Opinion

How can the media effectively cover Trump’s first criminal trial?

So I asked my Post Opinions colleagues Ruth Marcus and Erik Wemple: How should the media handle Trump’s hush money trial?

💬 💬 💬

Alexi McCammond: Hi, friends! Because this is so historic in nature, it seems as much a test for the media as it is for Donald Trump’s legal defense team. Do you agree?

Erik Wemple: Sure, though the media is being tested as never before on all of its work these days.

Ruth Marcus: I feel like the biggest test for the media is going to be coping with the logistical limitations. We’ve all gotten so used to video, or at the very least audio, for legal proceedings, and now those of us who can’t be at the courthouse are going to have to rely on reporters inside to tell us what’s going on. It’s really a shame that the public can’t see for itself.

Erik: Yes, Ruth!!! The media story here is all about the failure of most of our courts across the land to accommodate journalists. It’ll be interesting to see how quickly we can get transcripts.

Alexi: Are you surprised the court didn’t make any unique accommodations for this trial?

Erik: Yes! I’ve written a fair bit about this problem. They did make some accommodations on courtroom access and the like, but not enough to ensure that the public knows what is happening.

Ruth: I’m not so sure about the transcripts. They will be delayed and inadequate. They have to be paid for, and there are going to be some limitations on public circulation.

Alexi: That makes me wonder if we’ve lost already, Ruth, because Trump can spin what is happening inside the courtroom however he wants to his followers online and at rallies.

Ruth: Well, he would spin anyway, and few people would be as glued to this as they were to, say, the O.J. Simpson trial. But still, the lack of access is unnecessary.

Erik: Right, it makes life miserable for reporters who have to nail down courtroom quotes and cannot rely on recordings and the like.

Ruth: I wouldn’t really cry for reporters. Reporters are there in the courtroom, and we’ve done trial coverage for ages without being able to tape record, etc.

Erik: That’s right I am crying for reporters, because I know from personal experience covering Sarah Palin v. New York Times and the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News that you cannot provide good real-time coverage under these archaic restrictions!

Ruth: It’s the public interest that’s not being served here, not our own individual interests. (Although it will affect what columns I can effectively write.)

Erik: The reporter’s interest here overlaps with the public’s.

Ruth: The courts have been very, very slow — especially federal courts (which this one isn’t) on getting into the 21st century, in part because they concluded that spectacles like the Simpson trial were not good for the administration of justice. (People playing to cameras and the like.)

Alexi: I’m stressing, you guys. 😬

Erik: You should be.

Ruth: I’m not really sure how it’s going to be covering this without physically being there. It’s a conundrum, and I feel like the media is always going to be playing catch-up as we wait for transcripts.

Erik: Correct, and that’s an embarrassment. There is a chance these proceedings could produce pressure for reform.

Alexi: Now that would be something — if this results in long-lasting, systemic reforms to better handle someone like Trump in the future.

Ruth: Well, not enough pressure to get there in time. The value of public access is that the public, if it wants, gets to listen and decide for itself what to think. The reality of excluding the public is that it puts the onus on us in the media to do a really good job of conveying what’s happening and the implications of it.

Alexi: It’s DJT vs. the MSM once again. Here’s hoping you both got some good rest over the weekend, because our work just got a lot more intense.

🙅🏽‍♀️ 🙅🏽‍♀️ 🙅🏽‍♀️

The next word

Lachlan Cartwright, former top editor of the National Enquirer during the 2016 election, wrote a piece for the New York Times Magazine, that offers a forensic analysis of just how powerful the media can be in shaping political discourse and even election outcomes. He details how executives at the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc. (AMI), stopped potentially damaging stories about Trump from being published:

It was an enormous amount of money to pay someone, especially for a story we were not running. ... In return, [the source] signed a new contract that stipulated that if he told the story to any third parties, he would be on the hook for a million dollars in damages to A.M.I. It was a highly unusual clause. The signed contract was put into a safe. A colleague who was working with me described what happened as a “catch and kill.”

Cartwright also revealed how the Enquirer started salacious and totally false rumors, like Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Tex.) father somehow being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald, which mainstream outlets eventually picked up. And, of course, how the Enquirer worked closely with Michael Cohen to keep the Stormy Daniels story away from the public.

As detestable as these “catch and kill” operations were, there is a certain thrill that comes with learning about the intricacies of these backroom deals. It can be easy to get wrapped up in the whirlwind of our modern politics.

Perhaps those covering Trump should listen to Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney who served as acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, who said on MSNBC Monday that New York state prosecutors — engaged in the new “trial of the century” — shouldn’t get too excited taking part in the case. Instead, they should be “methodical, linear and chronological. There’s a story to tell, and they’ll get on that trail and tell the story.” The media would be wise to keep the same in mind.

🕒🕒🕒

This week, four years ago

This week, we’re doing something different: We’re going back in time to remind you what life was like four years ago, when Trump was grappling with the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic and Joe Biden had just secured the Democratic nomination to be president.

This week, in 2020, Post Opinions columnist Megan McArdle wrote a prescient essay about why the lockdown skeptics were dead wrong. In fact, the virus was already considered among the leading causes of death for Americans. In fact, The Post reported, “more than five times as many Americans died from covid-19 last week than were killed in the World War II raid” on Pearl Harbor.

🧠 🧠 🧠

Brain dump

• Trump’s immunity claims tell voters all they need to know about him, my colleague E.J. Dionne wrote. Read his column here.
• Maddy Butcher asked in a new Post Opinions essay: Who exactly am I supposed to date when there are 13 people per square mile where I live? Find out.
• Measles is back and more contagious than the coronavirus. Get the Editorial Board’s view.