Cross-posted from my Cornerstone of Democracy newsletter…

On January 20, 2025, one of the supremely dangerous people in American history will re-occupy the White House, reclaiming all of the awesome powers of the presidency. Donald Trump and his extreme right-wing apparatchiks will issue a blizzard of executive orders, all designed to reverse decades of social, economic, environmental, and political progress – and to punish Americans who’ve had the temerity to challenge him and his cult.

That will be Day One of a saga all too likely to see the end of the brave, vital American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The Trump/Vance regime will be backed by a rubber-stamping right-wing Senate (maybe also the House) and Supreme Court; corporate oligarchs including fossil fuel barons and tech monopolists; right-wing media operations that use lies and propaganda to keep the cult angry and compliant; generals and police chiefs eager to round up immigrants and dissidents, and to bust heads of anyone who objects; and cadres of armed-to-the-teeth civilian brownshirts just waiting for the boss to cut the leash.

By the time they’re finished, democracy may exist in name only. We could soon be ruled by autocrats whose fascist beliefs become the ugliest realities.

I hope I am wrong about this. I would be ecstatic to be wrong. But if I’m right, or even close, we are veering into catastrophic times – into a violent, corrupt, extremist era that renders our nation unrecognizable, all too quickly, and throws the entire world into destructive chaos.

If we are facing such a nightmare, journalists will have a simple, if agonizing, choice: Acquiesce to the regime. Or join the resistance.

It makes me deeply sad to believe that most journalists will stick with what they have done for years now: business as usual. Or, I should say, malpractice as usual. The consistent failure of our top political journalists and their organizations has been deliberate failure. They have relentlessly normalized extremism, and in this election they outright refused to seriously confront the implications of vicious right-wing rule in America, much less lift a finger to prevent it.

The majority of journalists, I believe, will maintain the “neutrality” that has been so destructive to democracy. So as they sit in their above-it-all perches and watch the catastrophic whirlwind, they’ll amplify the lies and hate from Trump and his allies, downplay the havoc that results from the regime’s hard-line policies, and pretend that they are just doing their jobs as observers, assuming they’re not the ones in the firing line. That choice – and pretense – will be understandable. It will be profoundly wrong, not least because democracy and the rule of law are preconditions for freedom of the press. It will also be profoundly dishonorable.

Don’t expect any of our major media organizations to resist. There will be some brave individuals who try to keep a sense of honor even if their bosses won’t. But let’s be practical. The billionaire owners of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times bowed ahead of time to the extremists, figuring (accurately as it turned out) that the risk of Trump’s wrath was bad for their main (i.e. not news) businesses.

We can’t talk about major media organizations without special attention to the New York Times. It is America’s most influential journalism company, and it has been the singular example of how a place teeming with talented journalists can make itself a weak-kneed supplicant to the wealth and power of the new order. No major journalism organization has shown more sympathy to extremism than the Times. No top news operation has done more to treat the most consequential election in our lifetimes as just another horse race featuring “both sides” coverage that mocks the vital role of honest journalism.

It’s telling that the Times’ editor and publisher, in recent interviews, have stressed how the Times has deployed a team to study how 21st Century autocrats in fallen democracies had brought the press to heel. Was the Times engaged in this learning process to figure out how to stop if from happening? There’s not a shred of evidence for that. Rather, as will undoubtedly become clear, the so-called “Paper of Record” was figuring out how to get cozy enough with a new Trump regime to survive and (financially) thrive.

Oh, sure, the Times editorial page will still dislike Trump (though I expect shifts in tone to appease him). Meanwhile, the rancidly terrible Times political “news” operation will continue to ever-so-politely chronicle his regime as if it was simply chronicling the winning party’s actions after a disagreement among fair, well-minded people. Worse, much of the “mainstream media” follows the lead of the Times. Unfortunately, the Times will be an adept – and historically ignominious – leader of Vichy journalism.

Some journalists, meanwhile, will choose honor. They will embrace the difficult and risky job of resisting.

They will need help. Lots of it.

They will need financial support, because corporate America will be even less interested in paying for journalism with integrity.

They will need legal support, because Trump and the new oligarchs are already adopting tactics from the playbook of dictators like Hungary’s Victor Orban – abusing the legal system, capturing the courts, and so much more that has turned a once free press there into a collection of vassals.

They will need technical support, because Trump will use the power of the state – and he will count on the willing compliance of the tech industry – to spy on, harass, and prosecute journalists and their sources. Whistleblowers will need more protection than ever, and unless journalists have the means to help provide it, daring to reveal wrongdoing from the inside will go from risky to downright dangerous.

It seems improbable, at best, that traditional media organizations will suddenly decide to find the spines they’ve put in deep storage. I’ll gratefully support the ones that do.

More likely, we’re going to need to build journalism – real journalism – up again. We can start by supporting the many smaller organizations (and individuals) that have been working tirelessly to defend democracy, human rights, the environment, and so much more. They will be under relentless pressure to shut up. Help them speak.

We will also need to build media back from the grassroots. The demise of local newspapers has given oxygen to the right-wing propagandists. We have to rebuild, one community at a time.

I’ll be doing what I can to help.


Discover more from Dan Gillmor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

6 thoughts on “Extremism won, and journalism helped”

  1. Dan: Love the passion and agree about the dangers of Trump. But I think the overall thrust of this piece is not only wrong but counterproductive as well.

    Wrong because I think the idea that the mainstream media in general and the NY Times in particular has somehow sanewashed Trump is just not true. While I’m sure it’s possible to find pieces that you would have liked to see framed differently, I guarantee I can find just as many pieces that do have your desired framing. And the idea that someone who mainly got their news from the New York Times would not understand the dangers that Trump poses is just ridiculous. Freddie deBoer (in his characteristically savage way) has it right here:
    https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/big-mommy-is-not-coming-to-save-us

    But the real proof is just to look at who voted for Harris and who voted for Trump. The one demographic that moved toward Harris compared to Biden was the most educated
    (https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turnout-election-demographics-trump-harris/3762138/), which is also the demographic most likely to be Times readers. The mainstream media in general, and the NY Times in particular, wasn’t what moved anyone toward Trump.

    And that leads into why I think this piece is not only wrong but counterproductive. The reality is that most people, especially folks who don’t lean left, no longer get their news from the mainstream media but from some combination of Fox, social media, etc. I think that trend has been awful for the country. And I think that if the mainstream media were to lean harder outside their op-ed pages into framing stories in an anti-Trump way, it would only speed up this terrible trend. We’ll be better off as a country if the mainstream media reports the news as straight as they can and leaves the conclusions up to its readers.

      • He loses me when he disclaims “partisanship” as the key poison for journalists. When one of the two major parties has become a hate-driven, deceit-spewing, reality-denying cult that aims to end democracy (and by extension freedom of expression) — it becomes inevitably seen as partisan to call things what they are.

  2. Let me second the sentiments of the previous comment.

    Dan, do you read Jesse Singal? Allow me to point you to this – he said it, not me:

    https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/we-are-losers

    “But the point is simply that the anti-Trump movement’s decade-long attempts to define Trump as beyond the pale, as racist, as evil, as a threat to America, and on and on and on, has failed utterly and completely and spectacularly. By nearly every available metric, at the level of averages, American voters have marched *away* from these claims: Trump has gained significant ground among just about every group supposedly threatened and/or offended by him, including black and Latino voters …”

    “Orange Man Bad has just failed entirely as an argument, or at the very least it has proven puny in the face of other factors.”

    I’m sure you saw the Joseph Kahn executive editor NYT interview last month. This part stood out to me:

    “There’s a desire to see one of the leading, journalistic institutions in American life be a full-throated supporter of the view that many on the left have, which is that Donald Trump is an existential threat to our society, and that all of The New York Times coverage should be uniform in emphasizing that point day in and day out. And then we would be playing the role that some on the left see as our proper role.”

    And I could just hear the response some people would like to make – yes, got it in one, that’s exactly what you should be doing, it’s your moral responsibility, etc. etc.

    The fundamental problem, which I have no idea how to solve (and did me in for activism), is that someone gets group-status by saying things popular with the group, not by being accurate. Crucially, this applies quite painfully to “journalism” too. For example, all the pundit-hatred for Nate Silver is amazing from a naive perspective, but totally understandable from the fact that he isn’t doing in-group storytelling, and often refutes it.

    To a first approximation, everyone who reads the NYT hates Trump with a passion(and the ones which don’t, are just keeping track of the other side). We are just way past the point of diminishing returns on “Orange Man Bad”. Trump made major vote gains in New York itself! If that doesn’t indicate something isn’t working, I don’t know what to say.

    [Pre-emptive reply – “What would you do?” – I’m on the side that say we must expand the progressive coalition beyond the insular faction it consists of now. But I’m hardly the first person to say that, and I’m stymied per above I can’t see how to solve the problem.]

  3. The concerns you’ve laid out are the same ones that pushed me to act.

    I’m not a journalist. I’m a corporate attorney who couldn’t watch the collapse of public trust in journalism without trying to contribute something meaningful. So I developed a voluntary, enforceable framework for journalism ethics—written into a full public charter.

    It’s not a campaign. Not a brand. Just a structured idea, offered freely to anyone serious about restoring public trust and professional accountability.

    I’m not someone who can make this a reality. I don’t have the expertise, platform, or network to implement something like this. I am not the person to carry it forward. Someone else will have to be.

    NEAA Manifesto: https://medium.com/@t3llingn0t/the-neaa-manifesto-bcee088ee3bb
    NEAA Charter: https://medium.com/@t3llingn0t/the-neaa-charter-full-text-417659f54b9a

    f journalism is going to resist what’s coming, it needs more than courage. It needs structure. This is what I think could do it, but I leave it experts like you to determine if it has merit.

Leave a Reply