Our Refracted Images
Terry H. Schwadron
Nov. 20, 2024
Apart from the deeply split emotions about the state of our politics, we seem to be still undergoing jarring depictions about what is happening.
This clashing imagery of glee and despair over an incoming Donald Trump administration that is openly disdainful of rules and traditions itself is spawning chaotic ripples well beyond political ponds into business, academic, journalistic and family decisions about what’s next.
Even if you buy into the Trump vision of disruption for every institution, the distorted mirror is reflecting oddly simultaneous contrary reactions, even before Trump takes office. Business leaders are reported to be simultaneously applauding an expected onset of deregulation, for example, even while working furiously to build up supplies before predicted tariffs are imposed in ways that will roil international markets.
This week, we heard that since the election only two weeks ago, consumer confidence, as measured by the Consumer Sentiment Index has turned from negative to positive on the strength of Republican-identifying respondents. For these Republicans, the very same economic measures repeatedly seen as ruinous at Trump rallies now are signs of financial health for the country. What? Did something happen to the price of eggs and milk — or are these politically sensitive measurements simply worthless as reflective of economic confidence?
Suddenly, immigration officials awaiting more severe Trump policies are saying that steps by Joe Biden “may make it easier for Trump to fulfill his promise to shut down the border and turn back migrants as quickly as possible.” What The border isn’t “open” and all but inviting criminals and drug dealers into the country?
Conflicting Headlines
Indeed, news coverage across different channels is proving a hodgepodge of what to think about impending Trump changes. Where Trump’s critics see underqualified nominees with questionable judgment, for example, his supporters have described them as mavericks recruited to shake up Washington.
The divisions are not going away, and the storytelling and attempts to hold up a journalistic mirror to what is happening in Washington has become yet more brittle and bifurcated. What is going away is viewers and readers, who just find the wholesale changes either so distasteful or so glorious as to not need the details on a daily basis.
Either Trump “Signals a ‘Seismic Shift,’ Shocking the Washington Establishment,” as a New York Times headline said and Trump’s appointee Matt Gaetz for Attorney General is “SWAMP THING” on Huffington Post or the very same actions are bringing popular-vote reality to the “swamp” and “deep state,” as seen daily on Fox and Breitbart websites.
Increasingly, newspapers are taking care to label analytical pieces that link Trump to political or popular conflict as opinion or “news analysis.” The Washington Post was careful to label what seems obvious and without controversy — Trump’s early moves show he wants to disrupt government and exact retribution — as news analysis. It’s what Trump says he wants to do.
It’s not partisan bias to report on and headline Team Trump tactics to persuade the Senate to force through contested appointees through “recess appointments” while a compliant Republican-led Congress stands down for 10 days. It is straight reporting. It is not partisan bias to examine the plans and statements of incoming agency secretaries about their intentions to overturn protocols or to eliminate whole departments, like Education, without much of any study, as has been promised by adviser Vivek Ramaswamy.
What We Are Seeing
It is now a daily fixture to see bland stories about Trump’s daily movements, as in stories about him visiting a friendly Madison Square Garden for that odd, promotional boxing event last weekend or the spreading of an awkward “Trump dance” to celebrate NFL touchdowns next to articles outlining the coming Senate fight over confirmation of his appointees or the sordid details of women’s sexual assault complaints against at least two of the major nominees.
The Hill.com reports that former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius sees Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination as a successor as a “life or death” decision, while The Conversation.com is reporting that populist podcasters are gleeful that RFK will turn the health establishment upside down.
Press critics are fielding an avalanche of opinion not about what is being enacted or ordered, but, as in the campaign, about whether the media is running headlines that best match with their personal outlook. Dan Froomkin of PressWatchblames the media for leaving the public “insufficiently alarmed about the damage Trump will do — and that they actually thought he has some way to make the economy better and bring inflation down — was the result of a massive information system failure.”
The question of media partisan bias was frequent during the campaign, with the same phrase or speech being characterized quite differently in separate outlets known for their lean. Generally, those wanting Democratic outcomes criticize coverage or headlines that they say seek to “normalize” an unusual candidate like Trump, and Trump supporters, of course, go crazy anytime Trump speech is compared with fact patterns that contradict what he says, however the facts had been established. What’s missing in both critiques is some space to record what was said or done, and the context in which it occurred, something “mainstream” news outlets often say they are trying to do. Judging bias only on the basis of selected headlines seems an elusive path to truth or even to establishing whether there is a pattern.
There likely is a lot more focus about media bias than there is reliance on the media as regular source of information. The number of people getting their information through social media is rising exponentially, and the number of people reading beyond the headline is shrinking. What is also is missing, then, are audience expectations for what every media outlet — whether news, commentary or comedian, has to offer on a specific day.
In journalism, we refer to this as news literacy, a practice that gets more talk than walk.
In times of confusion, we need more attention on what is happening, more work in the reading audience to check on the source of information and opinions, more sifting of multiple news sources.
It’s no wonder that we have a clash of imagery about what’s happening.
##