One year ago, after Donald Trump stunned political observers with his defeat of Hillary Clinton, much of the Acela corridor pledged to do better by their readers and constituents and reconnect with the forces behind his victory they had not really understood. Twelve months later, it’s a good time to evaluate whether they have actually made any meaningful strides towards that goal.
On Monday, Esquire published an oral history of Election Day based on the recollections of campaign and media insiders. I extracted some highlights from the timeline over here. The added insight into how some in the Acela corridor experienced Clinton’s loss is a reminder of just how wrong they were, and how powerfully that impacted the media’s coverage. From Esquire’s timeline, we learn that The New Yorker’s newsroom was “frenetic,” with no content prepared in the case of a Trump victory, that “Saturday Night Live” writers were “crestfallen,” that the Clinton campaign was eagerly awaiting her “coronation.” New York magazine writer Rebecca Traister was crying alone on the floor, while New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman described herself as “gobsmacked.” In an especially telling anecdote, one BuzzFeed editor recalled being on a train from Brooklyn, observing “at least three people sitting by themselves, just weeping silently.”
Talk of coastal bubbles has since become cliche, though that doesn’t undermine the accuracy of the assessment. Indeed, in the days and weeks after Trump’s loss many in the media and on the Left acknowledged their insulation and set out to improve. Reporters ventured into “Trump Country” from New York City and Washington, trying to develop a clearer view of the president’s supporters through their Warby Parker lenses. But have these efforts, which seemed to die down by the time spring turned to summer, made any real difference? By the time 2020 rolls around, will those of us in the Beltway or in Manhattan be better prepared to capture and interpret the mood of the nation?
From coverage and analyses of the NFL anthem protests to Vice President Mike Pence’s marriage, I don’t see much evidence that’s the case. In fact, if it were the case, I suspect many of the people who spoke of their election night hysteria to Esquire would not be so honest about their reactions.
Consider this: After Trump’s win, New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet admitted his paper “didn’t get” religion. “I think that the New York-based and Washington-based too probably, media powerhouses don’t quite get religion,” he told NPR in December. But just this week, as reports of the horrific mass shooting at a church in South Texas came in, some Democrats and members of the media lashed out at Republicans calling for thoughts and prayers. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with ardent defenders of the Second Amendment on policy, condescendingly denigrating the value of prayer disrespects a massive swath of the country, not merely the politicians in question.
That’s just one example, and it’s not perfect. But as we mark the anniversary of such a pivotal moment in modern American history, those who sought a greater understanding of Trump’s supporters in the wake of his surprising victory should pause and evaluate whether they’ve made any progress.
