The political buzz of late has been the rising prospect of a second presidential term for Donald Trump. For many in the media, that has meant ringing alarm bells. A second Trump term is seen as an existential threat to American democracy. Are those fears legitimate? Overinflated? This week’s cover story by Peter Grier and Sophie Hills is our response.
Of course, different media will respond in different ways, and that is generally to the good. A diversity of media represents a diversity of viewpoints. The freedom of the press is about protecting those viewpoints and allowing Americans to make up their own minds without censorship.
But what is the Monitor’s viewpoint? I see two cardinal points that appropriately balance one another.
First, the Monitor has never been afraid to call a spade a spade. From 1930s Germany to 1980s South Africa and beyond, we have not hesitated to report clearly and factually on anti-democratic movements and politicians. Democracy, while frustrating at times, still does the best job of ensuring the rights and freedoms of all, and the Monitor stands unequivocally behind human progress – the expansion of these rights and freedoms to broaden prosperity, responsibility, justice, and dignity.
When we see a threat to democracy, we will report that honestly. That includes in the United States. Our reporting finds that former President Trump’s claims about the 2020 election were unsupported by evidence, and his efforts to change the results were anti-democratic. Our cover story lays out other areas of concern we will be watching closely.
Yet in doing its work, the Monitor should never give in to fear, personal opinion, or speculation. This is exceedingly difficult in a time when politics seems so defined by these very qualities. But that is our guiding principle. The Monitor’s outlook demands that we put aside fear, which we do not see as a safe foundation for building up anything of lasting value. But the other demands regarding personal opinion and speculation are just Journalism 101, really.
I can remember a professor in my university journalism program stalking grumpily behind our desks. Whenever we didn’t know what to write, he thundered, “Write what you know!”
Not what you think. Not what you want. Not what could be. What you know. Good journalism can be that simple.
At this point, what we don’t know about Mr. Trump’s intentions is vast. What do we know? He has made anti-democratic statements on the campaign trail about his potential uses of the Justice Department, among other things. But we also know he loves to “own the liberals” – to send his left-leaning critics into paroxysms of outrage. Combine that with his conviction that he has been mistreated by the Biden administration Justice Department, which has indicted him on multiple counts, and you have significant uncertainty.
What we can do is watch, challenge our own biases, and report honestly. Which is what Monitor journalists have been doing since Mary Baker Eddy founded the publication in 1908.
