN for hosting a man who peddled disinformation but perhaps it’s time to redirect that anger at a system which values ratings over accountability. And at this idea that ‘both sideism’ makes for fair storytelling. If it was about being objective we’d see more marginalised voices on CNN and other networks around the world, including Pakistan but we know it won’t get the ratings.

Trump is ratings gold. Many credit former CNN executive Jeff Zucker for creating Trump “the TV sensation” — first as a reality star on The Apprentice and then as presidential candidate, who received a lot of free publicity. Zucker may no longer helm affairs at CNN but Trump continues to captivate audiences so it’s no surprise that new CEO Christ Licht would want some of that gold, especially since there’s a void to fill on Fox following the Dominion lawsuit.

When you’re driven purely by metrics that reward profit, many editorial standards will fall by the wayside. Journalism is about holding the powerful to account, not being an opening act to showmanship that populist leaders like to put on. In Pakistan too, the media gave leaders free rein to say whatever they wanted, thereby giving it an air of legitimacy.

Writing about this in Fortune, author Roxane Gay said (bigotry) is “not an intellectual exercise or a useful contribution to a range of diverse viewpoints. It is an evil that must be eradicated”. The media should not give it oxygen, she added.

While I am a fierce advocate of free speech, I agree when she says “it does not guarantee unfettered access to media coverage”. There’s plenty of lessons for Pakistani journalists too: namely, be judicious in the subjects and people you give airtime to. The survival of journalism will ultimately depend on it.

The writer researches newsroom culture.

Twitter @LedeingLady

Published in Dawn, May 21st, 2023