Trump 2.0: big Journalism wobbles, smaller outlets triumph

I talked to journalists about the Trump/Musk coverage and how to make it better.

Two months into Donald Trump’s second term, the United States is in crisis. Trump is playing fast and loose with multiple federal court orders, expanding his executive powers, extraditing people to foreign slave prisons without due process, threatening critics, and collecting untold millions through blatant corruption. Meanwhile, Elon Musk is every bit as lawless with his smash and grab efforts to fire federal workers, destroy government agencies, and take over the lucrative remains of the U.S. government for his own personal benefit. None of this makes us stronger, safer, more prosperous, or more free. Meanwhile, markets are teetering, wars continue in Ukraine and Gaza, and inflation is going back up. And yes, egg prices are still at a record high.

Does mainstream news coverage reflect the unprecedented chaos that has America’s democracy on the brink? How have Trump’s relentless attacks on journalism impacted the reporting? Will media owners continue to cave to Trump’s demands? Which news outlets and individual journalists are making an important impact? These are some of the critical questions facing journalists just 60-days and counting into Trump’s dizzying second term.

During the 2024 campaign, Trump threatened to jail reporters and take news networks off the air. He also sued media companies over news coverage he didn’t like. In the past two months, the lawsuits have continued and now the activist FCC has joined the fray. Last week, Trump called for investigations into CNN and MSNBC, claiming negative coverage of him was illegal. Trump also shuttered the government run, pro-democracy Voice of America, evicted mainstream news outlets from the Pentagon, kicked AP out of the press pool, and invited right-wing propaganda outlets into the White House. Russian owned news outlet TASS actually had a front row seat for the recent Oval Office ambush of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Shocking.

To its credit, AP has mounted a fierce fight for free speech after Trump shunned the news agency for refusing to go along with his fiat rechristening of the Gulf of Mexico. Tech giants Apple, Google and Microsoft fell in line with the Trump EO, promptly changing their online maps. Cowards, all of them. We’ve also seen disgraceful capitulation by many owners of other large media companies. Examples include Jeff Bezos’ turning the Washington Post opinion section into a MAGA megaphone, ABC News paying what amounts to a $15M dollar bribe to Donald Trump rather than fight his frivolous lawsuit in court, and Paramount, the corporate parent of CBS News, also flirting with making a big pay off to Trump instead of fighting his ridiculous complaint about how the network edited an interview with Kamala Harris.

Another stunner has been LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong’s short-lived ‘bias meter” that labeled the political leanings of opinion pieces. That AI-fueled effort hit a snag when it downplayed the KKK so it appears to be off-line . . .for now. Soon-Shiong also added CNN’s resident right-wing flamethrower, Scott Jennings, to the paper’s opinion team. Meanwhile, CNN gave Jennings a hefty pay raise to keep spreading his MAGA talking points. Reports indicate the news network showed a brief moment of good judgment by refusing to give Jennings his own show.

The good news: there is fearless journalism meeting the moment

As in every other industry, the failure of powerful incumbent organizations to meet changing needs opens the door to innovative rivals. Smaller news outlets and efforts by individual journalists doing fearless, fact-based reporting on the Trump/ Musk assault are gaining audiences the old fashioned way by good reporting.

The Atlantic has what may be the most consequential reporting so far with a shocking story about the reckless Trump national security team using non-governmental, commercial group chat technology to discuss military planning. Mike Waltz, the National Security adviser, carelessly added Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal chat that revealed military secrets, as well as nasty criticism of our European allies. Goldberg wrote that the “post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

Other outlets are providing much-needed coverage. Wired has led the way with critical information about what the secretive DOGE effort is actually doing inside federal government agencies. Rolling Stone, The American Prospect, ProPublica, The Guardian US and Judd Legum’s Musk Watch and Popular Information are just a few of the many journalism entities providing necessary reporting and insight. Some of the local news coverage–especially on raucous town halls and stories highlighting the incredible work done by fired federal workers–has also been quite impressive. The States Newsroom is a particular standout when it comes to local news coverage on these topics.

In a polarized time, it’s easy to think all commentary is just propaganda. But the deep commitment to facts and to laying them out in thoughtful argument is as important as it is rare. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow have done incredible work in this regard, and I want to give a special shout out to their insight into Americans' efforts to push back and their regular wrap-ups on court actions. 60 Minutes also continues its powerful work despite Trump’s legal challenge against CBS. New online projects from former network anchors Jim Acosta and Joy Reid are also offering up smart analysis and timely interviews. The Contrarian is a meaningful new entry, too.

These past two months, we have also seen some remarkable up-to-the minute reporting on the highly consequential courtroom battles over DOGE and Trump’s executive overreach. Those hero journalists include Chris Geider of Law Dork, Anna Bower of Lawfare, Joyce Vance, Katie Phang of MSNBC, Kyle Cheney of Politico. Also notable: the work from the teams at Just Security and Talking Points Memo.

Ask the experts: I asked other journalists to weigh in on the coverage

Stephen Robinson, journalist & contributor to Public Notice: I think the news coverage has been fairly banal — minimizing what is effectively a criminal presidency and enabling Trump’s strongman image by highlighting his “win” even when the implications are disastrous (Hegseth, RFK, Patel, Gabbard confirmations). I think the media should stop treating Trump like he’s normal. Provoking our closest ally, Canada, should have the press questioning his sanity.

Jeff Jarvis, journalist and Emeritus Professor of Journalism at City University of New York: In my view, coverage of Trump -- no, of the totalitarian, fascist coup overtaking the United States -- is even worse, far worse than I had anticipated. It is amazing to me that our major national outlets are still prevaricating and credulous, constantly looking for new euphemisms to not label what is happening. Coverage is constantly Trump-centric, from his point of view, rather than citizen-centric, speaking on our behalf. Every day the tops of these newspapers should bear banner headlines with the latest shocking attack on democracy and the Constitution, the latest cruelty to citizens and migrants, the latest self-destructive harm to the economy and the nation and its reputation in the world. Where is the alarm?

Stacy Kess, founder and editor of Equal Access Public Media: News coverage is challenging in the two month mark. I'm hyper-aware that news is more dispersed than ever, and I think news is harder and harder for news audiences who aren't as "plugged in" to find the best source. I, personally, might read two or three articles on the same issue. Better? Worse? I'm not sure I'd quantify news like that. "More challenging" are probably the right words.

Pat Krietlow, Founding editor Up North News,radio host: “… it's wrong to pretend it's just another day at the Blue vs. Red company picnic softball game.”

Joan Esposito, WCPT Radio host: I cancelled my WaPo subscription. I have lost confidence in their newsroom. With all of Bezos’ actions I now believe that story assignment, headline writing, and other supposedly straightforward newsroom operations will be softened to accommodate the owners efforts to please Trump. Why pay for news if you don’t trust it?

Mark Jacob, Stop the Presses columnist: We have to face the fact that the Washington Post is lost to us. And when I say “us,” I mean people who want quality news coverage unintimidated by oligarchs. The New York Times has been its usual disappointing self, especially in headlines. It’s odd – or maybe just cowardly – the way the Times will write a strong story and then put a soft, vague or overly cautious headline on it. We all know more people read the headlines.

Susan Demas, Michigan journalist: From mainstream outlets, there's been an overall decision to go the access journalism route, replete with puff pieces and pro-Trump headlines that you used to expect from Fox News and Breitbart.

Advice for improving news coverage of Trump/Musk:

Jeff Jarvis suggests reading international media for better coverage of our American crisis. “German media -- namely Die Zeit and Zeit Online, Der Spiegel, and the Süddeutsche Zeitung -- have been doing a better job covering the fall of American democracy than American media have.”

Mark Jacob thinks reporters should stop placing so much emphasis on the White House briefings and Trump’s oval office events: “Stop expecting White House briefings to provide information, They don’t. They’re an opportunity for Trump and his horrible press secretary Karoline Leavitt to lie. Top-notch reporters are underused if they sit there and write down the lies. Go find the truth elsewhere.”

Susan Demas also recommends reporters break out of the White House bubble. “There are so many important stories they could be telling right now if they were more interested in talking with everyday people instead of getting blind quotes from Trump staffers.”

Pat Krietlow says journalists should become more pro-democracy and to cover Trump like they would cover Democrats: “Example: Trump is starting a trade war over trade agreements that he signed in his first term. That would be a theme stuck on a loop in coverage of the last administration, with questions about President Biden's age and faculties and coverage overwrought with themes about hypocrisy and needless conflict with allies.”

Stephen Robinson believes embracing advocacy journalism is important. “I think mainstream media could learn the benefit of advocacy journalism — taking a stand on a principle, rather than seeking a balance that only normalizes fascism.”

Stacy Kess wishes news was more accessible, with no paywalls. She adds: “I think reporters covering Trump and Musk need to ask the tough questions and hold people to account. Ask them directly what their plans are. And remember that "no comment" and no answer are answers. Print that. Say that.”

All of those are excellent suggestions. I’d add: Don’t write ‘Trump says’ or ‘Musk says’ headlines or news stories without immediately adjacent fact checking. Add special sections or landing pages to news websites so all of these critical stories are easy to find by topic.

It is also essential to raise the alarm. Just two months into Trump 2.0, we are in a crisis that will impact each one of us. Many smaller news outlets and individual journalists get that. Big journalism needs to do the same.

Jennifer Schulze is a longtime Chicago journalist. She’s on Bluesky @newsjennifer.bsky.social and Substack at “Indistinct Chatter.”