By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recently, Donald Trump’s absence from public view prompted speculation, yet major news outlets provided limited coverage. Critics like John Passantino questioned the media’s silence, contrasting it with the extensive coverage of Joe Biden’s health concerns. While rumors of Trump’s health circulated, some, like JD Vance, criticized the media, accusing them of misinformation. However, the article suggests a different perspective: that the media’s coverage was, in fact, overly cautious. Ultimately, the piece argues that responsible journalism on a president’s health requires skepticism, persistent fact-finding, and avoiding both sensationalism and unquestioning acceptance of official statements.
Read the original article here
Why is much of the media ignoring questions about Trump’s health? Because it’s a complex issue with a multitude of contributing factors. One of the most prominent reasons seems to be the undeniable influence of money. Many media outlets are owned by corporations and individuals who stand to benefit from Trump’s policies. This creates a financial incentive to avoid negative coverage, especially when that coverage could lead to lawsuits or damage relationships. The media’s primary focus shifts to profit and viewership, often at the expense of thorough, unbiased reporting.
Another significant factor is the fear of retribution. Trump has a well-documented history of attacking and intimidating media organizations that publish unfavorable stories. This can range from public criticism and threats of legal action to denying access to press briefings and interviews. The pressure to maintain access and avoid financial repercussions can lead to self-censorship, with journalists and editors becoming hesitant to pursue potentially damaging stories. This creates a chilling effect, where the potential cost of reporting on Trump’s health, or any other controversial topic, outweighs the perceived benefit.
The narrative surrounding Trump’s health, or lack thereof, is also often dictated by a perceived bias within the media. Some outlets may view questions about his health as a partisan attack, especially when juxtaposed with scrutiny of a Democratic opponent. This can lead to a reluctance to cover the story at all, or to downplay the significance of any potential health concerns. Furthermore, the media landscape has become increasingly polarized, with outlets catering to specific ideological viewpoints. This means that certain media organizations are more likely to prioritize stories that align with their political agenda, regardless of their importance.
Moreover, it’s worth considering the economic realities of the media industry. Trump has a unique ability to generate headlines and drive viewership. His presence, regardless of the nature of the story, guarantees attention. This creates a perverse incentive for media outlets to cover him, even if the coverage is less than critical. They may not necessarily “love” Trump, but they recognize that he puts “asses in seats.” The focus on ratings and clicks can lead to a prioritization of sensationalism over substantive reporting, with the media seemingly more concerned with the spectacle than the substance of the situation.
The media’s perceived complicity goes beyond mere financial considerations. Some argue that certain media outlets are actively colluding with Trump’s administration, either directly or indirectly. This could involve sharing information, coordinating messaging, or simply turning a blind eye to controversial actions. This may be partially caused by a fear of being perceived as biased in favor of the left. This perceived complicity can manifest in various ways, from framing stories in a way that favors Trump, to avoiding critical coverage altogether. This creates a climate of mutual benefit.
The influence of powerful individuals and groups also cannot be ignored. Trump’s close ties to wealthy donors and business leaders give him considerable leverage over media outlets. These individuals and groups may exert pressure on media organizations to suppress negative stories, or to slant coverage in his favor. This influence can be subtle, but it can also be very effective, resulting in a media landscape that is more favorable to Trump than it might otherwise be.
In essence, the question of why the media ignores questions about Trump’s health is a reflection of the complex interplay of money, power, fear, and bias. The media’s response is a multifaceted issue, influenced by economic incentives, political pressures, and the changing dynamics of the news business. Ultimately, the public suffers the consequences of this silence, as important information is withheld or distorted.