The power dynamic is shifting against Trump. Thank his binky
But the press would have stood up to him without Natalie Harp. Crisis demands it.
I suppose we have Natalie Harp to thank.
The president had been growing increasingly frustrated by negative news coverage of his many failures. Then last Friday, according to the Wall Street Journal, "as his frustrations reached a fever pitch," Harp showed him clips of MS NOW anchors criticizing him.
That was the last straw, apparently.
Donald Trump banned MS Now, along with CNN and Politico.
But we shouldn't thank Natalie Harp for facilitating censorship on a scale that we have never seen in our lifetimes. No, we should thank her for making it clear to the public that censorship was what this man has always wanted but never had the guts to do until now. The worst thing he did was bully Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel. That was bad enough, but that was nothing compared to banishing members of the press from the White House.
But we should thank the president's binky for more than revealing Trump's intentions. After months, even years, of letting themselves be humiliated by the president, reporters are finally standing up to him. While MS Now, CNN and Politico sue for access, the major television networks decided to stop pool coverage of the president until further notice.
The consequence has been a kind of revelation to the public, as videos went viral of Trump talking without audio (which is a service that the press pool provides). Turns out we do not have to experience the constant drumbeat of this man's lies. Turns out members of the press can do their jobs professionally and dispassionately, reporting on the president while also essentially putting him on mute. Bottom line: we do not have to live this way. The last two days have been a glorious reprieve. That might not have happened without Natalie Harp.
On behalf of every American, I give thanks.
Courtesy of Newsmax, via Aaron Rupar.
That said, we should not give Natalie Harp too much credit. We were almost certainly heading in this direction anyway, as the president's many failures – the war, the inflation, the corruption, the incompetence – are snowballing into a gigantic, undeniable crisis. The price of diesel is now extortionate. Vulnerable Republicans are running scared. Indie voters, who favored Trump two years ago, have turned on him by a breathtaking 99 points, according to Harry Enten. The obsequiousness of the Washington press corps is often grotesque but reporters cannot ignore that opposition to Donald Trump is reaching mainstream status.
As infuriating as it is, corporate media still tends to reflect the majority, right or wrong. So even without Natalie Harp, reporters probably would have stood up to Trump eventually, if only out of need to maintain credibility. Reporters are now doing for voters what White House advisors are now doing for Trump. In recent days, they have been “increasingly blunt" with him, according to the Post, about the growing backlash against him. ("It didn’t always translate to a good mood for Trump," the Post said.) In the last week, story after story has been "increasingly blunt" about the true nature of the crisis bearing down on voters.
The press can no longer afford to play along with Trump. The landscape is shifting. Bullying and intimidation won't work anymore. So he tried censorship, which made matters worse for him, as it brought more attention to the crisis but less to him. (As Newsmax noted, video footage of Trump without audio is "one example of [his media ban] backfiring just a little bit.")
What we are seeing could be the making of a tipping point.
That's according to Jennifer Schulze, a veteran Chicago journalist and publisher of Indistinct Chatter, a newsletter about the news. In the interview below, she told me that "the power dynamic has shifted and will shift even more after November." It could shift so much, she said, the media could even give the 80-year-old Donald Trump the Joe Biden treatment.
"A lame duck president who just lost one or both chambers won’t have the same power to scare off critical coverage," Jennifer told me Monday. "Plus, Trump is going to keep screwing up. That’s who he is. I think that means many, many more stories are coming about Trump's corruption, anti-democratic behavior, and possibly even his cognitive decline."
Liberal pundits like me are suggesting that the media seems to be turning against Donald Trump. The war, gas prices, inflation, corruption. On Friday, Trump banned CNN, MS Now and Politico. Today, the big media says they won't show pool coverage. What do you think?
I don't know if I think it's a question of turning against Trump so much as reality overwhelming any possible effort to sanewash or appease Trump.
I think Trump wants people to think that news coverage about high gas prices and the worsening Iran war is a personal, political attack on him. But it’s actually journalists doing their job reporting the truth about what’s happening in America right now, as well as the corruption and incompetence in the Trump administration. The news coverage is the same across the country, not just big media but local news, too – high prices, Americans struggling to find healthcare, measles outbreaks, Trump’s low approval ratings, the disgraceful conditions on the USS Lincoln, Republicans in trouble with the midterms, Trump’s crypto-grift, the botched Reflecting Pool "repair," the never-ending Iran War. The list is endless and so are the news stories about all of it. The mainstream news media has taken quite a beating from him over the past 10 years but locking journalists out of the White House might be the thing that brings them all together for a sustained fight for fact-based reporting and the First Amendment.
I also think being on television is like oxygen for Trump so the networks refusing to do the press pool is gonna hurt. He doesn’t care if you can’t afford gas in your car or food for your kids, but he does care if CNN and the other TV news outlets have video of him at the UN or wherever else.
During the pandemic, Trump lied about how great things were, even as bodies were piling up. Eventually reporters started talking more bluntly about what he was doing, or not doing. Even the Times stopped using euphemisms. Something similar seems to be happening now. Thoughts?
There’s always a tipping point and now that tipping point is locking journalists out of the White House. There is no grey area here, so yes, I think the news coverage is going to be more direct, less nuanced. I also think there will be more sustained coverage than we’ve seen with so many other Trump stories. This is not a one day or one week story and no matter what Trump does to change the topic, the press will surely continue to stick with this one.
I'm skeptical. This is the same press corps that made a scandal out of Joe Biden's age. Trump is much more deteriorated than Biden ever was, yet the signs of aging – falling asleep on camera, for instance – are explained away or ignored. Does a tipping point include attention to Trump's cognitive decline?
I don’t think for a second that we are going to see a wholesale reversal of some of the bad habits in Trump coverage, but reality is a powerful thing. That reality includes Trump’s growing weakness. He’s still falling in the polls, some Republicans are avoiding if not outright criticizing him, the Democrats are poised to start doing massive investigations if they take the House. The power dynamic has shifted and will shift even more after November. A lame duck president who just lost one or both chambers won’t have the same power to scare off critical coverage. Plus, Trump is going to keep screwing up. That’s who he is. I think that means many, many more stories are coming about Trump's corruption, anti-democratic behavior, and possibly even his cognitive decline.
A question of substance. Vance said today that the White House decision to ban the media is not an attack on free speech. It's merely denying "special access." "They can still report," he said. He seems to be picking up on Trump who said that he's not assaulting free speech but banning "fake news." Trump even called it a "threat to our national security." What's your response?
Any walking this ban back is bullshit. It’s not special access to cover the president of the United States in the Oval Office, on Air Force One or any of the other places where the press has typically followed the president's movements. The tell is that all of the maga media still has this so-called special access, so the pro-Trump propagandists can continue to promote Trump’s false version of events.
Do you think there will be more attention paid to Natalie Harp? Trump's so-called binky vets what he sees, making her one of the most powerful people in the country. Yet she's virtually invisible in press coverage. We know more about Hasan Piker than Natalie Harp.
Since Natalie Harp is a daily and highly visible part of Trump’s world, I think the coverage will continue. With every clip of Natalie traveling with Trump, Aaron Rupar makes a point of mentioning it on his very popular social media feeds. But I doubt it will ever reach Hasan Piker coverage levels because the massive maga media sphere isn’t there churning it up every day and pushing it into the mainstream.
