As Trump attacks the press, billionaires kneecap the media’s ability to fulfill its duty

This is an adapted excerpt from the Oct. 27 episode of “Velshi.”

In every presidential election for more than 50 years, the major candidates have participated in a sit-down interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” in October, just before the election, to talk about their policies, their platform and their values. It’s a traditional final broadcast exhibition of the candidates Americans might vote for in a few weeks. Vice President Kamala Harris accepted CBS’ interview request and, at first, so did Donald Trump.

But then, one week before the interview, Trump backed out. Among other groundless complaints, his campaign objected to CBS’ commitment to fact-checking the interview, which is standard practice. Hours after Harris’ interview aired, Trump took to his social media site to rant about how terrible the interview was and how badly it went for the vice president.

But soon, he pivoted, and began attacking “60 Minutes” and CBS more broadly, accusing the network of manipulating the interview. CBS responded, explaining that the interview was simply edited for time and not to change the meaning or impact of Harris’ answers.

Trump posted on his social media site:

After his September debate with Harris on ABC News, Trump also called for the revocation of the network’s broadcast license. Jessica Rosenworcel, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, called Trump’s threat “serious” and said it “should not be ignored.”  

“The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage,” Rosenworcel said in a statement.

And last week, Trump also threatened Comcast, MSNBC’s parent company, saying that it should be investigated for its “Country Threatening Treason.” 

But this week, we saw two major news organizations, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, both of which are owned by billionaires, decline to endorse a candidate, despite both papers’ tradition of doing so and despite both papers’ editorial boards having endorsements for Harris prepared. 

Clearly, Trump exercises his power to control narratives about himself, and the atmosphere created by his bullying and threats is sometimes enough to intimidate powerful people into falling in line. There’s a name for this kind of behavior, anticipatory obedience, or obeying in advance.

We’re seeing it play out this week with these newspaper endorsements, but we’ve seen it before too. 

Just about five years ago, Nikole Hannah-Jones published “The 1619 Project.” It began as a 100-page spread in The New York Times Magazine, aiming to put race, the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the center of our national narrative.

But just a few months after Hannah-Jones won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for her work on the project, then-president Trump sparked what would become a nationwide backlash against her ideas.

“The left has warped, distorted and defiled the American story with deceptions, falsehoods and lies. There is no better example than the New York Times’ totally discredited 1619 Project,” Trump said in 2020. “This project rewrites American history to teach our children that we were founded on the principle of oppression, not freedom.”

Shortly thereafter, Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting the ideas behind “The 1619 Project.” One of those executive orders established something called “The 1776 Commission,” which was a promise to focus history on what the Trump administration called a “patriotic education,” avoiding divisive topics like race and slavery.

In the years after it was published, states would introduce at least 23 proposed gag orders targeting “The 1619 Project” by name. Dozens more bills targeted it indirectly, usually by attempting to ban discussion of its core ideas. But the apparent vendetta against Hannah-Jones did not end with Trump. The University of North Carolina denied her a tenured position despite her being, if anything, overqualified for the position.

Four years after Hannah-Jones was targeted, we are witnessing important institutions, our schools, our media organizations, our government officials, pre-emptively bend a knee to Trump’s threats. We are watching in real time as previously well-respected organizations succumb to pressure and power; succumb to intimidation and obey the tyrannical and undemocratic demands of the former president in advance. And as Trump’s attacks on the media escalate in the closing days of this election, it’s critical that the press fulfill its duty to hold power to account.