Donald Trump not content to be lied about anymore. He sues and wins. The media beware
Folks familiar with media history and the controversial record of the journalism industry probably recognize the New York Times’ famous slogan: “All the News That’s Fit to Print”.
The saying is still used by the New York paper and was originally coined by owner Adolph S. Ochs in 1897.
Those who’ve followed what conservatives now label the establishment media also understand that the major reporting agencies – in print, television, internet, etc. – have fallen on hard financial times, mostly because of poor accountability standards and changing news consumer habits and tastes. Whereas most Americans used to rely almost exclusively on a few “credible” providers to find out what’s happening across the country and world, today’s citizens are much more likely to pick up tidbits from social media or “alternative” sources such as podcasts or online streaming.
In other words, media is changing – rapidly. Regular daily newspaper readers or nightly news viewers have altered their practices, leaving sources like the New York Times and their “All The News That’s Fit to Print” motto searching for ways to adapt to the quickly shifting environment.
It wasn’t just that Stephanopoulos’s assertions were deceitful – they were egregious lies. The hubris in the reporting industry has gotten out of control, where “fact-checking” is typically done by the same tainted mindset as those appearing on air or writing the articles. The same applies to reports on the election – and supposedly neutral polling information.
Well, Trump wasn’t about to let the industry cower behind the First Amendment any longer – as though the Founders’ goal of protecting newspapers and the free flow of information extended to lies and the lazy passing along of fabrications.
“The lawsuit argues that the poll — published three days before the election and showing Vice President Kamala Harris with a lead in Iowa when she lost the state by 13 points — defied ‘credulity’ and should have been deep-sixed. Mr. Trump’s lawyers called the poll ‘manipulated’ and ‘election-interfering fiction.’
“The lawsuit, filed under Iowa’s consumer fraud laws, targets the Register, pollster Ann Selzer and Gannett, which owns the newspaper. At the time it ran, the poll struck some observers as wildly off base due to the voters sampled. Still, a number of media outlets trumpeted it as a sign that Mr. Trump was showing weakness in Midwestern states or that he was struggling in usually strong GOP areas.
“Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, called the lawsuit unprecedented. ‘The notion that a candidate who won an election would sue a newspaper that published what turned out to be an incorrect poll predicting his defeat is surely unknown in our history,’ he told The Washington Times in an email.”
Of the many illusions that the political rise and subsequent success of lifelong real estate developer, tabloid celebrity and reality TV star Donald J. Trump has shattered, perhaps the biggest and potentially longest lasting is the notion that the corporate/establishment media can’t be touched because of prior Supreme Court precedent which has all-but erected an invisible barrier around reports involving public figures.
Trump is the most public of public figures in just about every way and the media has found it open season to concoct, twist and fabricate stories that had little or no connection to truth and feed them to the American news consumer as though they were food rich in mental nutrients and high in veracity fiber.
One can’t help but think that better source checks and being more careful in reporting would alleviate a lot of the credibility problem, but clearly the media felt it could get away with murder – figuratively and almost in reality – by taking the word of anonymous sources and blowing up rumors without regard to journalistic standards of veracity.
But as some observers have pointed out, the Trump lawsuits pinpointing media outlets that went with bogus reports are somewhat unprecedented. Critics have suggested that by letting Trump sue the media – and win – that the entire industry will pull back and, gulp, refrain from moving on unsubstantiated reports that could, in a perfect world, turn out to be true.
Why? Why would anyone in the media think they’re losing something valuable?
Trump hasn’t exactly filed suit against the entirety of the reporting industry, just the outlets that were blatantly careless in their stories. Naturally, one would think to question anonymous tips from anyone, and likewise harbor suspicion against the most obvious lies stemming from Democrats.
The Steele dossier was a prime example. Didn’t the editors and producers find it odd that there wasn’t anyone willing to come forward and corroborate the fantastic claims in it? If Trump had actually have been in the infamous “pee incident” detailed in the faux compilation document, wouldn’t there be prostitutes or hotel maids who could’ve supplied the back up testimony?
Similarly, don’t the higher ups in these media companies worry that the tales originate only from unquestionably partisan sources? Trump has been the target of so many sordid fantasies, it’s almost not possible to surmise that there’s more out there. I’ve proposed that Trump might be the most thoroughly vetted presidential candidate of all time.
Watch your sources, journalists. As Trump has shown, you might have a lawsuit on your hands if you’re not careful. It’s not a “chilling” effect that’s the danger – it’s allowing the media to run wild. A large payout or two will do wonders for the media itself, not hold them back.
Trump’s suit regarding the Iowa polling reporting is long overdue
Likewise, there’s perhaps no one who’s suffered the ill effects of bad polls more than Donald Trump. The polling was awful in 2016, 2020 and 2024. So bad, in fact, that most responsible news consumers automatically figured surveys showing Trump running behind this year were certainly suspect.
As detailed in Dinan’s article, the referenced Iowa poll showed Trump trailing cackling Kamala Harris by double digits a few days prior to Election Day. Politics watchers who’d kept track of the back-and-forth didn’t even put Iowa in the toss-up category. The poll results were so wrong that hardly anyone took the findings seriously.
But maybe someone did. Negative poll results have a dampening effect on turnout and enthusiasm can make all the difference in a tight race, which this year’s contest was destined to be.
It wasn’t. Trump won comfortably in Iowa and managed to prevail in every swing state, the definition of a landslide. This particular poll didn’t hold Trump back, but it might have. Hence Trump is justified to be angry and think this is a good subject for legal action. Let’s prevent it from happening again; let them check closer next time, and be prepared to explain their results.
If the past four years has revealed anything meaningful, it’s that Americans aren’t settling for word from the media to form opinions on politics. Neither should Donald Trump.
