Predictably much of the reporting on President-Elect Trump’s formation of a new administration is relatively negative. On a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the most negative I’d call the analysis part of news coverage an 8. And it appears that Trump is okay with that. His statements and actions beginning with what I will call the Matt Gaetz affair have been antagonistic toward mainstream news and analysis. And that is too bad.
Most people who gain these top jobs are not known and much of the advise and consent process, the constitutional prerogative of the United States Senate, is political. Few Senators are prepared to step outside the Party line. I supported Larry Hogan because he had time after time demonstrated his independence.
Since I often write about public affairs and the politics of it, I try to double check my own drafts for fairness. Fairness is in part subjective so to some degree my general antipathy toward the President-Elect can’t be precluded but I’ll continue to try. So here is my take.
There is a worrying element in all of this. Some years ago I ended up at lunch with a fellow who said he didn’t get his news from newspapers but only from what at the time was called Twitter. He was much younger than me and I concluded it was generational and that to some degree it reflected a disdain for left of center bias.
Left of center bias is endemic. Journalism and related journalistic tracks tend to draw from those who want to “change the world” or at least record it as they see it. Many believe that if more digging or editorial emphasis is directed to how the government can achieve their preferences, outcomes can be improved. I long ago, to one degree or another, used a discount filter. This was especially true on business reporting.
Polls of course affirm this bias. Few reporters, for example, are Republicans or identify with right of center points of view. And Donald Trump plays that bias with improvisational glee. When he saw Twitter as biased he started Truth Social.
And then his buddy Elon Musk bought Twitter. Musk declared that truth in news coverage would only be available on the newly named X because it would assure free speech. In short if you want to find out the truth in the news, X is the place to go.
Well to begin with Musk knows as much about the best practices of journalism as I know about catching rockets returning from space. Some who post on X actually have some depth of knowledge. They are almost all posters with a day job at one or another news gathering organization. I, for example, follow the Institute for the Study of War. I get informed on timely news about the Middle Eastern and Ukraine wars. I also see a steady stream of diverse opinions although fewer from left of center orientation because many have chosen to boycott X.
X is indeed a positive development in the news and information segment. But it is mainly a headline service, not a news one. If Musk wants X to become a more valuable news source, he is going to have to spend millions annually to actually provide news. Real news is the fruit of digging pushed along by principled editors whose first principle is truth. Providing accurate news is not an inexpensive pursuit and the financial incentive to do so has largely disappeared.
Opinion is rarely truth. Opinion tends to be an information layer and truth is many layered. It is, regarding many subjects, even hard to define how you find out the truth. Inquiries in search of truth recalls the blind man concluding that an elephant’s trunk was a snake. We all have our blind sides.
Back to Musk and Truth and Trump’s version of X called “Truth Social.” The latter is propaganda—the world as Trump wants others to see it. And X is just a pass it along machine. X is not a many layered effort to find truth but a pipe, if you will, that delivers information and opinion and leaves it up to you to decide.
President-Elect Trump has heralded a momentous time in the governance of the United States of America. Indeed. And in a democracy we should all assess next steps forward while looking out for the snakes. If I had one piece of practical advice, it would be to make sure at least one of your sources of news makes you uncomfortable.
Enduring Reform
The notion that November’s election was a landslide is bunk. The most representative political institution is the House of Representatives and it is split almost down the middle—Republican’s control 220 seats and Democrats 215.
Generally in human affairs humility attaches to evenly divided opinions, in this case demonstrated through actual elections. Hubris should be avoided.
President-Elect Trump has promised to take on the “deep state” and has already begun to set up an efficiency apparatus (Department of Government Efficiency-DOGE) led by Elon Musk as part of that effort. I imagine some good ideas will result from that work. Some of the ideas might be actionable through Presidential orders while others, and especially those involving expenditures, will have to move through Congress.
While political differences today are often fought with severe language, I would suggest turning the heat down on the work of DOGE so that enduring reforms might outlast political tides. In the case of the President-Elect, he will then get credit for victory not just making political points.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
Bob Brell says
Watch Out For The Snakes! A snake is also defined as a treacherous or deceitful person. Which snakes are referred to? Are they the “identified” snakes found in the Office of President Biden or the snakes found in the “deep state” or the snakes found in the federal bureaucracy or the snakes found in the mainstream media or the snakes found in the Department of Justice (attorney General, FBI) and sister Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the “imagined” snakes in the next Trump administration? By his own admission, the author admits his “general antipathy toward the President-Elect can’t be precluded”.
How fair is that? The opinion piece then proceeds to identify perceived bogymen followed by opinionated review, the majority negative.
“The notion that November’s election was a landslide is bunk”, As evidence, the house of Representatives is cited. How shallow is that? The landslide is found in that the majority of voters and the electoral college Trump 312, Harris 226, voted the Biden/Harris administration and all of its followers out, goodbye to democrat candidate Kamala Harris and goodbye to the hung Senate. Landslide is defined as the voters demanding change and voting a trifecta win of the 1)Presidency, 2) the Senate and 3) the House of Representatives all saying “enough is enough”! How often has that happened? Yes, the election was landslide!
James Siegman says
I would like to respond to this article by referencing the last couple of lines. Specifically: “…turning the heat down on the work of DOGE so that enduring reforms might outlast political tides…”
If by reform, you mean to burn it all down….great. If that works for you.
But the burn it all down approach will almost immediately create collateral damage among actual people. Specifically…efforts to reduce Medicaid and Medicare benefits….and what has been discussed in Heritage Foundation documents predating Project 2025…the reduction in expenditures for VA benefits.
As a veteran of almost 22 years in the Air Force, I VEHEMENTLY oppose this “burn it down” approach. And I am speaking out NOW before they begin attempting to dismantle “entitlements”…and particularly those benefits that are so fiercely needed by our most vulnerable people as well as for our veterans who have sacrificed birthdays, holidays and anniversaries with families….that is if they have not sacrificed their blood and tissue in service of this once great nation.
I agree that we need reforms on a great many issues from the border to entitlements. But wrecking them is not reform. The other cabinet posts proposed seem designed to burn down the rest of the government…to reduce the regulations that keep our air and water clean, provide safe working environments, require that employers pay overtime and so on….seem designed for the sole purpose of allowing wealthy oligarchs to more easily fleece America.
I feel that these moves are taken at the peril of the Republican party. People are TIRED of feeding off the crumbs of the super wealthy. We saw a heinous act committed in broad daylight in NYC last week….ostensibly by a person who had been adversely impacted by corporate greed. I do not condone such action. But I do feel that we may sit up and take notice and try to unveil the underlying causes of such angst and learn how broadly its roots extend….before it is too late.