Some political stories are sensational by their nature, but it is crucial to the health of our nation’s political discourse to tailor realistic expectations and stick to the facts.
The most recent example is Donald Trump’s indictment, which has levied serious accusations of misconduct at the former president. According to the unsealed indictment, President Trump obstructed the FBI’s attempt to recover classified documents from him.
In addition, he displayed multiple classified documents to individuals who lacked a security clearance, all the while bragging about how he had not declassified them. If the contents of the indictment are true, President Trump’s conduct regarding the handling of classified material is worse than that of Hillary Clinton, and especially President Joe Biden. After all, taking an already-sensational story and blowing it out of proportion such that the reality appears disappointing is an increasingly common blunder on both sides of the aisle.
A prime example is the 2019 Mueller report. The investigation found evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election along with links between members of the Trump administration and the Russian government, resulting in dozens of indictments.
Some Democrats claimed the report would provide proof of Trump’s personal collusion with Russia, and when the report did not prove this more outlandish claim, it appeared to be a disappointment. Had expectations been pragmatic, the report would have been much more of a victory for Democrats. Nevertheless, the damage was done. The excessive sensationalism made the divide between the parties wider.
Another example, this time on the other side of the aisle, was the 2023 Durham report. It was hyped by Republicans to be a bombshell that would confirm President Trump’s claims of a conspiracy against him by the FBI, former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yet again, the anticipation was far greater than the reality. The report concluded there were substantial flaws with the Russia investigation. Specifically, confirmation bias inhibited the FBI investigation into Russian collusion and interference. However, it found no evidence of a conspiracy.
What’s more, it resulted in just three indictments, two of which were acquittals. Right-wing media misrepresented the report to make it appear far more substantial than it was. Once more, the damage to the political landscape had been done.
The willingness to buy these outlandish claims is one of the key factors causing political polarization. In the mad scramble for political information, every outlet is incentivized to give us the most exciting predictions and the most extreme conclusions.
Dry commentary is frowned upon. It’s much more engaging for some people to watch Trump attempt to subvert democracy over and over again as long as he remains charismatic and funny, and it doesn’t matter how unfounded his claims are.
It is much more entertaining for others to watch MSNBC accuse Putin of orchestrating a chemical attack in Syria and falsely blaming it on the Syrian government to cover up collusion with Trump. It does not matter how unfounded MSNBC’s claim is.
While the former is far more dangerous and extreme than the latter, Trump as president has a much greater responsibility to keep the country united. The thirst for sensationalism crosses all political lines.
With that in mind, we return to the indictment of Trump — a massive news story. It is polarizing by nature. Media outlets on all sides are already forming wild conclusions. As such, this is a chance for anyone who is critical of the media to do better.
Anyone who takes half an hour to review the indictment itself will know the facts. Anyone who sticks to those facts without making unproven allegations will be able to form reasonable conclusions.
We all criticize the media for its excessive spin. However, the media is a reflection of ourselves. If we do not hold ourselves to a high standard for fact-based analysis, why should we expect the media to do the same?
