Mainstream Media Opts to Obey

An attempt to make sense of this moment, as legacy media forfeits its integrity to freefall into Trump’s grasp

A few days ago, a rare phenomenon occurred: Donald Trump told the truth.

“The media has tamed down a little bit. They’re liking us much better now, I think. If they don’t, we’ll have to just take them on again, and we don’t want to do that.”

OK…so not the whole truth. It’s a mighty stretch to suggest that anybody likes Trump any more than they did six weeks ago. But they sure have tamed down—and it’s a disgrace. Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen practically every legacy media outlet swiftly fall in line in an abrupt, unspeakably disappointing fashion.

By now, you’ve all heard Timothy Snyder’s oft-repeated first lesson from his essential handbook, On Tyranny: “Do not obey in advance.” The members of our so-called “free press” have heard it too—nevertheless, they’re putting on a clinic demonstrating this precise form of obedience.

The shameless folding of our so-called fourth estate is a longstanding problem but drew particular attention in the run-up to November’s election. Jeff Bezos prevented the Washington Post from endorsing Kamala Harris for president, even though the decision to do so had already been approved by the head of the editorial board. In doing so, Bezos put an alarming halt on an institutional tradition that had lasted for the last nine presidential elections.

The LA Times and its billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, quickly followed suit—and has since made a number of unconscionable proposals for the paper, including using AI to neatly offer “both sides” of every story. (Implicit in that suggestion is his apparent belief that journalism is not concerned with delivering facts.)

The next knees to bend, following years of searing coverage of Trump, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, hosts of MSNBC’s flagship AM program “Morning Joe,” stunned their viewers by announcing that they had gone down to Mar-a-Lago for some amicable face time with the president-elect.

CNN made Trump-appendage and reliable lap dog pundit Scott Jennings a fixture of their political coverage, while issuing misleading statements about Trump’s favorability in the country; using a poll of just over 1,000 people but implying such a limited frame represented the nation’s opinion.

Social media wasn’t far behind with their shows of “I never meant the words I said,” with Elon Musk running DOGE and shadowing Trump like a dipshit, and Mark Zuckerberg donating a million bucks to Trump’s inauguration fund (followed shortly by Bezos’s Amazon matching the seven-figure donation). Cool, guys. How radically courageous to be so very subservient.

And of course, the New York Times has trafficked so deeply in both sides-ism over the last few years that it’s become a parody of itself. We saw this near-perfect refraction of their nauseating trend toward false equivalency and selective outrage in the coverage of President Biden’s pardon of his son. The New York Times responded:

“The nation needs integrity, and Biden’s dishonesty contributes to the sense that there isn’t really that much difference between Trump and his opponents.”

Ahh, yes. Biden perceiving a radically-elevated threat to our nation’s justice system and consequently pardoning Hunter for lying about his sobriety on an application to purchase a gun isn’t really that much different from Trump’s promise to pardon many or most of the January 6th insurrectionists who HE incited to breach our Capitol, attempt to lynch his Vice President, seek to kill Nancy Pelosi and who knows how many other lawmakers, and try to overthrow our government in an attempted coup. According to the self-styled paper of record, that’s apparently an apples-to-apples comparison.

And then, this past weekend, surprise news broke that ABC News had reached a settlement with Trump in his defamation suit against the host, with ABC agreeing to pay $15 million to Trump’s presidential foundation and $1 million for his legal fees. The suit was brought over George Stephanopoulos stating that a jury found that Trump had raped E. Jean Carroll. Remember, that’s only slightly off: the jury did find Trump liable for sexual abuse, with Judge Lewis Kaplan explaining, in writing, that:

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’” He concluded: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

And here’s the thing about a defamation case against a public figure. If this had gone to court, Trump’s team would have had to prove actual malice, meaning proof that Stephanopoulos knew with certainty that his statement was false and recklessly declared it anyway. Stephanopoulos saying a jury found Trump liable for rape is a distinction without much of a difference in terms of what the presiding judge stated. It’s certainly not a “reckless” statement declared with malice.

Trump also would have had to prove damages, i.e. evidence that the comment had caused substantive reputational harm or financial hardship. Does anybody believe that George Stephanopoulos caused Trump the slightest bit of harm? Is there some massive subset of ABC News’ Sunday audience that suddenly swung away from Trump after hearing the coverage? Did Trump lose his ability to raise money? Of course not. But that didn’t stop ABC from settling for FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS. That money will be put in escrow toward a fund for a future Trump library or foundation.

But…why?

For one thing, ABC saw the upside of giving a vast sum of money to a man who makes no secret of his willingness to accept payment in exchange for his good graces. Secondly, this method of ass-kissing has a cover of plausible deniability. “This wasn’t just proving fidelity to Trump through money! Nooo, definitely not. We were forced to pay him legally, because of the defamation.” How convenient.

It’s deeply distressing for the American public to behold these publications, hosts, and outlets going out of their way to curry favor with Trump, by kissing the ring in the buffet line at Mar-a-Lago or writing hefty checks to make it plain that he’s got them under his tiny thumb.

And I know the Washington Post’s motto has become a punching bag—but it is horrifying that the instant “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was challenged, our media gave way and rolled over for Trump, delivering exactly what he and his repressive government want: submission, cash, and control. When Bezos acquired the Washington Post, he spoke earnestly of how many of us believe “that certain institutions have a very important role in making sure that there is light.” But he and a shocking number of our supposed business and media titans have proven that, in fact, Democracy can also die in broad daylight.

Oh, and let’s not forget that Time Magazine (which in 2017 asked Trump to remove the fake covers of himself that he had placed on the wall of several golf clubs) dubbed him Person of the Year for 2024. In keeping with the absurd pageantry of all this misplaced obedience and adulation, Trump was then asked to ring the bell of the New York Stock Exchange (which his ass-backward tariff strategy is likely to run into the ground in short order).

As we careen toward Trump’s second term with its supporting cast of incompetent misfits, these examples of our spineless mainstream press (with exceptions, of course, but not enough of them) serve as a potent reminder of how vitally essential it is for big-D Democrats and little-d democracy to bolster independent media.

The left has relied on legacy media for far too long to act as its spokespeople. Yet all of the major players have done little but broadcast how unwilling and unfit they are for that monumentally important task. They are either fearful of our president-elect’s retribution, beholden to their billionaire owner’s business interests, or just unwilling to risk ruffling Trump’s fragile feathers. Clearly, maintaining integrity doesn’t pay as well as Trump’s nod of approval does. If Democrats have any hope of succeeding in the future—and of receiving accurate information along the way—we must embrace media who prioritize resisting a despot over gaining his favor.

Witnessing a succession of trusted media kowtowing to a lying, unpatriotic, wannabe tyrant drains our limited reserves of willpower and resolve. We have manifold reasons to lose our heart and our nerve. But we can’t. Do not give in. There remain countless voices who are refusing to obey in advance. That defiance must continue undeterred, no matter what this next term brings, if we are to keep this republic. Stay in the fight. You are necessary.

The vast majority of the voices who publicly refuse to surrender operate without boards or trustees, dubious funding, or government affiliation. They are sourced by the people.

I am entirely committed to providing independent analysis and commentary, none of which is beholden to any corporate power, advertisers, or external influences. I don’t have paywalls or exclusive features reserved for higher-tiered subscribers. If you’d like to support my work, as well as the larger, far more significant mission of encouraging independent media, please support the creators who you trust are standing up for democracy—even as our legacy media falters. Support us with your clicks, and with paid subscriptions if you are able.

As we steel ourselves for the long fight ahead, I remain humbled, grateful, and motivated by your willingness to stay engaged.