Democracy in Crisis: The Anticipatory Model of Crisis Management in Journalism
Introduction
From the beginning of his campaign until the present moment (2019), President Donald Trump has taken a combative tone with the nation’s press. The press has responded haphazardly. A few media outlets, such as Fox News, have embraced his style and ideology (Kirell, 2017), rendering these companies meaningless in the larger effort to hold power accountable in a democratic society. For the rest of the media, caught off guard by the President’s aggression and disrespect for truth — or the established norms that have served as a template for the interaction between the seat of power and the fourth estate— each organization has tended to claim its own place within the spectrum of objective judgment and balance lauded as ideals of practice. The press did not anticipate such a challenge, lulled into complacency by the grudging respect previous presidents had offered to the established media on whom they depended to communicate the official messages of state (Milligan, 2015). Because the press was unprepared, a period of crisis management ensued that lingers to this day. President Trump continues to flout the norms by communicating directly to the American people in bursts of 280 words or fewer on his Twitter account (Buncombe, 2018).
On the other side of the coin, “the dark side,” the more overtly persuasive function of public relations is also enduring an existential crisis in the wake of President Trump’s ascendency. Figures such as White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, her predecessor Sean Spicer, and media Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, have traded their personal credibility for a historic moment in the sun (Concha, 2019) —which will undoubtedly prove to be embarrassing in their careers if Spicer’s experience is indicative of a Trump fallout (Moran, 2019). A Press Secretary’s reputation need not suffer, nor should the position be nothing more than a demeaning scapegoat for both the President and the press. Ultimately, if an inexperienced Chief of State can bulldoze into the position without regard for the complex relationship that has been forged between the office and the media— resort to personal social media rants, undermining the authority of his messengers— then the public relations position is in danger of becoming nothing more than a conduit of meaningless gestures, without evidence of nuance or purpose. Like their “adversaries,” the press, the public relations warriors were taken by surprise by the executive style President Trump brought to the institution of American government that has traditionally been accountable to the American majority. However, the example of Trump’s spokespeople suggests that credibility need not be a prerequisite for the job. That perspective lays bare the pretense of this particular public relations mission, which injures the PR industry as a whole (Lind, 2019). The industry has a code of ethics, after all (PRSA, n.d.). Being honest is part of that.
Traditionally, the press has tended to be reactive in its practice, either reporting a crisis or managing it. It rarely exhibits the foresight to consider how its practices can be upended, or indeed, severely threatened by a force that has no respect for either the press or the public relations function—other than in his own voice— in the larger consideration of democratic maintenance (Fisher & Hobson, 2016). Both perspectives of power can be preserved in a democratically useful way, by employing the anticipatory model of crisis management (Olaniran, Williams & Coombs, 2012). Such an approach has not been studied in a comprehensive, holistic manner. Rather than simply trying to keep professional heads above water, it would behoove both professions to identify and solidify certain mutual principles and practices serving the larger purpose of communication between power and people. By agreeing to a set of principles that can be established to the point of becoming canon for emerging journalists and public relations practitioners, a standard can be set whereby unique ways of governing will not impair the American public’s ability to rightfully know what its leaders are doing.
In our information age it is widely agreed that information is power. In a world of billions of people there are that many more individuals seeking power. Never in the history of the world have so many people had access to so much information — so much so, that finding “truth” can be like finding an obscure historical reference in a Google search. Entering the 21st century the United States was considered the leader of a free world, a society valuing the free exchange of ideas and a respect for at least practical veracity, if not absolute truth. Today, in a world awash and sometimes drowning in propaganda and lies, it is all the more important for a community wishing to be free to have reliable information. In the United States we elect a government to serve us. If we consent to efforts by the government to withhold or distort information we are in a very real danger of losing our democracy.
A free press is guaranteed by our constitution. So is freedom of speech. These two rights are not always in accordance with each other. It is through the free exchange of ideas that issues can be resolved, but the exchange has been poisoned by disinformation and political partisanship exacerbated by a President with little regard for convention. A plan for the preservation of free speech and a free press acknowledged by all stakeholders—which is every American, really— can go a long way toward preventing the disruption of the political process in terms of information distortion. For several years the NRA provided political cover and lobbying pressure to ensure protection of the Second Amendment. The First Amendment needs something comparable that will protect the essential nature of our national identity. A first step would be to analyze the issues, anticipate potential problems, and solidify a plan of response should certain threats to the political process be recognized. The proposed action can even be added into a code of ethics already established. These steps can be taken using the anticipatory model of crisis management.
Literature Review
Describing President Donald Trump’s relationship with the press is problematic in the sense that it is out of the ordinary for a U.S. president to behave as overtly hostile, calling it an “enemy of the people” (Stewart, 2018). However, that behavior is precisely what must be overcome by the press if it is to function properly as a constitutionally protected right of the American people. Admittedly, it is difficult since critics have charged him with creating his own problems (Shesgreen & Hayes, 2019).
The four normative theories of the press have been described by Siefert, Peterson & Schramm (1984) in their seminal work describing the authoritarian, libertarian, socially responsible and communist approaches to the role of journalism in regard to various governmental political systems. Subsequent works have sought to expand or tweak those approaches (Christians, Glasser, McQuail, Nordenstreng & White, 2009). Of course there are subtle limitations depending on the political structure of various countries and some practical inconsistencies contrasting to what are ideal definitions. How the press regards its own role in the process is essentially what is most important in terms of maintaining its own authority and holding government accountable. Both of these functions fall under the libertarian approach, which has been the normative practice of the press in the United States. Of course corporate ownership has affected, and even tempered what has been defined as “news” (Siefert, 1984).
The Code of Ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists outlines the primary responsibilities of the press in American society. Broadly, the expectation is that journalists must seek the truth and report it, be independent, transparent, and to minimize harm (SPJ, 2014). Again, this is a normative approach that can run up against practical inconsistencies. Much literature is devoted to historically normalizing the U.S. President’s occasional difficulties with the press (Younge, 2016). Unfortunately, that narrative is part of the problem when covering the presidency of Donald Trump. It is in the interest of Trump’s supporters to normalize the President’s behavior. Politically, if Trump’s actions do not appear to be much of an aberration, Trump appears less of a threat. The press’s normative behavior plays along with the false equivalence. With headlines like, “America lived through a Trump-like presidency before with lasting consequences” (Strother, 2019), political leaders are encouraged to be relieved that the country had seen it all before and survived. However, the disruption Jackson caused to the new nation is not at all of the same magnitude of Trump’s disruption to a more mature and much more powerful player in a global economy. The press’s desire is to create a newer narrative, and to encourage contradiction in sources to give the impression of balanced coverage. This normative behavior, however, is not the equivalent of seeking out the truth and reporting it. This normative behavior is equivalent to maintaining the normative behavior in the interest of stability. In other words, it would appear that when faced with an aberration, which traditionally is one definition of news, the press does not explore it, but rather seeks to show how it is not an aberration—although admittedly much of the pressure to do so comes from conservative media (Rupar, 2019).
Therefore, much of the academic and professional literature on journalistic practices focuses on what has been observed and then codified as established normative behavior. If journalists follow the behavior they have been taught to follow, they will feel justified they are doing the job correctly, and are even doing the job well. Psychological studies in cognitive bias have identified a choice supportive bias. Once a choice has been made, post-choice rationalizations will be used to justify the choice to others (Lind, Visentini, Mantyla & Del Missier, 2017). So if a journalistic choice is made by individuals or newsrooms, based on normative policies or traditional practices —on the authority of a journalistic ideology that has been established—to cover a political aberration, it may be an incorrect or ineffective strategy, although the press may believe it has done the right thing. The tendency in the press to constantly justify its actions — a defensive reaction to normal and constant criticism of its role in a free society— could be interpreted as arrogance by some critics, and can subsequently discourage the press from considering different approaches toward holding government accountable.
Some confusion concerning objectivity among the press has contributed to the way the press has covered Donald Trump. A Pew Research Poll indicates Trump receives more negative news coverage than previous presidents (Mitchell, Gottfried, Matsa, Stocking & Grieco, 2017). However, Trump’s style is an aberration from accepted political norms (Shesgreen, 2019). So what is the expectation of objectivity in such a circumstance? One large problem is that few journalists truly agree on what objectivity means. It is said that, “Ask ten journalists what objectivity means and you’ll get ten different answers” (Cunningham, 2003). The problem is that seeking out the truth, ethically, doesn’t always coincide with the “he said, she said” style of objectivity the contemporary media uses. Using that formula, one side could lie and that lie would be given equal authority by the press—even if the press knows it is a lie—and the lying authority wins in that calculation. That is true of any authority, government or corporate. Furthermore, if a government is engaging in an active disinformation campaign—using that practice of objectivity, the press will essentially pass it along without question (Bennett, 2018).
While some journalists argue for protecting “objectivity,” however they may define it (Dean, n.d.; Jones, 2009), some fear objectivity makes the press ineffectual. “A particular failure of the press: allowing the principle of objectivity to make us passive recipients of news, rather than aggressive analyzers and explainers of it (Cunningham, 2003). Furthermore, if the political center of an argument changes, is it the responsibility of the press to maintain the original position or change the journalistic lens objectively? For example, if one side decides racism is preferable, should the journalist consider that position to be valid? John McManus (2009) writes we should transform the objective expectation into an “empirical approach.” In McManus’s view, there are three principles in such an approach: empiricism doesn’t pretend that news reflects reality; bias is inescapable but newsrooms should be diverse; it requires transparency, which encourages conversation (McManus, 2009). This latter assumption will be the foundation of an overhaul of an AMCM for this contemporary crisis. Rather than wait for a critical moment, however, this action should be put into place immediately.
A large number of publications have examined the disruption of the traditional and mainstream press by the internet and social media (Hickin, 2013; Shearer & Gottfried, 2017). Of particular concern has been President Trump’s use of Twitter. It is not so much that the President uses social media that has disrupted the press, but that he uses it so unprofessionally to conduct communication as President (Calamur, 2017). Furthermore, the internet has given access to unprecedented foreign information influence— such as propaganda— for American society (Kaplan, 2009). American press credibility has eroded to some degree by the digital sophistication of foreign actors and the lack of internet sophistication by large segments of the American population. The press has coopted the internet and its social media spawn as another vehicle for its information. It had little choice if it were to stay relevant. Print newspapers have been under severe financial pressure (Shafer, 2006). However, by doing so it has basically jumped into the information sea with all the other narrative producers and has little to set it apart from the neighbor down the street who passes along conspiracy theories with a post on his Facebook timeline (Cassidy, W. 2007; Kim & Johnson, 2009). A person with little internet sophistication may not know how to determine credibility (Flanagan & Metzger, 2000). In that instance, rumor or conspiracy theory or undisputed fact are considered equally by such a consumer.
For the purpose of this essay it is important to identify what sort of crisis would warrant the creation of a pre-crisis management plan that would serve the news media faced with a profound political aberration. Historically the American press has faced many unusual political circumstances. A free press, in a free country, would naturally encounter situations that would traditionally and effectively be covered under normative Libertarian practices. It would be natural, therefore, to define a crisis as something existentially threatening to a free press and a free society, something that could force the press into a normative practice more resembling an authoritarian expectation. Such a threat would be foundational. It would not serve the country in such a circumstance, to treat it “objectively” by reporting “A” wants to destroy the country as we know it and “B” wants to keep it the way it is. Only an existential crisis would justify a change in press norms, and such a crisis would be obvious to most patriots — for patriots they would be in working to preserve the Constitution.
That final point calls for a description of the role of the public relations industry in such a scenario, for it would be complicit in attacking American constitutional guarantees or it would take a position that it would not do so. Some practitioners of the public relations industry have believed only a few individuals should decide the civic doctrines for the rest of society (Bernays, 2005), and others hold the belief that corporations should be socially responsible to their stakeholders (Carroll, 1999). However, no legitimate American public relations publication would ever advocate selling out one’s country for a personal profit. Quite frankly, that could be considered treason in practice and public perception if not in precise legal terms (Reilly, 2018). So any crisis management plan would need to address a public relations expectation under such circumstances.
This essay argues that a pre-crisis management plan could be useful as a “Break Glass In Emergency” policy should future existential crises threaten the American press and American principles. Following Olaniran (2012), the anticipatory model of crisis management begins with the assumptions one might perceive within an understanding of the professional environment of the issue one is managing. In this study of journalism strategies using the AMCM, it is essentially an overview of the standard practices of the discipline. From that starting point, however, a journalist must then anticipate what could go awry and develop strategies to deal with aberrant occurrences. In defining “crisis” as an event that is existentially threatening both to country and profession, determining the enactment part of the strategy must include a perceptual dimension that would warrant a change of journalistic procedure. For example, what must be seen by the journalist that would provide an unmistakable sign that using the AMCM is justified? If the goal is to protect normative libertarian practices as defined in the U.S. Constitution as “a free press,” then the subsequent journalistic practices must be those that logically protect the journalistic position. To that end, how the press works with the administration would change from a reactive to a proactive state. The new norm should be to challenge the administration and become aggressive specifically on matters of press freedom and national autonomy. In that way control is established. As Cunningham (2003) asserts, it is better to be aggressive rather than passive. It should become clear to every journalist what the goal is — survival. Following the AMCM, passive response to information is one issue identified that must be addressed and made into an action for the purpose of regaining control of the information. Obviously these actions can be taken by only one journalist (Stelter, 2018), but an agreement between editorial offices would ideally be the preferred strategy. Once the AMCM strategy is enacted, analysis should indicate its efficacy and ongoing adjustments should be made if necessary.
The point is quite simple. A free press is by definition independent. Persuading journalists to follow a lead or to interpret information the same way is quite difficult unless it is their idea (Eads, 2018). If a best practices philosophy is communicated to newsrooms across the country, journalists will recognize the strategy and they will see it being embraced by their colleagues and have the option to follow suit. They can refuse to do so, of course, but having the option to be more aggressive will likely encourage more reporters to challenge the administration on a normal basis. A pre-crisis management plan would prove effective in a single company or entity but can it be incorporated into a best practices scenario of American journalism as a whole? Applying a pre-crisis plan, using actual incidences from the Trump Presidency, what imperatives would need to be considered in making such an action feasible?
Method
In writing this study it is important to cite real-world situations from contemporary publications that are presently reacting to the behavior of the Trump administration. In fact, as much as scholarly opinion is helpful to a certain degree, journalism as practice tends to be extemporaneous. Therefore, beyond serving as sources to provide “authority” to claims made in this essay, the citations are an essential part of the body of the essay. The reader is encouraged to click on the links when possible and read the stories provided. They represent a more complete perspective to the issues facing the press today.
To see how the AMCM model can be used to alert journalists to an indication that practices must change, three real-world examples are analyzed to show how the press should have been more aggressive when challenging the Trump administration by looking through the lens of the AMCM. First, an analysis of Trump answering questions from the international press in Helsinki, Finland July 6, 2018, is one of several examples in which the President has refused to criticize President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Second, is an analysis of Trump referring to the press as “the enemy of the people,” on June 16, 2019. Third, is a look at the controversy surrounding CNN’s Jim Acosta and his argument with the President during a press conference and subsequent fallout stemming from the controversy November 7, 2018. There are links within the references provided and the reader is encouraged to view the actual events.
Each of these examples is an instance of the larger picture that justifies employing the AMCM. The continuing revelations of Russian influence in the 2016 American election and the President’s odd relationship with Putin have been the subject of much attention (McKew, 2018). Despite efforts by the President to not address the issue (Nussbaum, 2018), it has persisted longer than it should have done, considering the conclusions of the Mueller Report (Prokop, 2019). President Trump has referred to the press as the “enemy of the people” several times. It is a documented practice for authoritarian governments to vilify the press (Gabbatt, 2018). Finally, CNN’s Jim Acosta is an old school example of how the press can approach the President at news conferences. The modern press, made up of a diverse collection of individuals, have many styles, but at a White House press conference these days, reporters are seldom as aggressive as Acosta’s style. However, President Trump’s response to the aggression is also not one modern Presidents have taken. Following the incident, a shameful backlash involved the President’s Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. These three events, among others, have indicated we as a nation are in uncharted waters. As in any crisis, few journalists anticipate a surprise such has been characterized by this Trump Presidency. As Trump is a threat to our democracy (Levitz, 2019) this experience suggests a plan must be established to provide another bulwark against authoritarian tendencies. It is election season at the time of this writing and scores of political opponents and pundits agree President Trump is a threat to democracy. Freedom House is a non-partisan site that monitors freedom and freedom of the press around the world. The site’s President wrote this:
At the midpoint of his term, however, there remains little question that President Trump exerts an influence on American politics that is straining our core values and testing the stability of our constitutional system. No president in living memory has shown less respect for its tenets, norms, and principles. Trump has assailed essential institutions and traditions including the separation of powers, a free press, an independent judiciary, the impartial delivery of justice, safeguards against corruption, and most disturbingly, the legitimacy of elections (Abramovitz, 2019).
For AMCM purposes, a partial list of issues would include lack of aggression, failure to call out avoidance and disrespect for the press and the failure of a sustained criticism, presumed objectivity, the failure of adequately addressing the lack of public relations ethics, and condemnation of an effective aggressive journalistic approach. For each of the three examples the AMCM will be applied.
Trump and Russia
Never in American history has the loyalty of the President of the United States been questioned—until now (Saletan, 2019). Donald Trump’s relationship with Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has been confounding to the press. From his campaign, through the Mueller Report, to constant contact with Putin via phone or personal meetings, the press has reported on the multiple contacts between his administration and Russians (Crowley, 2017). However, Trump has continuously ceded his narrative to the Russians (Bertrand & Nemtsova, 2019).
There have been many press conferences in which individual journalists have questioned the President over his relationship with Putin, but the Helsinki Conference in 2018 caused an uproar over Trump’s apparent deference to Putin over the advice from American intelligence services (Garrett, 2018). A video from The Guardian (The Guardian News, 2018) highlights important excerpts from that press conference. The reporter asks Trump, in front of Putin, if the President would denounce the election meddling of 2016 and warn him to never do it again. The President’s answers were far from satisfactory from an American point of view.
Using the AMCM, it would be obvious to most objective journalists at this point in the Trump-Russia timeline (Nussbaum, 2018) that something was very wrong considering Trump’s behavior during the Helsinki Summit. Notice the wording in the previous sentence. “Wrong” was used rather than “odd” or “curious.” There is a tendency in the mainstream press to neutralize the narrative of an event to give an appearance of objectivity. In the first two years of Trump’s presidency, the press, following its normative behavior was loath to say a person is a liar, but rather say he misspoke or told a falsehood or received “Pinocchios” (Daugherty, 2019). As the same citation shows, however, by 2019 many publications have used the word “lie” to describe Trump’s utterances. In the same context publications should start being more willing to express what is actually occurring (expressing the event empirically,) rather than writing passively, hoping not to offend the readership that supports the President. This is one of the assumptions (presumed objectivity) that must be upended in the AMCM. The assumption cannot be made that Trump is the equivalent to every other president, because empirical evidence shows he is not. Therefore, he must not be treated as any other president. He must be called out publicly.
Many people from many parts of society make up the press, but the American custom of politeness is not effective against a President who is obviously lying to a reporter’s face. The lie must be exposed at once rather than merely recorded and shown later. The assumption to always be polite regardless of the circumstances must be upended. Aggression is a journalistic tool.
When Trump actually gives Putin precedence over U.S. Intelligence in public, he must be called on it immediately. From that point he must clarify in detail why he is doing so. The assumption is that Americans have a right to know and must have a press that makes government accountable. A reporter must be aggressive in such a circumstance. The example of Jim Acosta in the third video will underscore the impact of such an approach.
Journalistic aggression must be applied at every level of the news business. If survival is at stake, a passive press will be repressed by an authoritarian. Aggression becomes the action, which will control the crisis. The point is there should be no hand-wringing in such a scenario. Events are reduced in these extreme circumstances to something analogous to a game. One is either on offense or defense. Journalists must play to win—not necessarily against the competition, but against government power.
Trump and The Press
In the American democracy one of the primary responsibilities of the press is to hold power accountable (Mulgan, 2005). One of the most pervasive behaviors of an authoritarian government is to attack the press (Graham-Harrison, 2018). A President who wishes his own message to be communicated directly to the people without the filter of the press these days can resort to social media—which is precisely what President Trump has done with Twitter (Stolee & Caton, 2018). The President’s tweets initially confused the press as to whether they should be taken seriously. The tweets seemed “unprofessional” and many voters have been turned off (Shepard, 2019). The press eventually adjusted but the issue was whether Donald Trump is in those tweets representing Donald Trump or the President of the United States. As President, his communications are subject to account by the American public. However, Trump, not having prior experience in public office never required the awareness that a public officer develops. A certain separation of roles and decorum are expected by the press. In any case, Trump’s Twitter use is a direct communication to the people, and as such, has been effective in that limited role. On the other hand, many government officials around the world have complained about the lack of measured diplomatic sensitivities conveyed in 280 characters.
The words of the president are the most valuable currency the United States possesses in some ways. It's critical to reassuring allies. It's critical to informing the American public. It's critical to warning or deterring enemies out there. So the idea that it would be done casually or impulsively seems to me to undermine one of the most important tools the president of the United States has in his possession (Hass, 2018).
In any event, the press has no choice but to cover each tweet with the gravity it deserves. It is out of the press’s reach. Any attempt to shame the President on the platform itself runs the risk of inflaming an already dangerous line of communication. In terms of AMCM, this issue must be factored into a potential action plan. Perhaps journalists should actively respond to the President’s tweets with “objective” judgment; such as, “previous Presidents would not have stated the issue in an apparently insecure manner” — shaming, in other words— which is part of the Twitter culture.
Trump’s avoidance of the press is certainly aggravated by his use of Twitter, but his condemnation of the press has aggravated his relationship with the industry that is given the task to interpret for the American people. Trump has referred to the press as the “enemy of the people” several times, and has accused the New York Times of treason (Capehart, 2019).
Considering the AMCM, the Times is better off not responding. However, because Trump has used such incendiary language to attack the press, it would behoove the other media to make as much of the story as possible, framing the story in terms of authoritarian impulses. That is what is lacking in much of everyday coverage. Again, in an attempt to not make itself part of the story, the mainstream press has generally shied away from pointing out that President Trump at times behaves like an authoritarian (LeTourneau, 2019). As an action leading to control, constantly pointing to those authoritarian impulses will drive home the fact that Trump is an aberration, is in fact, un-American. Furthermore, the more authoritarian impulses are reported with that framing, even the press friendly with Trump will be more pressured to report it. Conservatives may tell themselves Trump is simply reforming government (Chait, 2019), but the barrage of reporting on authoritarianism would force them to at least consider reality. If, for example, Trump’s supporters could read the headlines appearing as this essay is being written— that Trump wants to jail a photographer for taking a photo (Stelter, 2019)— perhaps alarm may persuade them to consider a loss of civil liberties to be quite dangerous.
What is unique in the Trump era is the massive increase of the number of media outlets compared to those during the last problematic presidency, that of Nixon. Had Nixon had conservative media in his day, he may not have resigned when he was impeached. If Trump supporters are only watching Fox News, or reading Breitbart, or any of a number of others, they will not necessarily be exposed to efforts of the press that follow the journalist’s Code of Ethics. In a sense, such such Trump-friendly media outlets — particularly their editorial content— play the role of public relations for Donald Trump. Public Relations, in fact, have a code of ethics as well. The Public Relations Society of America lists in their Statement of Professional Values (PRSA, n.d.) advocacy, loyalty, and expertise (which is to be expected) but also honesty, independence and fairness, which are not ideals one would normally expect of the PR industry.
The traditional conduit of communication for the President has been the White House Press Secretary, a role recently filled by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. She has been repeatedly criticized by the press for telling lies (Barnett, 2019). If the President has no regard for the press and wishes his Press Secretary to have little regard as well, is he not placing his representative in a difficult position? However, if a Press Secretary knows what she is expected to say is a lie, whose responsibility is that? According to the PRSA, it is hers. It is much too easy for a PR representative to shun responsibility by claiming it is her job to support the President. If the President is dangerously close to being an authoritarian, then so is she. Using the AMCM model, she must be held accountable as well and publicly called out every time she is caught in a lie. Furthermore, the White House Press Corp. can punish her by not cooperating with her or by making her job difficult. PR representatives do not deserve a free pass because they are “only following orders.” Furthermore, in such a circumstance, ethical PR people have an obligation not to work under such conditions.
Model Behavior
On November 7, 2018, a contentious press conference occurred between President Trump and CNN reporter Jim Acosta (C-Span, 2018). Acosta was very persistent with Trump, keeping his voice in an even modulation, but refusing to surrender his microphone as he endured Trump’s disrespectful insults. At one point a woman attempted to take the microphone from Acosta but he resisted. Some in the press criticize Acosta’s approach (Perdum, 2018), referring to it as “performance journalism,” but that particular writer is not seeing the value of aggression. Perdum says Acosta is feeding into Trump’s anti-press campaign. Even the journalism establishment at the Poynter Institute condemned Acosta’s behavior (Thompkins, 2018). To its credit, the Society of Professional Journalists applauded it.
It is a journalist’s job to ask difficult questions, follow up on those questions and be persistent in obtaining answers from public officials. Anyone elected to public office should expect to be asked questions they may not agree with or want to answer. Journalists represent the people, and in doing so they must ask the hard questions. President Trump has done a disservice to democracy and the citizens of this country by constantly demeaning journalists and calling them the enemy of the American people, and he now does another disservice by revoking Acosta's White House credentials (Royer, 2018).
Under a judge’s order the credentials were returned, but not before another associated scandal erupted. Sarah Sanders tweeted a video claiming Acosta had struck the woman who tried to get the microphone (Bauder & Woodward, 2018). It turned out to be doctored, easily examined by Inside Edition (Norville, 2018)! The fact that the White House would go to such lengths to discredit a reporter who did not back down from an abusive President at a press conference is further evidence the press is in an unusual place concerning this administration.
Under normative press behavior Acosta would very probably stand out as an unusually aggressive member of the White House Press Corps. In a crisis Acosta is doing his job admirably. In fact, he may be the only reporter who is reacting properly.
Discussion
President Trump is running for reelection in 2020. The country is divided to be sure, but Trump’s base is solid and motivated to reelect him. The AMCM is used in this essay to point a direction toward either coping with another four years of Trump, or something to consider should a similar circumstance arise. The idea of “normative” is a synonym for complacency under these conditions. Although the original intention of Seifert’s study on normal practices was sound within different press expectations, it is precisely the absence of normal expectation this administration has imposed upon the press. Trump simply demands he not be treated as an ordinary person. He does not treat his position or the press’s function in a normal way. He bypasses that function by using social media and using press spokespeople as simple mouthpieces. To hold power to account, therefore, the press must adjust its tactics to help preserve, ironically, a normal function in a democracy. Codes of ethics for both journalists and public relations professionals have an expectation of honesty in common. It is common sense to know that lies do not lead to a relationship of trust between the two functions.
On the other hand, it is not uncommon to be willing to wage war to gain peace. If one thinks it is hyperbolic to express the current relationship between the President and the press as a crisis of democracy, one may not be experiencing the whole picture. The rest of the world looks to the United States as an example. If other democracies under siege see the U.S. submitting to authoritarianism, the world will become a much darker place.
The credibility of the mainstream press has become more of an issue since partisanship became more acceptable on cable television. That issue was made problematic to a great extent by the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The average consumer is not necessarily interested in being information-savvy. If he or she hears or sees something that confirms their biases, would there be an impetus to check the veracity of something? If most people around them confirm their biases, again, there is no reason to be a conscientious news consumer. If the President of the United States, a traditional symbol of authority, attacks the mainstream press, accusing it of lying, calling it “fake news,” what are his supporters likely to think? If they trust the President, they are unlikely to trust the press. If the press cannot be trusted, it must find a way to gain that trust, or better yet, to fight to maintain it on a daily basis. Examples such as those employed by CNN journalist Jim Acosta have resulted in harsh blowback from the administration and other journalists. However, if a Press Spokesperson insists on lying to the press, is the press not expected to call that behavior into question? If democracy is indeed at stake, politeness is probably not a desirable tactic.
Using an empirical approach, exhibited by Acosta, rather than the normative objective approach, is more useful at getting at “the truth” rather than simply reporting the event. The American public need the truth more than a simple description of events. Finding the truth requires more probing and support from the public and competing media. Reporting the truth should be the common practice that binds journalists. The AMCM could be a useful tool as a best practices approach that could ensure journalists continue to fight for democracy.
Conclusion
To conclude, applying the Anticipatory Model of Crisis Management in journalism, produced at several issues that needed to be recognized and turned into enactment to regain a professional control in the conflict with the Trump Administration. First, as Jim Acosta demonstrated, taking a more aggressive stance not only created a bigger impact on the news cycle, but by doing so shone a light on Trump’s abusive behavior toward reporters and showed to what lengths the White House would go to discredit a reporter. Second, calling attention to the President’s tendency to act like an authoritarian would make a larger impact of driving home the fact the danger is real. In both circumstances the press plays a more active role in the interplay between press and power, making the government accountable to the people.
Because the internet provides increased opportunities for disinformation, it also certainly provides greater opportunities for enterprise and the search for truth. One such example is that employed by former Fox News reporter Carl Cameron. Cameron had been the primary political reporter for the organization for decades. He says he increasingly became disenchanted with the channel’s misrepresentations of the truth. He created his own news website and explains his position (Cameron, 2019). Such an action is another remedy to disinformation.
The primary issue with utilizing the ACMC is it is less effective if used unilaterally. As a remedy, one suggestion would involve creating a journalistic organization, similar to the Society of Professional Journalists, that would meet annually, that would consider press issues from an AMCM lens. Members would be made up of representatives of the major news organizations that would define the parameters should certain issues arise. No one should be pressured to join the group; however, having multi-partisan representation would fend off an attack by future potential authoritarians. The AMCM would serve as the foundational model that would look for signs of existential threat to profession and democracy. The organization would also have the efficacy of a union to make quick changes of tactics in the field among participating journalists. It would seem obvious among a widely diverse and independent group of American people one would expect honoring a free press and democracy to be two principles held in common among everyone.