Former President Donald Trump was indicted again this week, this time for orchestrating an attempt to derail the legitimate results of the 2020 voting that he lost to Joe Biden.
These are, by far, the most serious of the indictments leveled against him to date.
I’m anticipating this will, once again, put two basic principles of journalism on trial.
But such tests of honest journalism standards are worthwhile: Has there been a better time than this week to revisit the problem of false equivalences and “both sides-ism” in journalism?
Fairness and balance should not be confused with Fox News’ hypocritical tagline. They are fundamental notions that ought to guide the work of journalists.
I bring this up now because of a recent wave of complaints from viewers of the PBS NewsHour who also have eyes on Fox News, now the hard-right strainer through which versions of “the other side” are pushed into our political debates.
When other network news shows – including the NewsHour – cover an arrest of Donald Trump, we can expect Fox commentators to echo the former president and lead with accusations that the charges are politically motivated. They say Trump is being denied First Amendment rights of free speech, and that what-about-isms like Hillary Clinton’s emails or probes of presidential son Hunter Biden’s alleged minor crimes deserve coverage equal to the mounting evidence of unprecedented, attempted election fraud by a former president.
Such lines of complaint run through my inbox when Trump indictments take the top-news slot; some viewers chastise the NewsHour for not giving equal weight to “the other side” when reporting on the latest charges against Trump.
A tangle of misquotes and unproved claims does not constitute “the other side” of stories that focus on criminal probes of Trump.
Consider the viewer who wrote to us to tell us that the NewsHour was ignoring the “other side”:
“Very interesting that major media has finally admitted that the NYT Post (sic) Hunter Lab Story was accurate, but PBS is silent about that. When my main news sources NYT, CNN and PBS, and social networking platforms consorted the story based on many former and current (intelligence) members it was disinformation, I thought this was another political strategy on the part of the Democratic Party and the media to ensure the election of their choice for president. Those strategies have brought us a presidency of crisis after crisis.
“The coverup continues. While major media has verified the connection between Hunter and overseas business interests, they are unable to verify a connection between President Biden and those business interests despite emails revealing that … ” – Bob Schneider, Cincinnati
The writer, Mr. Schneider, appears to refer to a March 27, 2022 story in the New York Post, part of the cadre of outlets run by erstwhile Donald Trump sympathizer Rupert Murdoch. It’s not the New York Times that reported that Trump said “Just last week the failing New York Times finally admitted that Hunter Biden’s laptop was real. Remember when they said it was done by Russia?”
There are no stories in the New York Times or any other major media outlets that corroborated the claim that Hunter Biden’s laptop contained proof of illicit business dealings with a lab in Ukraine that benefited then-candidate Joe Biden or his future presidency. In fact, even the Post story and the Trump quote on which it reports, say only that the Times confirmed that the laptop exists.
Another got to the point a little quicker and seems to sum it all up with a sweeping accusation about “both sides.”
“Where's your front-page report about Joe Biden ... Why is your reporting so biased? True journalism is meant to tell facts, not word-slinging and pushing your own emotional agenda. Both sides are out of line. Both sides are extreme and obviously don't care much for the average person. If they did then we'd be tackling the important issues like cancer-causing chemicals ... they've had us eat or leached into our soil and water. Shame on you all." – Erik Kolakowski, Mackinaw, Illinois
I agree with the writer on what true journalism is meant to be. I do not agree with the claim that both sides are out of line. Journalism’s mission is not to decide which “side” is right. Its job is to find out what is really going on and report on it, accurately. That’s what the NewsHour has been doing. If one side’s story is proven time and again, by a preponderance of facts and independent voices, to be inaccurate, then that “side of the story” is not due equal attention.
Hard journalistic truths
Viewers routinely remind us that equal time means fairness, balance and objectivity; that news coverage of an issue or controversy must allow space for voices representing different sides.
But here’s the hard truth: Objectivity actually comes from an accurate examination of facts (actions, documentation, and even educated opinions) presented in transparent reports. Often, that coverage should also encourage audiences to examine supporting evidence for themselves.
True objectivity also stems from reporting that explores different dimensions of an issue or controversy. And, in the case of reporting on Donald Trump’s indictments and ongoing investigations stemming from his presidential tenure, objectivity is born of a reporter’s ability – and willingness – to call out lies disguised as arguments.
Veteran journalist and media critic Tom Rosenstiel summed it up with this on-point observation:
“A journalist’s obligation (is) to the truth. Equal time or balance are tools that can serve that obligation but don’t necessarily always do so. If certain actors in a debate are lying, that is newsworthy. But it doesn’t mean they should get equal space or necessarily any space in a given story, depending on the story and its purpose.”
In a recent conversation I had with Rosenstiel on Twitter – or, this week it’s X, I think – he added, “The obligation to the truth means journalists are not stenographers. And blindly thinking that equal space in stories gets us closer to the truth doesn’t make sense.”
Rosenstiel’s assessment is shared by most free-thinking journalists. But NewsHour executives know the show generates, by far, the most viewer input in my Public Editor’s mailbox. They also know I must relay concerns and complaints of viewers, especially when they seem to boil over in my email box. Against that background, the NewsHour’s top executive responded to a recent query about coverage of Trump and the ongoing Hunter Biden mess.
Who deserves more scrutiny?
Some NewsHour viewers said the program is biased because they believe it devotes more time to Trump’s mounting legal challenges than to the investigation and prosecution of the president’s son.
NewsHour Executive Producer Sara Just was straightforward in pointing out that her team’s approach is to each day use collective experience and independent judgment to weigh the amount and depth of coverage each issue or event deserves.
In my book, that means that, recently, Trump in trouble for alleged electioneering or mishandling state secrets should get more attention. He is, after all, a former president of the United States. In the case of the documents, he had access to the most sensitive, real-life and life-and-death intelligence. And, in the matter of the Capitol riot of 2021, he has been investigated, and now indicted on serious charges for his role in what became the most serious domestic attack on U.S. democracy since the 1995 federal building bombing in Oklahoma City.
Hunter Biden, on the other hand, is a troubled presidential relative – another in a long line of infamous presidential relatives. What makes Hunter Biden a higher-grade problem than say, Roger Clinton or even Neil Bush (look him up), is that there are lingering questions about what Joe Biden knew of his son’s suspect business dealings. There is also an ongoing federal prosecution that has yielded charges of minor crimes and then a messed-up attempt by the Justice Department to win a guilty plea from the president’s son.
I believe I can accurately report that when there is Hunter Biden material to report, NewsHour coverage has been appropriate and unsparing.
On June 20, the day the news of Hunter Biden’s plea deal broke, NewsHour gave it top billing and as such, it was teased at the top of the show, drawing attention to it as a major story. Mind you, there was newsy competition: At the time, the lost Titan submersible craft began to emerge, captivating the eyes of the world. Since the plea deal was news that was unflattering to Hunter Biden, and by extension, his father the president, those generally sympathetic to Trump were paying attention to the play given the plea deal story.
The Hunter Biden story on NewsHour that day clocked in at 8 minutes, with co-anchor Geoff Bennett interviewing two outside reporters who were familiar with the case. NewsHour also gave air to the GOP response, most prominently raised by Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and a staunch Trump ally. He repeated the complaint that Hunter Biden was getting “special treatment” in the news media. Bennett and his two-person panel conducted an explicit warts-and-all analysis of Hunter Biden’s past troubles and what they believed led to the charges. It was not an airbrushed view of Biden the younger.
Conversely, when there’s serious Trump news to report, the NewsHour weight swings accordingly.
After Trump’s April 4 appearance in New York for his arrest and arraignment, the news was promoted as the top story of the day and described by Bennett’s co-anchor Amna Navaz, as “an unprecedented day in American history.” That was not an exaggeration. The Trump news developments dominated that day’s episode, with six discrete segments comprising a total of 27 minutes of Trump-related coverage, analysis and talk. Second-day coverage of the Trump arrest and arraignment reverted to a less prominent place, coming 17 ½ minutes into the newscast with 10 minutes of total airtime.
To me, that’s reasonable and fair handling of the two stories, comparatively.
Should news executives respond to viewers?
This brings us full circle to the point of today’s reminder about the true meaning of balance and objectivity. And, Trump supporters, please keep this in mind as you see another flood of coverage of the new conspiracy charges this week:
News shows, in pursuit of “the other side,” must not simply rewind the tape from a Trump speech where he calls every prosecutorial step a “witch hunt,” or warns that the government is really prosecuting the average MAGA voter.
Of course, there is a responsibility to report the most credible dimensions of a news story, so that does mean broadcasting what, for example, the former president’s defense team says in response to prosecutors. We’re seeing that play out this week as a Trump defense comes to light: his lawyers are getting ample time to argue that the former president was just exercising free speech when he complained of vote fraud in the balloting, despite no evidence of that happening; when he told supporters to come to the Capitol Mall because it would “be wild”; and when he falsely claimed he’d win the election if former Vice-President Mike Pence paused certification of the final congressional count of presidential electors.
Another dimension of fair reporting is showing viewers the real-life impact of Trump’s legal troubles on potential voters, which the NewsHour has done responsibly. And in that reporting, it’s proper to allow his supporters to spout assessments of the prosecution, as inaccurate as they sometimes are.
As Public Editor, I must respond to viewers when there is a particular need to do so, such as when there are enough similar complaints about something the NewsHour is covering, or not covering.
When it’s necessary, I will turn to show producers for replies to audience questions and concerns. My questions, and their answers published in this space, set PBS apart from much of the U.S. media landscape, where it seems there are fewer and fewer direct avenues for complaint.
Daniel J. Macy, senior associate in the office of the PBS Public Editor, contributed to this article.