How should the media cover the second Trump presidency? With just days to go before he is once again inaugurated, it has become a central and ongoing preoccupation for the news industry, given the complexities of covering Donald Trump’s first term. That coverage boosted ratings and readership for legacy media operations, but it remains unclear whether it could happen again. Back then, outlets tried to cover a torrent of breaking stories and controversies while simultaneously taking flak from the President and his supporters on the right, as well as scorching criticism from the left.
None of that will probably change, but what could be different this time, if anything? The Washington Post asked 10 influential journalists for their thoughts. Some of those surveyed ran newsrooms during the first Trump administration while others now serve in top jobs, and they laid out some general thoughts on their approach going into his second term.
The following interviews have been edited for clarity and conciseness.
Brian Williams (former broadcast television host and anchor)
Try this experiment: Listen to the way broadcast journalists report stories from the day’s news on both cable news and the network evening newscasts – and prepare to be transported back to about 1978. Everything about our country has changed, except the language used to describe it. Listen to the end-of-the-day reports from correspondents, and you’ll hear a virtual F8 key of cliched old phrases from another time in American life and politics. My personal favourite is “stopgap measure,” a phrase you will only hear on the air and never in the course of your life. A part of me dies when I hear that a Cabinet choice is “raising eyebrows,” (or, worse, “raising ire”) because the [intended] nominee is a “firebrand” – so controversial as to trigger the ultimate broadcast chestnut, “sending shock waves through Washington”. Good God, anything but shock waves through Washington.
The problem, of course, is that this language is lazy, numbing and normalising in a time of urgency and exigency. It’s actually insulting, and a gross disservice to those watching and listening – because it doesn’t match what they just saw or heard for themselves. It was crushing to watch so many working journalists attempt to generate the words to accurately describe a visibly struggling and diminished president, seemingly unable to complete a sentence or a thought in his disastrous and final debate. Say it with me: It is perhaps the ultimate irony that the electoral collapse of the Democratic Party in 2024 was triggered in large part by the man who ran to save the country and democracy – the same man who then tried to stay too long at the fair. There, I said it. Now someone please say it into a microphone. You can do it.
David Remnick (editor, the New Yorker)
It’s not surprising that people, even if they were expecting Trump to win at some level, are feeling some sense of daunting exhaustion in advance. But I think it’s the job of editors to not just jump up and down and say the usual – but very real – things about, “We’re here to do our job and only do it better” and so on, but also to have a plan of action in terms of the specifics of how they’re going to go about covering this, how they’re going to go about improving themselves. At the same time, devising ways to keep the best of the best of journalism alive and thriving because it’s an absolute necessity to the survival of so many things that we care about – no matter what your politics are.
We also have to think hard about who we’re speaking to and how. And at the same time, not sell our sense of purpose out because the vote went 3% one way as opposed to another way. Would we be having this conversation if the Democrats had won a narrow victory?
I think, to some degree, we should be self-critical, but we should stop apologising for everything we do. I think that journalism during the first Trump administration achieved an enormous amount in terms of its investigative reporting. And if we’re going to go into a mode where we’re doing nothing but apologising and falling into a faint and accepting a false picture of reality because we think that’s what fairness demands, then I think we’re making an enormous mistake. I just don’t think we should throw up our hands and accede to reality as it is seen through the lens of Donald Trump.
Kevin Merida (former executive editor, Los Angeles Times)
To start: aggressively, fearlessly, fairly, with renewed rigour and creativity. There is not a singular media, so I won’t try to prescribe what might work best for individual news outlets. But we should be open and alive to discovery. What don’t we know? How best to deliver what we find? What do consumers of journalism want and expect from us? We need to have constant self-examination about our own profession as we go about our work.
I’d like to see methodical follow-ups on the dozens of promises Trump made on the campaign trail. Don’t let the words stay as words. I’d like to see revelatory reporting on those who are influential in a second Trump administration, and not just the inner circle who may have Trump’s ear – but, notably, those who are the implementers of the radical transformation of the federal government that Trump has proclaimed is his aim. We need to know about the people who are carrying out the policies and edicts around regulation; education; health care; taxes; tariffs; immigration; climate; diversity, equity and inclusion; and all the rest. And we need to know how they are going about their assignments.
But here’s what I’m most passionate about: We need to get a better handle on our country. Our understanding of our fellow citizens is not sophisticated enough. We need to be more reportorially entrenched in our communities, including by talking to people who don’t have a relationship with the media or perhaps any institution. I suggest turbocharging what is taking place increasingly in our profession: partnership reporting. We’ll be more effective if we collaborate more and compete less – whether that is community news organisations joining forces, as we’re doing in Los Angeles with a new nonprofit initiative, or national outlets teaming up with local, regional and even college news organisations, as places like ProPublica and the New York Times have done.
We need to know more about how Americans of every demographic are living and feeling, in real time, with stories that are deep and compelling – and not drive-by stops at the local barbershop. And if we do that well, it will inform coverage of this next Trump administration and every administration after.
Jill Abramson (former executive editor, the New York Times)
Since Trump is purportedly bringing everything important into the White House, having as big a reporting team there as possible is crucial, including Washington-savvy investigative reporters who know the Trump-donor world.
Assign at least one reporter to monitor and listen to right-wing media, the same influencers and podcasts where Maga world and Trump get their (often dubious) information and “news”.
Watch and restrain headlines on stories that are needlessly hyperbolic or over-the-top negative.
News organisations must have excellent legal counsel and challenge unconstitutional attempts by Trump to make changes to the First Amendment and libel law.
Report exhaustively on the tech billionaires and crypto kings, and dig for stories that show how the White House rewards them.
[Elon] Musk is a beat, at least for now. The exodus of experienced, good civil servants will be an important story because of what the country is losing with their departure.
When policies are working and the new administration deserves credit, do these stories.
Cover this second Trump administration without fear or favour.
Don Lemon (former host, CNN)
The press often fails us by treating Trump like just another political figure. In the pursuit of “objectivity”, journalists often lean into false equivalency, suggesting that Trump’s lies and divisiveness are somehow on a par with the actions of Democratic figures. The truth is, some things are just objectively bad. Trump’s rhetoric isn’t divisive; it’s dangerous. His record on democracy isn’t debatable; it’s a matter of fact.
The media must also cover less of what Trump says and more of what he does. Too often journalists let Trump’s latest cruel or bigoted comment rule the news cycle. Too rarely do they dedicate the front page to the radical actions of the man. There will be few guardrails in this second term. As Trump vows to carry out [a large wave of deportations], I pray an insult spat at a press conference doesn’t distract reporters from the work of showing the American people what it looks like to rip Black and Brown families apart.
The best way to hold power to account is not to merely tut-tut power for offensive nonsense; it’s to show to the voters of this country how that power is being unleashed upon the most vulnerable who live here. The press must rise to meet this moment. However, there’s also the question of whether they’ll even be allowed to do so. Recently we’ve seen the billionaire owners of major journalistic institutions – including [The Post] – prevent their publications from printing certain opinions. I fear that practice will continue. But even if it doesn’t, I believe that, over the next few years, journalists will pull their punches, worried that an earnest assessment of Trump may cost them their jobs. I hope I’m wrong, because if we are to make it through the next few years, we will need a Fourth Estate that reports facts without fear or favour (fear of the corporate owners, favour from the administration).
Brian McGrory (former editor, the Boston Globe)
The news media, especially Washington reporters, will be challenged to do two things at once – things that may appear in conflict with each other. First, they need to at least accept, and, even better, appreciate, that a majority of voters elected Donald Trump, and his support was broad and surprisingly deep. Those voters undoubtedly considered January 6, the daily chaos, the impeachments, the criminal charges and convictions, the civil liabilities, his crassness and his threats. It’s now time to cover his actions and policies, his successes and his failures. To do it through as conventional a lens as possible, while not normalising mayhem, and a willingness to acknowledge when things go well.
At the same time, with a Republican-controlled Senate and House, a largely compliant judiciary, exhausted and defeated political adversaries, and a lineup of administration officials that may well fuel his worst instincts, the news media in this moment is the most vital check on executive power, truly the fourth branch, with an imperative to highlight lawlessness and incompetence.
The second part of this will likely be much more effective if the first part is done well.
Marc Lacey (managing editor, The New York Times)
Reporting on the President and giving the public deep insight into how the Government operates isn’t just something we’re prepared for; it’s what we do as a matter of course. We have veteran reporters deeply experienced with covering Trump and his orbit; young and innovative journalists picking apart reporting targets with unrelenting energy; and a diverse set of other beat reporters at the Times who will report on how this administration carries out policies in everything from macroeconomics to international affairs to climate to health care.
News is going to come at us before the sun has risen. It’s going to come at us long after the sun has gone down. We’re going to need thick skin and a clear sense of mission as we report on how the Trump White House governs, oversees the largest economy in the world and guides the country through unforeseen crises. Independence and unflinching accountability are what our audience across the country and around the world expects of us. We intend to deliver.
Every incoming administration brings with it fresh reporting challenges: both understanding the political momentum that put the new President into power and rapidly building sourcing throughout the new staffs populating the White House and government agencies as they try to carry out a bold agenda. Our team doesn’t balk at these challenges.
Katie Couric (former broadcast television host and anchor)
Legacy media is in a bubble, and it’s time to pop it. One way to do that is to spend less time with pundits at a desk or table and more time out in the field talking to real people who will be impacted by the Trump administration’s policies, for better or for worse. This will be a challenge, as it’s expensive and takes a considerable commitment. And I would try to stick with many of the same people over the course of Trump’s presidency. Here are a few ideas: follow farmers in Indiana; small-business owners in Illinois; immigration lawyers helping families in the midst of a mass deportation policy; women who are unable to get abortions in states like Texas, Mississippi, Idaho, Arkansas and Oklahoma; truck drivers in Arkansas; teachers in Florida; farm workers in California; a transgender teenager in Ohio; a college student in North Carolina; or a single mum working two jobs trying to support her kids in Oklahoma.
I’d also try to find a few Americans who were big Trump supporters and chronicle their lives to see if they improve. But pointing out lies and examining the fallout from certain policies will be more important than ever, even if criticism of President Trump will be called biased or “fake news” by many of his supporters. And, despite the fact that experts are often maligned and disrespected, we will need to talk to those who have experience in foreign and domestic policy to determine how the most transformational presidency in decades will reshape the country and the world.
Sam Feist (chief executive, C-SPAN)
America has sorted itself into separate media ecosystems and echo chambers, and that’s bad for America. Whether from editorial pages or partisan podcasts or cable news, Democrats largely hear different messages than Republicans, and Republicans hear different messages than Democrats. The best thing the media can do over the next four years is to try to bridge that gap.
The 2024 campaign was marked by significant shifts in how Americans heard from the candidates: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris spent hours engaging with podcasters who largely agreed with them. Campaigns sought to bypass the traditional media and directly reach their voters, with little opportunity for anyone to hear from the other side.
C-SPAN, where I’m the new CEO, is well-positioned for this paradigm shift. We are a longtime champion of trusting Americans to make up their own minds. It doesn’t matter who the President is or which party controls Congress. We are dedicated to presenting complete speeches by President Trump and members of his administration, just as we did for President [Joe] Biden and presidents before him, and to covering Congress and committee hearings in full, just as we have since 1979.
Leroy Chapman jnr (editor in chief, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s primary focus in covering a second Trump presidency will be, first, to continue to explain how the President-elect won this battleground state, and then to detail and to explain how his administration’s policies will affect the everyday lives of Georgians.
Trump’s win has potentially reordered our electorate. In 2020, Trump lost Georgia. In 2022, nearly all of Trump’s hand-picked Georgia candidates, including Herschel Walker for US Senate, lost. There are lessons for both political parties in how Trump rebounded and expanded the Georgia electorate. The AJC is best positioned to provide clarity on what this shift means among Georgia voters, a still-critical and decisive voting bloc.
Beyond politics, this newsroom’s primary mission will be to fully inform Georgians about what the Trump administration means for their daily lives. Candidate Trump promised sweeping change aimed at significantly reducing the power of the federal government to regulate business, education and local and state government. Most prominent are Trump’s plans for mass deportation, for demolishing the federal Department of Education, for imposing new tariffs and for reordering tax policy. Just those proposals could significantly impact law enforcement and local government, jobs, Georgia’s ports, the price for goods and our schools at every level. We will serve our community and state best by meticulously vetting these policy proposals and weighing the impact, speed and weight of change. We will be clear about the potential benefits and the potential harm and draw straight lines of accountability.
