Kash Problems

The news media cannot get itself to plainly describe the extremist nature of Donald Trump's administration picks to the public.

The latest example came this weekend, by way of Kash Patel.

When Trump announced that he intends to nominate Patel to serve as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the vast majority of news organizations declined to directly convey to readers in headlines and story ledes that the pick is a right-wing conspiracy theorist who has openly vowed to disfigure the law enforcement agency.

Instead, most newsrooms opted to use the far more muted adjective "loyalist" to describe the appointment of Patel, as if there were any doubt that any of Trump's picks would be anything but loyalists. (The real news would be if he installed a critic to a post.)

The failure to call the spade a spade is part of a larger pattern. As Trump stuffs his second administration with radicals who have repeatedly demonstrated they have no allegiance to the truth — or, in many cases, fundamental American principles — the news media has failed to adequately illuminate for the public the disturbing nature of the appointees. These appointees are rarely, if ever, referred to as conspiracy theorists or extremists, even though that is precisely what they are.

It shouldn't be hard for journalists to state that using the awesome powers of the federal government to target members of the press, as Patel has publicly promised to do, is flatly un-American. But it seems most in the press are either unwilling or unable to call out such actions directly, whether due to complacency, fear, or a misguided sense of neutrality.

Some journalists might argue that it is not the duty of a news organization to make such statements. But there are plenty of times when news outlets use blunt language to defend Constitutional principles. News organizations regularly argue before courts the importance of the First Amendment and issue scathing statements when such rights are violated, whether abroad or at home. So why not be as clear in stories?

In some cases, newsrooms have seemingly opted to pin terms like "conspiracy theorist" on Democratic criticism of the picks. Instead of describing the appointees as dangerous extremists themselves, the tactic has been to quote critics issuing dire warnings. Quoting critics is certainly warranted, but does not excuse newsrooms from failing to make obvious observations on their own accord.

Framing the state of politics as a constant Democratic versus Republican battle is not only lazy, but reduces the seriousness of the situation to a he-said, she-said matter. Instead of journalists setting a basic baseline of truth, the onus is then on the public to spend valuable time trying to sift through the chaos and determine on their own time who is telling the truth.

Imagine a scenario in which a news program featured a weather report where the anchor turned to one reputable meteorologist who warned that the forecast called for dangerous twisters and cautioned viewers to immediately take shelter from the life-threatening storm. Then, immediately afterward, the same anchor turned to another meteorologist — this one from the fringes of the industry — who said it will be nothing but sunshine and blue skies. The responsible course of action would be for the anchor to inform viewers that the second meteorologist has a long history lying about weather reports and is not trusted by most experts. It would be irresponsible to leave it to viewers it to figure out on their own.

But that's become the sad state of what makes up a lot of political journalism these days. It’s not to say that there aren’t some bright spots. There certainly are. But, by and large, the press is somehow still failing on the basics, nearly a decade into covering Trump.

Audiences turn to trusted journalists to cut through the noise, but unfortunately some are abdicating their duties, either because they lack the will or desire to articulate what they very well know to be true. Meanwhile, some news outlets have also decided to platform meteorologists who they know to be lying and disseminating dangerous information to the public.

In private conversations, it would be difficult to find a journalist who does not believe that Patel is a right-wing extremist who would unravel fundamental American principals of law and order, should he be given the opportunity. So why are most declining to say that in public to the audiences that rely on them for that very information?

Whatever it is, it does not bode well for the news industry, especially ahead of what promises to be a rocky four years with Trump at the country’s helm.