Trump’s “Pincer Attack” on Journalism Is Working. But There’s Hope.

Summary

Reveal Podcast Episode Summary Episode Title: Trump’s “Pincer Attack” on Journalism Is Working. But There’s Hope.
Release Date: April 9, 2025
Host: The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX
Guest: David Folkenflick, NPR’s Media Correspondent

---

Introduction: The Escalating Assault on Media

In this compelling episode of Reveal, host Al Edson engages in a deep discussion with David Folkenflick, NPR’s seasoned media correspondent, to unpack the intensified strategies employed by former President Donald Trump against journalistic institutions. The conversation delves into the multifaceted "pincer attack" targeting both public broadcasting entities and mainstream media, exploring its implications for the future of journalism in America.

---

Trump’s Intensified Hostility Towards the Media

David Folkenflick opens the dialogue by contextualizing the historical antagonism between Trump and the press. He draws a parallel between the fragmented architecture of London and the current state of American media, highlighting the coexistence of new disruptive media actors alongside traditional outlets like NPR and PBS.

David Folkenflick [00:02]: “They are trying to create kind of a pincer attack on the foundations of funding for public broadcasting just as they're going after media in a variety of ways.”

Folkenflick emphasizes that Trump’s approach has evolved from overt hostility to more nuanced, systemic pressures aimed at undermining the credibility and financial stability of established media organizations.

---

Financial Warfare: Stripping Funding from Public Broadcasting

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to examining the financial strategies employed to weaken public broadcasting. Folkenflick points out the bipartisan efforts in Congress to defund NPR and PBS, despite these organizations receiving minimal direct federal funding.

David Folkenflick [17:28]: “There are calls on Capitol Hill from both sides of Congress to strip all funding from all of public broadcasting.”

He highlights the disproportionate impact on local NPR stations, especially those serving marginalized communities, which rely heavily on fragmented funding sources. The potential shutdown of these stations threatens the diversity and reach of public media.

---

Editorial Manipulation and Subscriber Exodus

The conversation shifts to the repercussions of editorial decisions influenced by political pressures. Folkenflick discusses the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times as case studies, illustrating how editorial shifts to align more sympathetically with Trump have led to massive subscriber losses.

David Folkenflick [09:43]: “300,000 people canceled... 12% in something like 10, 11 days. That's unheard of.”

He underscores the long-term financial repercussions for these newspapers, noting that losses of this magnitude are tolerable for billionaires like Jeff Bezos but catastrophic for the sustainability of journalistic endeavors.

---

FCC’s Investigation into Public Broadcasting Sponsorships

Al Edson brings attention to the FCC’s investigation into the sponsorship practices of NPR and PBS, questioning the legality and transparency of underwriting spots versus commercial advertisements.

David Folkenflick [17:28]: “Carr is saying there's no distinction to be made. What the senior executives at PBS and at NPR are saying is, look, we always bend over backwards and err on the side of caution when it comes to complying with the FCC codes and regulations.”

Folkenflick defends public broadcasters by detailing their adherence to FCC guidelines and the minimal percentage of federal funding they receive. He argues that the FCC’s actions are part of a broader strategy to destabilize public media.

---

The Fragmentation of Media and Public Trust

Addressing the fractured media landscape, Folkenflick and Edson discuss the challenges of rebuilding public trust amidst polarized news consumption. Folkenflick criticizes major networks like CNN for leaning into opinion-based content at the expense of rigorous reporting, thereby eroding credibility.

David Folkenflick [25:15]: “We live in a time where you don't have any room for error... All of the public figures. It used to be the reverse, where the press could get things wrong and the politicians had to be perfect or we'd pummel them.”

He advocates for a return to objective reporting and civic discourse, emphasizing the role of public radio in facilitating balanced conversations and fostering trust.

---

Hope for Journalism: Strategies to Reclaim Trust and Integrity

Despite the daunting challenges, Folkenflick remains optimistic about the resilience of journalism. He highlights the importance of public radio in modeling constructive dialogue and maintaining integrity without succumbing to external pressures.

David Folkenflick [28:28]: “Public radio... brings people in from different sides... it's trying to have some sort of synthesis of how do we go forward, what might make sense.”

Folkenflick suggests that embracing less partisan reporting, focusing on factual accuracy, and fostering community engagement are essential steps towards healing the rift between the media and the public.

---

Conclusion: Navigating the Future of Media

As the episode wraps up, Al Edson and David Folkenflick reflect on the urgent need for media organizations to adapt and reconnect with their audiences. Folkenflick underscores the critical role of investigative journalism in holding power to account and believes that with concerted efforts, the media can overcome current adversities.

David Folkenflick [30:27]: “We are holding the power to account. We are telling hard truths and we're not being deferential simply because that advances our financial interests.”

The episode concludes on a hopeful note, emphasizing the enduring importance of trustworthy journalism in a democratic society.

---

Key Takeaways

• Systematic Undermining: Trump's administration employs multifaceted strategies to destabilize both public and mainstream media, targeting financial foundations and editorial independence.

• Financial Strain: Legislative pressures and editorial shifts have led to significant subscriber losses for major newspapers, threatening their operational sustainability.

• FCC Scrutiny: Public broadcasters face investigations into their sponsorship practices, perceived as an attempt to delegitimize non-commercial media.

• Media Fragmentation: The polarized media environment complicates efforts to rebuild public trust, with opinion-driven content overshadowing factual reporting.

• Path Forward: Emphasizing objective reporting, embracing community engagement, and fostering balanced discourse are crucial for restoring credibility and trust in journalism.

---

This episode of Reveal provides a thorough analysis of the ongoing challenges facing journalism in the wake of Trump’s aggressive tactics. Through insightful dialogue with David Folkenflick, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the systemic threats to media integrity and the potential pathways to safeguarding a free and fair press.

Transcript

[David Folkenflick]

The news that these entities produced is either resented or increasingly tuned out and turned off by most of the hard working Americans who are forced to pay for it. They no longer view NPR and PBS as trusted news sources. My sense is that they're trying to create kind of a, a pincer attack on the foundations of funding for public broadcasting just as they're going after media in a variety of ways. So there are calls on Capitol Hill from both sides of Congress to strip all funding from all of public broadcasting.

[Al Edson]

On this week's More to the Story, I talk with David Folkenflick, NPR's media correspondent, about the challenges facing journalists covering the Trump administration and, and why some media outlets are bowing to pressure from the White House.

[Unknown]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Al Edson]

This is More to the Story. I'm Al Letsin. During his first term in office, President Donald Trump was openly hostile with the media. Trump famously called journalists the enemy of the American people and routinely mocked them for producing what he called fake news. But he faced a press corps that was determined and combative in covering his administration and holding it accountable. It was an era when the Washington Post even added a phrase to their paper, democracy dies in darkness. Eight years later, Trump is attacking the media even more aggressively. But this time, some news organizations seem to be bending their knee to the administration. NPR's David Folkenflick is here with us to help us make sense of it all. He he's been covering the people and the organizations who report the news for more than two decades. David, how are you?

[David Folkenflick]

I'm better all the time. How are you? Al?

[Al Edson]

I'm good, man. I just have to tell you, I'm a huge fan. I've been listening to you for years. So thank you for coming onto the show today.

[David Folkenflick]

Pleasure. Thank you.

[Al Edson]

Al it feels like where we are right now, and I think I probably would have said the same thing to you if we had talked 10 years ago. We which is scary, but it feels like we are watching the disintegration of media and journalism, both from forces of commerce and also from political forces. So like, it feels like that's the moment we're in right now that like it's all kind of breaking up and falling apart.

[David Folkenflick]

I mean, I think that's true. I Tend to think of it a little bit like London. Have you been to London now? Oh yeah, love London, I'm guessing. Right, like so you've been to London, you've walked around. And so this is a place where you've got these incredibly modern soaring, you know, skyscrapers and impressive, you know, temples to modernity. Right. You've also got stuff from the 18th century, you know, these cathedrals and incredible palaces. You've got stuff from the Middle Ages, the Tower of London. You've got stuff from the Roman eras and the walls there. And you know, you've got this stuff from all these different centuries and all these different eras in British history, but they're all coexisting. You know, you've got these modern little zipcars going around, these tiny little alle that were probably constructed, you know, a thousand years ago or just about. Right. And that's kind of how I feel about the media. It's that you have all these new major actors that have completely exploded and disrupted and changed how reporting works, how gathering of information works, how it's transmitted, how it's absorbed, how people pick it. Yet the old ones are still around, radio's still here, newspapers still exist. Now I'm not Pollyannish about it. I don't think everything makes it for the better. I think a lot of wounds about the legacy media and about public understanding of journalism and even journalists understanding of themselves is affected by insignificant part, not only, but significant part by mistakes that major journalistic institutions and players themselves have made. There have been a ton of self inflicted wounds, financial, the sort of greed involved at times, the failure to embrace new ways of people getting information. So that Craigslist, you know, and monster.com and these realtor.com ate the lunch of news organizations for job ads, real estate, you know, auto, you know, all these things that were part of the texture of the financial basis of, of news organizations. And similarly with television, you know, they've often lost their relevance and they are chasing after things and yet we've done it in terms of journalism. We've lost connection with audiences because we haven't led the pack at being compelling on new platforms and technologies because we've been fearful of it. I wouldn't say that's the case now, but that's certainly part of what's baked in. And because of self inflicted rooms on reporting, you know, people didn't see themselves reflected or on the air or in print. And sometimes that meant that people of color for years were not adequately represented. It meant that the new York Times, which is now seen as the exemplar of woke by people on the right, you know, was deeply hostile to covering gays. Right. And so there isn't a reservoir of trust and goodwill for the press to draw upon when it's still perceived as operating in a way that I think it does a lot less. But it has to be much more responsive. It has to take into account alternative sources of information. And yet it still feels detached from rather than a part of.

[Al Edson]

I'm thinking about Trump's first administration and it was really clear that he was antagonistic to the press, that he was. I mean, he called the press the enemy of the people. But it feels like Trump 2.0 is more targeted and much more effective in targeting the press. Like looking at, like what's happening with who gets to cover the White House. Right. Looking at what he's doing with ap because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Taking decisive actions against anybody that he feels is going to give him bad press.

[David Folkenflick]

Yeah, I think that that's true. And when it comes to the press, what's fascinating to me is how many different levers he's been pushing. Right. So before he came into office, he filed a number of suits against news organizations and social media companies. And a lot of them have been settling these suits, even if in an earlier age, one would say that a number of them don't seem to have much or any merit. And so you saw just ahead of the election from the LA Times and the Washington Post, where they're billionaire owners who each have significant business interests in front of federal government, federal regulators. In the case of Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, his companies have billions of dollars contract with the federal government as well as being regulated heavily by it. You know, they basically pulled editorials that had been planned and drafted to run to endorse Kamala Harris. And they've remade editorial pages to be more sympathetic to, or at least less antagonistic to now the once more empowered President Trump. Since going into office, you've seen him do the things you've described, Right. To flood the White House with non conventional correspondence, to be asking questions, as in the question of Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, why are you dressed like this? For one thing, he's been dressed like that since the outbreak of the war. And to be more sympathetic, ask openly affirming a sympathetic quest. They've tossed news organizations, including NPR out of their workspaces in the Pentagon. Doesn't mean that we can't report from there, but can make it more complicated for TV networks like NBC and CNN that he's pushed out. That really makes things much more complicated for them. And it's been done with intentionality. And media companies are trying to figure out how to still cover this administration while clearly trying to show deference to it in a way that would seemingly be antithetical to the journalistic mission.

[Al Edson]

Yeah. So thousands of Washington Post and Los Angeles Times readers have canceled their subscriptions over the way those newspapers are run, the decisions they've made about editorially, what will be in the newspaper, does that make a difference? I mean, people canceling their subscriptions. And what power do readers have to reach out and say that they're not cool with this? Like this. The direction that you're going with? This is not something that we support.

[David Folkenflick]

Well, it's fascinating. I've never seen anything quite like this. We were able to report that in the, I think it was about 10, 11 days. Whenever it was between the revelation that the Post was not going to endorse Kamala Harris, was going to block a planned endorsement of it due to the wishes of its owner, and election night itself. 300,000 people canceled.

[Al Edson]

That's a huge number.

[David Folkenflick]

Just to give listeners some sense, 2.5 million people were digital subscribers. They lost 300,000. So it's like 12% in something like 10, 11 days. That's unheard of. The LA Times lost about 18 to 20,000 in a similar stretch of time. And off a smaller base. Right. The fascinating thing to me is if there is a guy who I think of as savvy about digital commerce and the inclinations of a consumer base, you know, if Amazon prime had lost 12, 13% of its paying subscribers in 10 days, you can be sure that Jeff Bezos would be on the horn, you know, on an every hour, on the hour, probably around the clock, figuring out with his people what led to that and how to reverse it. And in this case, you know, the Post's finances are a rounding error for him. You know, it's the amount of money in the, the cup holder he has at the side of whatever incredible sci fi, James Bond like car he drives. Right. So it's nothing to him. Right. And, and he can bear those losses even though he had just been in a several year process to turn around the, you know, $1000-000770-00000 a year that the Post had been losing of late. But for him, it was worth it to him.

[Al Edson]

It's a calculated risk. I mean, if he loses all of those subscribers, but he gains favor in the eyes of the administration, it means way more money than those subscribers are giving to him.

[David Folkenflick]

Absolutely right, Al. I mean, a way to think of it is this. He obviously has Amazon where he's the executive chairman. He's also the founder of Blue Origin, which has huge, huge contracts with the feds as well.

[Al Edson]

Right. That's his space technology company.

[David Folkenflick]

Right. The best case scenario, I think you can say as a question of principle, is that he says, look, I'm watching all these other titans who are watching Musk and figuring out how they can get in with him too, particularly Mark Zuckerberg, who he palled around with at the inauguration. And he said, how about I scotch poking Trump in the eye repeatedly on the editorial page. But I see if I can still protect the integrity of the newsroom, which so far has been covering his administration aggressively, breaking stories, doing really good work despite a flood of talent going elsewhere as a result of the choices he's been making. They're still doing excellent work. Maybe if I can do that, I can protect the billions that I need to. I can make sure that regulators don't come after me out of spite and retaliation, and still I can allow the news side to do its business. Maybe that is like the best case scenario you can make, because otherwise it's very hard to argue that 10 days before an election is to decide when an editorial's already been written is the time to make a principal decision. Had he done this when he appointed his new publisher, who took office in January of last year, Will Lewis, and come in and said, you know, new publisher, new era, we're not going to make endorsements anymore. That's a legitimate stance. He is entitled to do whatever he wants with that page. If he wants to endorse, have them endorse the Libertarian candidate or Lyndon LaRouche or Jill Stein, like, have at it. That is absolutely entitled. But to decide that you're shutting that down. And then more recently, they lost another 75,000 in 48 hours. 48 hour period. That's a ton.

[Al Edson]

That's a lot.

[David Folkenflick]

When he said, we're gonna change it to a libertarian approach, free markets and free ideas, which are very Wall Street Journal y and not print opposing points of view, which is an astonishing assertion. What he said is you can find them elsewhere on the Internet. But the who the Washington Post is, they're desperate to find things that are sticky for people to come there and not go elsewhere. Like, what does that say? It says, we don't want to say things that might be badly received by the guy who regulates everything.

[Al Edson]

When we come back, we discuss what journalists can do to win back public trust and the difficulties of covering politicians in this current era in Washington.

[David Folkenflick]

We live in a time where you don't have any room for error, and that's unfortunate. All of the public figures. It used to be the reverse, where the press could get things wrong and the politicians had to be perfect or we'd pummel them. And now it seems like the politicians almost doesn't matter what mistakes they made because they just sort of deny it or move past it.

[Al Edson]

There's a lot more to talk about with David, but first, since you're here with us, I know that you must appreciate what we do at Reveal, and we don't want you to miss a thing. So sign up for our free newsletter by going to revealnews.org newsletter and we'll send you the latest from our newsroom in a weekly email. Okay, don't go anywhere. There's more to the story.

[Unknown]

Coffee or tea? What should I wear? Can I sleep for five more minutes? These are questions refugees dream of asking again one day. Instead, many of them will ask, will the bombs find us here? Will we ever see home again? How do I help my child cope with the horrors they've witnessed? Unhcr, the UN Refugee Agency, is there to answer these questions and more by rushing them. Food, shelter and protection. You can help donate to UNHCR today. Go to unrefugees.org donation to make your gift.

This program is brought to you by Audible. Listen to the new Audible original the Big A Jack Bergen Mystery, starring Jon Hamm as the hard boiled private eye cracking his latest case of murder and mystery. Four years after he left the FBI, Jack Bergen is pulled back into the fray by an old flame who persuades him to investigate a homicide and clear the name of an immigrant accused of murder. Conspiracy abounds as a Mexican American community is pushed out in order to build Dodgers Stadium. And in this story inspired by the real life Battle of Chavez Ravine, co starring Ana de la Regera as an activist out for justice, Omar Epps as Jack's partner in solving crime, and Alia Shawkat as an intrepid reporter racing to break the story. Plus a cameo from John Slattery as a shady executive. Created by John Mankiewicz and directed by Aaron Lipstadt, listen to a gritty and winding tale that delivers both meaning and mayhem with a solid punch. Go to audible.com the Big Fix and listen now.

[Michael Montgomery]

Hey this is Michael Montgomery, a producer and reporter at Reveal. And I'm talking to our genuine fans out there. You never miss an episode. Maybe you're rocking the T shirt right now. You know who you are. Well, the show you love is nonprofit and listener supported, which means we need fans like you to become members. Just text the word give to 888-REVEAL. That's 888-577-3832 or visit revealnews.org donate a gift of any amount says you care about this show.

[Al Edson]

It's more to the story. I'm Al Edson and I'm back with longtime NPR media correspondent David Folkenflick. So moving on from newspapers and Amazon and Bezos, the new chairman of the fcc, Brendan Carr, in January launched an investigation into sponsorship practices of NPR and PBS and their member stations. What is Carr claiming is illegal about these sponsorships?

[David Folkenflick]

Sure. So Carr is saying that they appear to him on their face at least he wants to investigate whether there's any real difference between those what we call underwriting spots and corporate commercials that you see on major for profit networks like CNN or abc. And he says, I can't tell the difference. You know, there are some specific differences under policy and law. For example, a big one is, as you know, call to action. We could say NPR is sponsored in part by Searchlight Pictures, which has a new film that be coming out soon. What we can't say is go buy [e-mail] we can say we can have a spot run that say this program is sponsored in part by Toyota. You can learn more about the new [e-mail] but you can't say run out now, go buy yourself a Tercel, not that they exist.

[Al Edson]

It's like we can give vibes. We can say, hey, this is a good thing, but not necessarily tell you you should go out and buy this thing and this is where you buy it. That's the difference.

[David Folkenflick]

Carr is saying there's no distinction to be made. What the senior executives at PBS and at NPR are saying is, look, we always bend over backwards and err on the side of caution when it comes to complying with the FCC codes and regulations. But furthermore, we are all the time in contact with FCC officials and have been following scrupulously their guidelines as those guidelines evolve over the years. So we feel as though whatever we've been doing has been what your you folks have been telling us to do. And my sense from having reported on these issues over the years, but not something that's been said explicitly Is, would be, is that, you know, if the FCC were to say, we've changed guidelines to say actually we're drawing the line more pristine, farther away from commercial ads that the networks would follow that would adhere to that. And my sense is that the FCC has been a little more lenient in recent decades as public broadcasting has weaned itself off a lot of federal funding. You know, NPR gets 1% of its funding directly from the federal government. And if you include it from indirect sourcing, my math would show it's about, I don't know, 2.8% additional indirectly through the stations paying us money. So even that is not an enormous amount of money, but you're getting money from other ways. My sense is that they're trying to create kind of a pincer attack on the foundations of funding for public broadcasting, just as they're going after media in a variety of ways. So there are calls on Capitol Hill from both sides of Congress to strip all funding from all of public broadcasting. Right. And then there's this pressure on the commercial corporate funding source.

[Al Edson]

Right. It's like a two sided attack. And I think it's fair to say that several Republicans in Congress have been trying to defund public media for many, many, many years. I mean, I started in 2008 and we were always worried about the calls to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to defund npr. And I think what you were saying earlier about so little money from the federal government goes to the mothership to npr. A lot of federal money does go to rural member stations all across the country. So if they did close it up, like the thing that I've been thinking about a lot is that we're not really talking about an extinction level event for npr. We are talking about like hard times and a lot of tightening of the belts, but we are talking about an extinction level event when it comes to local media from member stations across the country.

[David Folkenflick]

I think it's a really important point, Al. And I want to offer my usual and very sincere disclaimer. You know, NPR signs my paychecks, but I don't speak for the institution. They don't always love everything I report on them, but they give me, to their great credit, the liberty to do so with that clarity for your listeners when they're listening to me say this. It is an issue when I talk to station managers. You know, the average amount, if you pool all the money that the stations get and divide it by the number of stations, it's, you know, it's about 10% of their budget. But for some stations, it's, you know, 20, 30, 50% of it. That's particularly true for rural stations where the audience is more scattered and it's hard to have a unified source of funding from major local donors. For example, there are stations that serve Native American reservations. Right. There are stations that serve Spanish speaking audiences, stations associated with historically black colleges. Some of these things get more funding. But there are stations that would be hard to replicate and would probably close. And it has actually been one of the sources of defenses for public broadcasting is that, you know, much like people kind of loathe Congress and typically like their own member of Congress, folks may be sympathetic to saying, oh, npr, pbs, these big folks are just sucking us dry. Even if it's actually a relatively modest amount of money. It's 500 million a year, spread out over 340 million people. It's about a buck a piece. But the local stations are actually people recognize the voices, they recognize the names, they recognize the. They're often constant presences on their drives. And one of the nice things about public radio is that it's there. You know, you have people actually there. You hear the voices of people in your community. They aren't stripped down to six second sound bites. They're pretty darn good at modeling civic and civil discourse, and that's appreciated. And I do think that what you've identified, Al, is really important here. You're seeing sort of discreet and specific and seemingly almost comedic attacks. You don't say Gulf of America. Get to the back of the line. Right. It seems ridiculous. Ridiculous on its face. And I think there are a lot of folks sympathetic to the president think it's funny and great, but you're seeing the effort to delegitimize and also the effort to block out and the effort to knock the economic pillars out from a number of different kinds of media outlets. And I think it's actually part of a larger effort to control the flow of information.

[Al Edson]

Exactly, exactly.

[David Folkenflick]

In ways where you're seeing these agencies having their research budgets cut back, but also information that's already been done being pulled back from the web and being pulled back from the public, and people being told they can't talk publicly about what they do, even nonpartisan professionals. And I think it is actually that part of that broader range of concerns where we're in a time where there's a tightening and centralizing of control by an administration that believes that the message is the messenger.

[Al Edson]

I think that one of the biggest challenges today is that. But news is so fractured. And people just get different types of news. Like when I'm talking to a family member of mine who happens to be conservative, they don't know half the things that I know about what President Trump has done and what he's doing. They just don't know it because they primarily watch Fox News and listen to Christian broadcasting. And the messages that they're getting there are very in lockstep and basically frame the world for them in a way that is favorable towards this current administration. It's like these bubbles that we have going on. How do we get out of that? Do you have any ideas about how we break that system? That idea that it's like politics has become sports and media has become sports radio. And so you go to the favorite sports radio people you like because they're talking about your team.

[David Folkenflick]

I mean, that's such a good way of thinking about it. If you think about sort of the dominance of podcasting as a way in which people absorb information, it's not actually the most effective and efficient way to do it. It takes time to listen to podcasts like Joe Rogan is three hours long. People aren't listening to that because it's the quickest way to get a quick fix in this day and age, which is what people assume. Look, partly it's almost a question of who you're asking that of. Are you asking that of the receivers of that information? You're asking that of the journalists or conveyors of information?

[Al Edson]

I think it has to come back to the conveyors of information. How do we cross over? Or is it too late? Are we too fractured to be able to cross over? Now?

[David Folkenflick]

Look, if we're going back to my tortured London metaphor, we're still here, we still exist, we're still around, and we're still relevant. And I say this for all of the networks and news organizations, large and small. Who are you reaching? Who are you speaking to? I think partly it's being less arrogant. And when people are attacking you on ideological grounds, it's sort of, you see, news organizations shut down from listening to, is there a point? May they have a point? Are Trump supporters sometimes correct? Is it worth stripping out some of the adjectives and adverbs and focusing on the nouns and verbs in your prose so that you can capture what is happening, but you don't layer in the judgment. It's there in the story. Right. Like, I just feel like as though there are ways in which you prove yourself to be reliable and careful. But I think you do aggressive reporting. I think you do responsible stuff, to be honest. The problem is things like cnn, they had great success by leaning more into opinion and analysis and argumentation, which is a lot cheaper than reporting. And some of their reporting was good, but kind of transient, like, you know, ephemeral. And some of their reporting where they were trying to do aggressive stuff on Trump for the first time, overshot the facts. And we live in a time where you don't have any room for error. And that's unfortunate. All of the public figures, it used to be the reverse, where the press could get things wrong and the politicians had to be perfect or we'd pummel them. And now it seems like the politicians almost doesn't matter what mistakes they made because they just sort of deny it or move past it.

[Al Edson]

Yeah, I think that journalists have to wrestle with and understand in a sense that for a large swath of the American public, regardless of how they identify themselves, white, black, Latino, gay, straight, whatever it is that identifies you, for a large swath of Americans, America is not working for them. Like the system is just not working. And I think that what we have is, we have two different ways of thinking about why it's not working. But if journalists can come from the understanding that it's not working and this is why people are reacting in these different ways, maybe there's commonality there that you can figure out how to thread the needle to talk to both sides. I don't know, but that's what I've been thinking about a lot, is that, you know, it's just, it's not working for people and that's why they are pushing back on the system and the status quo.

[David Folkenflick]

Well, look, I don't wanna sound too hokey here, but it's one of the things I like best about public radio absolutely. Is that it models that kind of conversation. It brings people in from different sides, not simply so that sparks fly, so that people can hear and be heard each other, can listen to each other and respond. It's not set up for people to yell at each other like late night on cnn, or to yell at some unpresent person who's targeted by MSNBC or fox. It's that the idea is you're trying to have some sort of synthesis of how do we go forward, what might make sense. And to hear people speak in voices that are not pre programmed is kind of a gift. So that is a small, little, very old fashioned approach that makes a huge difference, I think. And we don't do enough of that. And, and particularly we don't do enough of that in the press at large because I think we don't realize that the problem that people perceive with the establishment in quotes or with the way things have worked is that we are perceived as being part of that. We are not apart from it just because we're operating in what we think of as at times an adversarial way. We are a part of it and just noisy and clamorous and self entitled and perceived as just another one of these players that happens to, you know, wrap ourselves in the First Amendment. I think better of what we do than that. But I recognize that's part of the perception of us and I recognize at times that is part of what you've seen at very top levels. And that's something we've got to unspool. At the same time, we are relevant. We are holding the power to account. We are telling hard truths and we're not being deferential simply because that advances our financial interests. Because you know what? That's just playing to be part of a system too. That's not doing the work for an audience that needs to know, needs to have good enough information to be able to act as citizens and not just as consumers.

[Al Edson]

Yes. David Folkenflick, thank you so much for coming in and talking to me.

[David Folkenflick]

You bet. Pleasure.

[Al Edson]

David Folkenflick is NPR's media correspondent. If you like this conversation, you might be interested in our reveal episode, the Spy Inside youe Smartphone. It's about a group of journalists who were targeted by the government of El Salvador with military grade spyware originally developed to go after criminals. We'll put a link to it in our show notes. Lastly, just a reminder, we are listener supported. That means you to make a gift today, go to revealnews.org gift again, that's revealnews.org gift. Come on, let's make it official. This episode was produced by Josh Samburn and Kara McGirk. Allison theme music and engineering by Fernando My Man Yo Arruda and Jay Breezy. Mr. Jim Briggs, I'm Al Edson and you know, let's do this again next week. This is more to the story from prx.