On the final day of the July 2016 Republican National Convention, which nominated Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate, CNN's Anderson Cooper led a panel of experts commenting on the event. Among them was the fluffy Jeffrey Lord, who was eager to report on his phone call with Trump.
“He has a message for you, Anderson, that he is not satisfied. He feels we are not representing this competition accurately,” Lord said on the broadcast. “he [asked] “I would like to say that your ratings, and our ratings on CNN, are as high as they are because of his attendance at the convention,” he added.
“There's no question about Donald Trump's impact on ratings,” Cooper responded amiably.
Trump's claims were not inaccurate. The year he first ran for office was the most profitable in CNN history. Interest in new, unconventional candidates, whether it's fascination, alarm, or glee, has boosted media interests on the left and right. Online subscription numbers for the New York Times and Washington Post soared. FOX News ratings reached new highs.
This momentum continued throughout President Trump's term, but quickly dissipated once he left office.
The real estate mogul has returned to the center of American politics as the presumptive Republican candidate after Nikki Haley withdrew from the race.
Mr. Trump's possible re-election has created a recognition among members of the media that while the former president threatens democracy with his constant falsehoods and norm-subversive behavior, he is actually good for business. It's spreading.
New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote in January: “Simply put, President Donald Trump's inauguration has been a boon for the media, with subscriptions, ratings, and clicks all surging.'' ” he wrote.
Recognizing this is important, but stopping there without changing your behavior seems like a shrug of resignation, a selfish free pass to coverage and business as usual. Instead of soul searching, we receive a disclaimer.
A word that even thoughtful opinions seem reluctant to use is “conflict of interest.” It is clear that media companies stand to profit from their coverage of Trump. That's bad for journalism, and bad for democracy.
As American journalist George Packer pointed out in a December article in The Atlantic, newspapers and television stations are exploiting the Trump phenomenon to record profits, but it is starting to resemble the Trump phenomenon. They have become more “solipsistic, divisive, and self-righteous.”
Packer wrote that journalistic standards are declining as the news becomes “almost indistinguishable from whitewash” and the media abandons its “independence for action.”
In effect, many media outlets have abdicated their core duty and privilege of determining what is newsworthy.
Much of the Trump coverage was clickbait in one way or another, a wake-up call to beleaguered liberals and a steady stream of claptrap to the merry MAGA crowd. Television networks have broadcast hours of Trump's rallies without filters or scrutiny. National newspapers featured his tweets about political injustice on their front pages online and in print.
Many news organizations are capitalizing on the political polarization that President Trump has stirred up, further deepening it. Otherwise good journalists like CNN's Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper too often fall into unseemly editorial monologues.
The media increasingly reflects the information bubble of social media. This increased ratings and clicks.
This kind of profit-driven reporting is not only bad for journalism, it's bad for democracy. The media's obsession with President Trump—his antics and insults, his ridicule and vulgarity, his gleeful violation of norms—has indirectly affirmed the brand of politics that the former president embodies and thrives on.
He has turned the political world into a playing field, where politicians are seen as cynical, self-serving con artists intent on inflicting the greatest possible humiliation on their opponents.
In this political environment, any policy, even a benign public health measure like a mask mandate during a pandemic, can become the basis for toxic and polarizing politics.
This type of political behavior encourages voters to vote according to their tribal view of politics, a view of politics based on anger rather than merit.
With President Trump's reelection as a real possibility, the American media can and should do more than just throw up their sleeves and resign. If they are serious about conflict of interest issues, they should adopt what I call the Lonely Planet test.
The name of this test comes from a popular travel guide. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, a prominent advocate of Congressional campaign finance reform, used Lonely Planet's practices as an example in a 2010 lecture on how to increase trust in government.
Lonely Planet avoids any suspicion of a conflict of interest by assuring its readers that it “does not accept payment for listing or endorsing any location or business.” Lonely Planet understands that even the slightest suspicion that we are making money from the places and businesses we list can undermine our credibility.
The media needs to embrace a similar ethos. Editors must ensure that editorial decisions are not commercially motivated, uphold journalistic standards, and are in the public's interest. They should ask three questions to scrutinize any potential story about Trump for “conflicts of interest.”
Should I report the story? If he did, would he benefit financially more than the average benefit from other insurance policies? If so, would it benefit Trump and advance his political brand? ?
When it comes to reporting on Trump, editors and journalists should lean toward the principle of “less is more.” This is because doing so not only restores the proportionality of reporting, but also reduces conflicts of interest for news organizations.
None of this guarantees that President Trump's second term will be less polarizing or less nerve-wracking. But the test I'm proposing would mean news organizations can do more to protect their integrity and the public's trust.
For years, the Washington Post has centered on the Trump-era slogan, “Democracy dies in the dark.” But if the media continues on its current course and enters President Trump's next term, not only journalism but also democracy could suffer a serious blow in the bright light.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.