Abstract
Jerry Ceppos, the William B. Dickinson Distinguished Professor in Journalism, and former dean of the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University, assembles a great group of journalists with different perspectives on covering former President Donald Trump, “the most journalism-averse president of modern times” (p. xi).
Ceppos was approached by his former colleague and Dean, Martin Johnson, to consider “editing a collection of essays by Washington journalists about their experiences” covering the 45th President. Sadly, 10 months after the manuscript “went to the publisher,” Martin passed away in his sleep (p. xi).
There are 24 individuals who contributed to the book and Ceppos notes that “we had no idea that four of them would write about being criticized, rudely and publicly (and one would write about being criticized privately)” (p. 1). The journalists faced name-calling on Twitter, being blacklisted from political events, having their personal lives investigated, and even being “dressed down” at press conferences (p. 1). Ceppos adds that they were happy to ask so many about their experiences because “each has a different take” (p. xiii). Some of the journalists include McKay Coppins with The Atlantic; Rebecca Buck, CNN; Jill Colvin, the Associated Press; Tom Rosenstiel, the American Press Institute; Fernando Pizarro, NPR; Paul Farhi, the Washington Post; Quint Forgey, Politico; Peter Bhatia, the Detroit Free Press; Salena Zito, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner; and Mark Leibovich, the New York Times.
When presidents take the oath, there are so many responsibilities and duties. And one of those duties is working with the press. There is a history of former presidents angry at the press for coverage they received. In “Presidential Feuds With the Media Are Nothing New,” by Ryan Mattimore, back in January of 2018 for History.com, “each American President has had their own unique relationship to the media” (p. 1). Even our third president, Thomas Jefferson, who was decidedly pro-press, had his own grievances. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle” (p. 2).
Ceppos also notes presidential tensions with the press, by quoting Harold Holzer in “The Presidents vs. the Press: The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media.” “Nearly all presidents, from Washington to Trump, have reacted to press criticism in this manner: treating what we now call ‘the media’ as the enemy.” Ceppos adds, “He (Holzer) notes that Trump’s critics say he tried to circumvent established media by using new platforms, ‘but so did Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson’” (p. xiii).
The book is so well organized and grouped into various themes: “When the President Calls You Out” “ Could All of This Be Our Fault?” “The Story Isn’t Always in Washington” “Covering the President When You’re a Journalist of Color” “He Dissembles. But He’s Available—and His Threats Don’t Come True” “It’s Been Bad Before, but Not This Bad” “Trump’s Worst Habit” “Look to the Future.” (pp. vii–ix)
The stories shared are impactful and at times sad to hear. Says Rebecca Buck with CNN, with her assessment: Journalists have adapted, and continue to do so—but for whom? Subscriber numbers and television news ratings skyrocketed in the Trump era, suggesting as healthy a public appetite for political news as ever. Trust in the media, however, continued to slide. We are trying to speak to the whole of America, but narrower and narrower slices are listening. How do we cover campaigns when not only our nation’s politics, but the fundamental building blocks of society, are seismically shifting beneath our feet? And how can a fractured media even begin to chart a clear path forward through the wilderness? More than five years later, though, one thing seems clear: Trump didn’t blow up political journalism. He just lit the fuse. (p. 17)
Perhaps it is Frank Sesno, former CNN’s Washington bureau chief, who said it best: Donald Trump changed the rules of White House coverage. His personal attacks on reporters, his dismissal of anything that runs counter to his version of events, his assault on facts and decency have made what once was the most prestigious beat in journalism the most contentious. Yet covering the place is more important than ever, a vital and daily check on presidential power. It is a mission that goes well beyond Donald Trump and will extend past his presidency. The new model of White House coverage needs to be more substantive and more adept, imaginative, and focused on actions, not words. Reporters need to wake up every morning promising themselves not to go down rabbit holes of distraction. It’s time to reimagine and refocus the journalism that tracks the most powerful person in the world. And cover the consequences. (p. 36)
Peter Bhatia, with the Detroit Free Press, also brings up a strong and final point about the future in the last chapter of the book and “How Journalism Schools Can Help”: But journalists and journalism must take larger responsibility for what Trump has created. We are not without blame. Sure, the growth of cable news advocacy and the wild world of the Internet earn their share of the discussion, but there still is much that can be done. Engage with communities more than a casual basis. Live inclusion. Make a place for all points of view. Initiate the engagement and inclusion; don’t wait for it. Show our work. Explain how and why and what we do. And be relentless about it. (p. 149)
Covering Politics in the Age of Trump is an honest, passionate, and eye-opening account of journalists sharing their experiences while holding one of the most prestigious jobs in the media world. Their stories are important as we navigate the challenges in an ever-changing world, with technology, political strife, and uncertainty, yet optimism knowing these challenges can be met.
