Coverage of political violence more critical than ever
After the horrible assassination attempt against former president Donald Trump, President Biden spoke eloquently Sunday about the need to lower the temperature, to renounce violence and to engage in peaceful political debate. “There is no place in America for this kind of violence,” he implored viewers. “We can’t allow this violence to be normalized. … It’s time to cool it down. And we all have a responsibility to do that.” He nevertheless stressed the need for vigorous debate.
His admonition might have been to politicians and voters, but the media should pay close attention as well.
The constant focus on polling and predicting (almost invariably incorrectly) the implications of unprecedented events only makes the media look small, unserious and irrelevant in a historic test of our democracy.
Hysterical predictions and nonstop handicapping misunderstand the public’s perception of politics. (Hence, such reports are often met with a yawn by average voters and without any appreciable movement in polls.) Worse, such jabber crowds out essential coverage of genuine threats to democracy and the visions of the two parties.
Instead, the shooting at the Trump rally in Butler, Pa., should prompt the media to raise the level of discourse and reembrace the mission of journalism: to inform the citizenry about critical issues. Grading Trump’s speeches on style points and admiring his technique in playing to the crowd, as opposed to highlighting his efforts to subvert democratic norms, does not help create an informed electorate; rather, it conceals the essential case, based on the record and the GOP’s avowed policy aspirations, that the campaign poses a danger to our constitutional system.
Responsible media coverage should focus on several substantive topics. For starters, the shooting should be placed in the context of our intolerable gun culture. As former classmates of the shooter have noted, high school students live in fear of mass shootings by their peers. Hard questions about the shooter’s access to a weapon of war, about age limits on such weapons and, yes, about Republican resistance to curbing access to such weapons should be a topic of coverage.
Responsible media outlets should press Republicans to explain their insistence that “all it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Here, the shooting was not prevented by a slew of highly armed law enforcement officials.
Second, the press has an obligation to carefully probe the rise of political violence and violent rhetoric that preceded this. On Sunday, Biden told Americans: “Violence has never been the answer, whether it’s with members of Congress in both parties being targeted ... or a violent mob attacking the Capitol on January 6th, or a brutal attack on the spouse of former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or information and intimidation on election officials, or the kidnapping plot against a sitting governor, or an attempted assassination on Donald Trump.” In the aftermath of the shooting, many Republicans are pointing at the rhetoric of some Democrats in a clear effort to chill criticism of Trump’s undermining of democracy. But it is not inappropriate — indeed, it is essential — to cover Trump’s and his supporters’ actions and rhetoric preceding the shooting as well.
The horrific nature of the shooting should not stand in the way of the media’s examination of Trump’s role in the degeneration of our political discourse. They should press him and fellow Republicans to explain (and renounce) talk of televised military tribunals for Jan. 6 committee members and threats to execute the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Trump’s newly announced running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio — who on Saturday made the unsupported accusation the shooting was “not just some isolated event” — should be scrutinized as well.
Third, the incident should refocus attention on the candidates’ policy proposals.
Biden on Friday reissued his call for a ban on semiautomatic weapons; the Heritage Foundation’s influential Project 2025 embraces ideas such as rounding up 11 million undocumented immigrants and using the military to quell dissent. What are the implications for public safety and domestic stability? Talk of retribution against enemies raises concern about the independence of prosecutors, something Trump upended in his first term. Demonizing the FBI certainly has had tragic consequences, as Attorney General Merrick Garland has pointed out.
Finally, the Secret Service deserves intense examination. “Now under scrutiny for its worst security breach since the 1981 attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, the Secret Service is facing pressure to determine whether it failed to devote enough resources to the protection of a former president turned presumptive presidential nominee,” The Post reports. “Among the questions agency officials are seeking to answer, according to a senior official, is whether the agency suffered a critical breakdown in communications with local police in Butler, Pa., who were assigned to secure the outer perimeter where the gunman positioned himself on the roof of a nearby building.”
As Carol D. Leonnig has documented, a long history of scandals and screw-ups has plagued the Secret Service. After each incident, coverage fades and the media moves on. After a scandal of this magnitude, it’s essential to keep our attention focused.
In short, this horrible incident should provide the opportunity for a media reset. Put aside the unhelpful, obsessive speculation about how the shooting might affect the election.
Instead, focus with renewed intensity on guns, responsibility for political violence, the candidates’ respective policy plans and the deplorable state of our Secret Service. It is time for the media to raise its game and meet a moment of extreme crisis in our democracy.