You might be wondering how the mainstream media (which now seems to include those in express tandem with its mission, i.e., tech companies and politicians) plan to cover the incoming presidential administration.
Fortunately, we need look no further than former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Acosta, alongside other notable media personalities, essentially laid out what approach the media will take with President Biden, and as we all could’ve guessed, it differs completely from the approach taken during the last administration.
The evolution of the media in the last four years has irrevocably changed our outlook on politics and altogether undermined our ability to critically consume news which is more often than not biased, ideologically-leaning content under the guise of journalism. While the president-elect has preached “unity,” the last four years have only served as proof of the divisive overtones which inevitably occur when journalism becomes opinion and when an overpowering hegemonic establishment dominates a national consciousness.
New Administration, New Approach?
In recent interviews, CNN correspondents Jim Acosta, Jake Tapper, and others outlined the approach the mainstream media will undertake with the newest administration. Prepare to be shocked.
Acosta, who has been the poster child of Trump’s apparent war on fake news journalism, has a disdain for the president and his administration that seems less about Trump’s competency as an elected official and more personal (try reading his entire book on the subject if you don’t believe this).
Acosta, now a full-on crusader for the down-trodden and unfairly represented media, said that there will be less need (for whatever reason) to “fact-check” Biden as president in comparison with President Trump. “I don’t think the press should be trying to whip up the Biden presidency and turn it into must-see TV in a contrived way,” he added. If that isn’t an admission of the four-year farce that just occurred right in front of us, then what is?
Jim Acosta said that there will be less need to “fact-check” Biden as president than President Trump.
Meanwhile, his co-worker Jake Tapper said media coverage of Biden will be less “obsessive” than it was with Trump. So the question remains, why?
If the coverage of the past four years was all sincerely motivated, without prejudice, shouldn’t that same level of attention be given to the next administration? This is the highest office in the land we’re talking about, which should merit a concerted effort to report on it accordingly. But for all intents and purposes, it seems like the media will take an extended vacation from that kind of work over the next four years.
One Toronto Star reporter even admitted as much, saying handling coverage of Biden will not be a “24-hour, seven-day-a-week job.” If we’re looking for a silver lining in any of these interviews, honesty (however laughable) seems to be the one to go with.
Prepare To Be Gaslighted by the Media
You don’t have to be a fan of Donald Trump to recognize the almost corrupt double standard which has characterized the media coverage of his administration, nor do you have to politically align with his voter base to recognize that once Biden takes office the double standard will only become heightened in action as it’s minimized to the public.
Look no further than the most obvious examples. Biden’s all-female communications team has been praised and lauded, while Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kayleigh McEnany have been branded liars of the worst kind.
Had the media even attempted to cover the Biden campaign with the same critical eye as they did the Trump administration, the Tara Reade allegations and investigation into Hunter Biden’s ties to Russia, to name just two examples, would have decimated any possible hope of a successful campaign.
We shouldn’t expect any authentic attempts at coverage of the newest administration.
In the coming months, media coverage will seem almost utopian. We shouldn’t expect any authentic attempts at coverage or genuine analysis into the inner workings of the newest administration, nor should we hold the media to standards that they openly flout and disdain, and more so, with pride and satisfaction.
When the journalists-turned-crusaders have the elected official in office they feel comfortable stepping away from, we won’t hear of any press secretary or communications room drama or actual news. And more likely than not, they’ll pretend their own lackluster professional abilities never happened.
The same sources preaching unity will remind us of how ugly and divisive the past four years were compared to the bliss and perfection of the new administration, and we might even believe it because we’re not hearing anything else. Like it or not, things will occur in front of our very eyes that the media will refuse to report, and only then will we be forced to reckon with how calculated this broken establishment really is.
Big Tech’s Role in News Reporting
We have to keep in mind that media messaging can come in all different forms. And that includes our social media platforms, and how they disseminate the information we’re consuming.
Media coverage will look extremely different not only because of the reporters and what they choose to cover or not cover, as the case may be, but also in who’s allowing that information to be shared.
While we might have once been afraid of living in a technocracy, it’s too late now. We’re already there. If Twitter can permanently ban the current president, they can ban anyone — and that should disturb us no matter what our political affiliations are.
If Amazon, Google, and Apple can ban a platform founded for the very intent of free speech, and indeed, to accomplish what Twitter was failing to do, they can get rid of anything they don’t like or deem “harmful.” All for the greater good, our greater good. Supposedly.
When tech companies tell us they’re protecting us, our instinct should be to immediately question them.
And therein lies the problem. When tech companies worth billions of dollars tell us they’re protecting us, our instinct should be to immediately question that motivation. When journalists, with ideological tendencies who work for biased, particularly-motivated corporations tell us we’re better off not knowing what’s really going on, we should instinctually see red flags.
It’s only going to get harder, which is perhaps a pessimistic mindset to have. But in the coming months, it’ll become more difficult not to look at what we’re seeing but instead look for what we’re not seeing.
Concerning times are ahead. This is likely not going to be the sunshine and rainbows era we’re hearing so much about, but it’ll definitely be presented as such.
Make no mistake, a distinct juxtaposition is emerging — that the past four years were terrible, dangerous times compared to the harmony that lies ahead. It’ll be reported that way anyway.
Perhaps there’s another silver lining to be found here, and that’s that if anything, the media’s done us a favor. It’s reminded us who they are, and that unlike politicians or elected officials, they don’t work for us. They work for themselves and are only motivated to accomplish whatever their predictive agenda dictates. Journalists, though they might argue otherwise, are not acting in a selfless public service to us. They act in whatever capacity serves their own collective interest, whatever that may look like. If anything, it does us good to be reminded of that on the verge of this new period.