A Washington Post columnist said there were two things the press could have done better in its coverage of President Trump’s impeachment.
Media columnist Margaret Sullivan claimed that the media failed to live up to the historical moment, writing, “Now that Trump has been impeached, it’s not possible to say that the mainstream media has earned anything close to an A.”
The first flaw she highlighted was that reporters allowed readers to come to their own conclusion. Sullivan wrote, “Watch the broadcast evening news for a couple of nights in a row and, to varying degrees, you’ll see it in action: The Democrats said this; the Republicans said that; we don’t know — it’s so tribal! — so you decide.”
She claimed that reporters fell into the “trap of presenting facts and lies as roughly equivalent” and refused to disclose which was accurate.
Sullivan’s second complaint was that some in the media acknowledged how boring the proceedings were when House Democrats brought in diplomats and attorneys to testify. She specifically called out NBC News for saying the first day of testimony lacked “pizzazz.”
On the other hand, Sullivan said some outlets tried too hard to make the hearings seem lively by focusing on the division, rather than the facts.
Sullivan noted that, despite her other complaints, she did think the press did a good job of making the information about impeachment accessible. She explained that CBS News dedicated its entire 30-minute evening news program to covering impeachment on Wednesday night.
It’s unclear how the media coverage affected the support for impeachment from the American public. Impeachment and removal had support from a majority of Americans shortly after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced, but it steadily decreased throughout the process. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval rating steadily increased from the moment the impeachment effort was announced.
