Around the world, there has been an attack on the media in countries everywhere that experience democratic backsliding. In places like Turkey, Venezuela, Poland and many more, the media remains under attack in most places around the world, with the only states with true freedom of the press being concentrated in North America and Western Europe. But even we are not safe. Freedom House reports our freedom of the press score to be falling since 2006, and basically every major media outlet has picked up on the major threat the Donald Trump poses in his attempts to delegitimize the news here in the United States. Given all of this, what are some of the signs and symptoms seen around the world, and is the attack on the media in the United States as bad as it is elsewhere?
There are a few tactics that are used around the world when attacking the press, some of them are shared with the U.S., others are not. Something we all should be familiar with is delegitimizing through rhetoric. Others include more aggressive/outright means like using political influence against media outlets, and in some cases imprisonment of journalists.
In the United States we can see much more mild practices that go against the media when comparing it with the rest of the world. While the media everywhere poses the same type of threat to political leaders by scrutinizing that which needs scrutiny, it appears that instead of outright physical attacks, Donald Trump has found himself on a verbal crusade. And limits himself there. Around the world you see the same thing happening. President Erdogan of Turkey calling journalists “Shameless militant women disguised under the name of journalist” or the prime minister of Slovakia calling journalists “dirty, anti-slovak prostitutes.” Both of these examples are just the same method that Donald Trump adopts when calling the media “the most dishonest human beings on earth.” That method being, verbally disassociating the media with the people by making them appear to be dishonest and untrustworthy. This is very similar to forms of toxic speech practices which is defined by Lynne Tirrell as using harmful language as a systemic form of control in which it can promote almost a type of discrimination against news sources that do not align with a given individuals beliefs about the president or his administration.
The similarities of media attacks between the United States seems to end at the verbal front. Donald Trump’s “fake news” slogan is about all he has in terms of teeth in terms of trying the discredit the media. When looking through the lense of foreign countries, it is easy to see that there is not much Trump has really accomplished in terms of media repression. In countries like Turkey, not only is there rhetoric that slanders opposition/objective news sources, there are actual physical arrests and government ordered shut downs of news outlets. After the attempted coup in 2016, president Erdogan declared a state of national emergency that has been in effect since. With this, he has the power to close news outlets and and confiscate their ground assets in the name of “national security.” This has resulted in 130 media outlets being closed and 2,500 journalists losing their jobs. In a personal interview with a Turkish individual, he mentioned that it feels like all the news sources you find on television are state ran sources, with real genuine news being quite scarce or nonexistent. He also reports strong acts against the few news sources that appear to be objective or in opposition to the regime. All of this does not go without its ethnic issues as well. Another issue that is plaguing Turkey is president Erdogan’s inclination to target Kurdish television news sources, magazines and newspapers. While there is no ethnicity aligned news source in the United States (excluding news sources on TV networks that are aimed a certain demographic i.e. univision), there are ethnicity struggles that can of course be translated between the two countries, but no ethnic media outlet struggles that are anywhere near the magnitude of Turkey.
The United States is in a tough spot currently because of the multitude of threats to democratic norms and institutions. The way the media has been treated is no exception. The media has been a cornerstone for democracy everywhere because of what it does best. Whistle blowing and asking questions that holds people accountable for their actions, like the publication of pentagon papers to expose the falsehoods of the Vietnam war, or through exposing the catholic church’s sexual abuse. The media is an important piece of our democracy and it is under fire. Although the pillar is not crumbling like it is in Turkey, it will soon enough if the trend continues.
This article that you have written draws on certain critical aspects of the media that are contributing to its democratic backsliding in some countries around the world. Through this can be seen in the current day with Trump administration and the press in North America, through his efforts to delegitimize the news. These efforts, as stated, some can be seen in the United States, and other countries consist of the claims that delegitimize some media outlets, the political influence against media outlets and in other countries through the world journals are tortured, imprisoned or killed. This delegitimizing is seen through Trump’s scrutiny of the media, which can be seen in other countries between government officials and the press; this, however, leads to the actions taking against them justifiable. As stated in How Democracies Die, “If the public comes to share the view the media are spreading lies, it becomes easier to justify actions against them.” This claim is seen in how the officials in our government are treating the media. I can agree that if this treatment continues it can contribute to the media’s downfall in the future.
Work Cited:
Levitsky, Steven. Ziblatt, Daniel. “How Democracies Die.” Crown/Archetype. 2018.
Your post was very interesting and informative. Unfortunately, most media outlets in the US have seemingly become polarized with specific agendas and loyalties. However, that does not excuse the behavior of President Trump by labeling all media as “fake news” in an attempt to discredit all who oppose him. As Trump and many media outlets have been in a verbal war thought out much of his presidency, both sides have attempted to discredit each other. Every US president has received opposition from the media (which is part of their job), but due to Trump’s fighting back in an attempt to destroy the media’s legitimacy, he has opened himself up to more and more criticism. As you said, the media is an important piece of democracy, and although other than these comments by Trump (and others) little has been done to eliminate media presence in the US, the US needs to learn lessons from less fortunate countries and protect their media.
Well the media has been very polarized historically. I don’t know if it has become more polarized than in previous times. but your comment brings a question to mind. You mention how the media is always in opposition to the president and that trumps push back is dangerous for himself. Now, the media is not a ground for opposition, its a ground for scrutiny and holding an individual accountable for their actions. Not for opposition. With that said, It’s interesting how you make the connection of the news being in opposition to every U.S. president. The question I might ask is, has the media gone too far in their engagement in a battle with trump, so much so that they are being viewed as opposition at this point? Or is the media struggle for legitimacy trumps fault because he decided to break the social norm by trying to call the media out on their bias’?
Interestingly, your article notes that Donald Trump has undertaken a ” verbal crusade” on the media, but importantly indicates that he “limits himself there”. The fact that Trump’s attacks on the media have only been verbal in nature stands in sharp contrast with the imprisonment and legal harassment of journalists that has taken place in other countries, including Egypt, Russia, and the example you cite, Turkey. Yet, it isn’t just the political leadership that differs from country to country, but also the strength of their respective media industries; the US media industry benefits from much more well-established history of free journalism, and more societal support than its counterparts in Egypt, Russia and Turkey. I wonder to what extent the well-established nature of the US media industry is responsible for Trump’s inability to follow Erodgan and El-Sisi in taking judicial and martial action against journalists. Can Trump’s lack of more severe attacks on journalists be traced back to his own restraint, or is it rather a matter of his inability to do so in the face of a more powerful and well-rooted tradition of free media?