Rieder: The Donald Trump Media Trap
Talk about your classic double-edged sword.
Donald Trump, your newly minted official Republican presidential candidate, is in one sense a godsend for the media in an era dominated by the frantic quest for page views. Trump is all about the outrageous antics, and lots of people will click on him, even people who know better. He's the classic train wreck, and people can't avert their eyes.
At the same time, Trump is very bad news for journalism. He's not a serious candidate; he's a carnival barker. He's an attention junkie. Yet he can't be completely ignored, as attractive as that option might seem.
That means he will soak up media bandwidth and reporting firepower in a crowded Republican primary that now features 12 declared candidates, with more waiting in the wings. And most of those candidates have actual experience in politics and government.
One of the healthier developments in political reporting in recent years is the advent of heavy-duty fact-checking of the pronouncements of candidates and officials. And Trump, who just loves to throw it out there with absolutely no regard as to whether it's accurate, is a fact-checker's dream.
FactCheck.org did a fine job cataloging the breathtaking array of fiction in Trump's announcement speech. But the piece had four bylines on it. That's quite a diversion of personnel for sorting out the nonsense of a candidate with zero chance of winning.
Also, Trump's presence forces more worthy hopefuls off the stage. Fox News, which hosts the first GOP debate in August, is limiting participation to the 10 top candidates in the polls. As of now, Trump, who ranks ninth, would be on the stage. Sen, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (a declared candidate) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich (not yet), both serious men, would not.
A broader problem will be Trump's ability to shift the conversation. His outlandish assertions will be catnip for cable TV and social media. He inevitably will hijack the focus away from important issues that need to be aired.
Back in 2011, when Trump flirted with a run for president before saying never mind, he embraced the cause of the birthers, who alleged President Obama hadn't been born in the United States. Never mind that the aforementioned FactCheck.org had checked out Obama's birth certificate 32 months before and determined that it was the real deal; he was an American citizen after all! Nonetheless, Trump's non-reality based allegations helped propel him to the top of the polls.
The following February, many news organizations covered Trump's endorsement of Mitt Romney -- a non-event if there ever was one -- as if it were the end of World War II.
There's a part of me that would like to say we should just ignore this sideshow. But my colleague Susan Page, Paste BN's Washington bureau chief, makes a persuasive case for why we really can't.
"To the degree he or anyone else is part of the political debate and a factor in the national conversation, they warrant coverage," she says. "Any number of people who didn't have much chance of being nominated and elected have had a significant impact on our politics. Remember John Anderson? Paul Tsongas? Ross Perot? Gene McCarthy? Does Trump connect with voters, and does he raise issues that resonate with them? That's the question."
That said, Page adds that it's important to remind readers that Trump has no chance of prevailing.
There's also the public fascination with Trump, which is a factor that goes into what's news. Paste BN's Paul Singer points out that Trump's announcement attracted more attention on Facebook than that of any other candidate save Hillary Clinton.
So cover him we must. But let's show some restraint. Let's not treat bogus allegations and blatant balderdash as if they were the real deal.
Somehow that doesn't seem too much to ask.