As Newsmax legal analysts claim President Donald Trump committed no crime, MSNBC analysts are looking to throw the book at him.
The media circus has certainly hit the Big Apple and each outlet has brought along their Waldorf and Statler to play word semantics and overanalyze the court case. There are several issues with the media coverage of this case, but we will focus on three.
The first problem with this coverage is also a necessary evil: pool reporters. It is physically impossible to allow every outlet into the courtroom. Who is in the room is key to neutral reporting.
For those outside of NY, pool reporters are typically selected on a rotating basis (not sure if this is the case in other markets because I’ve only ever worked in the #1). This allows every outlet (and even questionable ones) to observe the defendant in court. When the email came across the pool notes chain saying, “Trump is asleep in court,” I immediately questioned it, because of who it came from. Fortunately, I was not the only one.
Another astute reporter (not me) replied to the massive group chain asking for a second reporter to verify this claim. Only the original person responded back saying yes. Rarely do people publicly question the pool reporters and ask for a second person to verify a pool reporter’s claim. Journalism rule number one, you need three sources to verify information. If we can not trust our pool reporters, every outlet’s reporting suffers.
Second, ramifications of the trial: Outlets on the left are trying to let viewers believe POTUS 45 could spend four years on Rikers Island. The facility, which is home to nearly all of New York City’s criminals, is notorious for gang breeding and corruption. Let’s be very clear: the Secret Service would never let anyone under their protection be held in such a place. If found guilty Trump will likely face a fine and maybe be placed under house arrest.
Additionally, the jail facility does not hold prisoners who are sentenced for more than a year. The idea he will be placed in jail is just an ultra-left fantasy.
If convicted, the following is true: Trump will not be eligible to vote for himself this election cycle, his campaign for the Oval Office can continue, and he could join a list of other elected politicians who have been convicted or pleaded guilty of a federal crime. On the national level, in 1789, Rep. Matthew Lyon (D/R-VT) was re-elected to office while serving a four-month jail sentence.
In more recent history, former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) pleaded guilty while in office for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne for the “Chappaquiddick incident,” he was re-elected several times after the alleged accident.
On the local level, current Bridgeport, CT Mayor Joe Ganim is serving a second stint in office after serving time in federal prison. Mayor Duane Gurule, of Rocky Ford, Colorado, is also serving as the town’s Mayor after being convicted of a federal crime. Other recent former mayors who are convicted felons include, Marion Barry (DC) and Jermaine Wilson (Leavenworth, Kansas).
Additionally, Roy Hebron was elected mayor of Rapides Parish, Louisiana but could not be sworn in because of the state’s constitutional amendment which prevented felons from holding office for five years after they ended their prison sentence. The examples above are a list of Democrats and Republicans. Despite what outlets tell you, people will and have voted for a convicted felon.
While the former President has not been convicted of any felonies, he was convicted for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll (no relation). However, members of the media have wrongly said he was convicted of rape, prompting a defamation lawsuit between President Trump, ABC, and George Stephanopoulos. Some speculate this case will have a similar ending to Trump’s defamation suit against CNN.
This opens up my final point: President Trump’s contentious relationship with the media, before, during, and after his presidency. For years before his Presidency, Donald Trump had several run-ins with the media. This caused many outlets to already have a negative or tabloid-esque attitude toward the real estate mogul pre-presidency.
The national media followed suit pandering to their readers’ views instead of reporting fairly on the then-presidential candidate. Take a look at these headlines from his campaign announcement:
- The Guardian: Donald Trump’s tirade on Mexico’s ‘drugs and rapists’ outrages US Latinos
- New York Daily News: Donald Trump enters 2016 presidential race with bizarre speech insulting Mexican immigrants, lambasting Obama
- LA Times: Donald Trump enters race, and GOP wonders: Presidency or reality TV?
None of these headlines were flattering. Some didn’t even take him seriously. While the mainstream gave good bland headlines of “Donald Trump enters 2016 presidential race,” the articles themselves were laced with bias. CBS claiming the former president’s speech was “also frequently wrong.” CNN’s article dismissed Trump saying, “Many Americans now view him primarily as a reality-TV star.”
Nevertheless, he dominated the headlines in 2016, won, with outlets quickly realizing he makes people click, giving them revenue many had not seen before.
Since leaving office, POTUS 45 still regally made the headlines. It’s not just because of the many court cases. It’s because he creates really good clickbait, and in turn, revenue, for outlets. New York Times: Could Trump Go to Prison? If He Does, the Secret Service Goes, Too
No matter how you split it, Trump and the media have a tumultuous relationship that is negatively impacting and dividing the American public.
Over the last four years, former President Donald Trump has still made consistent headlines more than any other former president. Even Grover Cleveland, who was reelected four years after he left office, made less headlines than Trump while out of office. The media’s obsession on both the left and right has proven to be a great distraction from our current President’s cognitive decline.
Perhaps if the suits (aka C-suite executives) cared more about content and less about ad sales, honest journalists (because there are a few out there) would have to bother less with directives and more on honest journalism.
Let me be clear, yes, this is a historic court case that needs to be covered. However, not with this extent of bias from the left and right sides of the media. We are the fourth estate. We should be serving the American public without corporate or personal bias.
Krystina Alarcon Carroll contributes features and columns for Barrett Media. She has experience in almost every facet of the industry including: digital and print news; live, streamed, and syndicated TV; documentary and film productions. Her prior employers have included NY1 and Fox News Digital and the Law & Crime Network. You can find Krystina on X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
