The guarantor of democracy has always been the existence of a robust and adversarial press. The ability of journalists to hold our elected officials’ feet to the fire remains essential in maintaining accountability in government. unfortunately, as commercial news migrated from a public good to a profit center, the relationship between the press and the news makers became less adversarial and more symbiotic. Nowhere is this colligation better illustrated than on the ‘high-end’ political talk shows. It would not be a stretch to suggest that the life’s blood of such a broadcast is its ability to consistently deliver appearances by presidents, congressmen, and other guests of political import. Such privilege carries a quid pro quo: access being the reward for restraint on the range of questions and tepidity in the pursuit of difficult answers. What happens when a president violates that quid pro quo? What happens when a president insults, invalidates, undermines, shuns, and demeans those who represent him in the mass media? Answer: It can be a golden opportunity for the fourth estate to reclaim the gravitas it ceded in recent decades to profit-oriented news.

President-elect Donald Trump held on December 11^th what was ostensibly a news conference - though unlike any in US history. Aside from reporters, the room was stocked with a bevy of shills placed to hoot and holler off camera whenever Trump appeared to score points against the press. Mr. Trump filled the precious time with a combination of his unique brand of mendacious reality and unbridled obloquy toward the reporters in attendance. Those who dared to question the truthfulness of Trump’s statements were attacked with insult and defamation. The president-elect charged CNN with disseminating “fake news” while he labeled BuzzFeed, a reputable internet news and entertainment outlet, “a pile of garbage”. Even the venerable BBC could not escape Trump’s venom as he sarcastically referred to them as “a real beauty”. Reporters who were tenacious in demanding answers to their questions were repeatedly shouted down and insulted. Given Trump’s open hostility toward the press, it is hard to imagine how they can possibly fulfill their obligation to keep America informed.

A compliant press has repeatedly failed us in the past – sometimes resulting in abject disaster. In the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, commercial news outlets knew very well that the evidence presented to goad the American public into war was fraught with deception. Contrary to what they reported, there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. Experts knew that the photos of aluminum tubes and yellow cake uranium being shown to the public were subterfuge –not evidence.  Nevertheless; the commercial press felt an obligation to present the president’s case sans critique. There were those in the news media who dissented – among them, Bill Moyers and Phil Donahue. Moyers was largely ignored while Donahue, who was given a platform on MSNBC, was taken off the air amid network fears of appearing unpatriotic. What if the press had not failed us in 2003? Might it not have been their finest hour? I don’t think it would be stretch to aver that with the ascendancy of President Trump, the rules have now changed.

There is nothing to be gained by an honest journalist through obsequiousness toward Donald Trump. If you’re playing nicely enough to get a civil response, you’re not asking the right questions. If you’re asking the right questions, you’ll not get a civil or useful response. Sycophantic reporters will undoubtedly ask indulging if flattering questions in the interest of currying access and self-aggrandizement. To those of you practicing honest, respectable journalism: here is your opportunity to reclaim the spirit of Murrow, Cronkite, and Sevareid. This will take work – all great endeavors do. The new reality deprives you of hiding behind the facile presidential interview. Go out and do authentic journalism. Find your sources – especially those that don’t meet with government approval. Ask the questions that need asking – whether or not the president will answer them. Let the public know when you were denied.  What can this president do in response? – belittle and insult you and your profession? He’s already done that. Deny you access? Done that too. Trump’s practice of tweeting is not an expression of his kinship with Millennials. It is a calculated effort to bypass the scrutiny of the press. So be it. Proceed with fairness and integrity – not with an axe to grind, but with a renewed commitment to authentic investigative journalism. It’s your duty to protect the people – not the president. Mr. Trump has set the rules. Alea iacta est.

Mike Potash is on staff at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it