By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the lead-up to the 2024 election, as Democrats warned about Donald Trump’s ties to Project 2025, a far-right governing agenda, many media outlets were criticized for downplaying these connections. Despite the fact that Project 2025 was demonstrably unpopular and created with the help of former Trump administration officials, some news sources published fact-checks that framed Democratic warnings as alarmist or misleading. After Trump’s victory, he and many of the architects of Project 2025 wasted no time beginning to implement the plan. Following Trump’s public embrace of the project, many commentators criticized media outlets for taking his denials at face value.
Read the original article here
Media Faces Reckoning After Helping Trump Downplay Project 2025 on Campaign Trail:
The subject of the media’s role, or rather, lack of a responsible role, in covering the implications of Project 2025 during the Trump campaign is a glaring issue that demands serious scrutiny. It’s a case of a fundamental failure of the press. Some might say the media acted as stenographers, and this perceived complicity creates a significant problem for American democracy. The media’s choices in framing the narrative, focusing on certain aspects while downplaying others, can be a major factor in how people perceive political realities.
The issue with American mainstream media goes beyond simple bias. Many now see it as providing a distorted perspective, a problem that has been festering for a while. When you have entities that seem to be more interested in ratings and profits than in telling the truth, the public suffers. Project 2025 itself, a detailed blueprint for dismantling democratic institutions, was frequently given short shrift. The media’s priorities, as highlighted by the ratio of coverage on Biden’s age versus Trump’s policies, for example, exemplify this skewed focus. This can leave the public dangerously misinformed.
News outlets have been accused of operating with a deliberate agenda to avoid certain topics. When CBS cuts away from a Senator explaining the need to maintain insurance subsidies in favor of someone lying about it, it reveals the inherent conflict of interest. Media giants focusing on the short term financial gains and ignoring the long-term political consequences of the actions they are promoting. The media’s framing of Trump’s actions, even his authoritarian leanings, has failed to ignite the outrage it should have. The public, deprived of the full picture, remains relatively disengaged.
This pattern of downplaying or ignoring critical information allowed the former president and his allies to push their agenda with less opposition. The media’s choices, either actively or passively, helped create the conditions for this. The idea that the media, which is supposed to hold power accountable, is instead enabling it is a dangerous one. The complicity of some members of the media with the former president is glaring, and they have often acted as propaganda wings for his agenda, which makes it impossible to have real conversations about how democracy is at risk.
There needs to be a drastic overhaul in how we view our media. The media needs to show a clear distinction as to where their information originates. The public needs to be able to verify information from trustworthy sources, and if a source is not trustworthy then the public needs to reject it. This situation is especially relevant when considering social media platforms that are owned by those funding campaigns. We cannot trust those entities to publish the news. The role of media ownership, balance, and accuracy must be seriously addressed.
Many mainstream media outlets are seen as inherently conservative-leaning and biased, whether they admit it or not. They are perceived as consciously aiding an authoritarian takeover by treating conservative lies as facts while claiming impartiality. There are even stories where media entities admitted to “turning off the lights on democracy”, revealing the hypocrisy.
The public is aware of what they are doing. It is time that news sources that were once trusted become untrusted because of their complicity in the rise of fascism. The public must refuse to patronize media entities that fail to uphold ethical standards. The situation requires breaking up media conglomerates. This is not to suggest that one is “right” to “punish” media, it is not that simple. Some of the arguments include calling for actions like fines or lawsuits against unethical media outlets.
The idea of holding media accountable is a difficult topic that requires balance. The press is not meant to be entirely free. In fact, it has a very obvious line that should create the exception, a line that isn’t so abusable by the disingenuous. The question is what constitutes a breach of this line.
Ultimately, the issue of media complicity is central to any discussion of the potential threats to democracy. The media’s failure to adequately scrutinize Project 2025 and the broader political landscape has created a dangerous situation. If democracy is to survive, the media’s role must be redefined, and there must be accountability.