L&T Publisher Earl Watt
In 1897, the “New York” Sun ran a column explaining to 8-year-old Virginia that there indeed was a Santa Claus.
The famous column indicated that Santa Claus exists “certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist.”
It was a powerful and memorable moment in journalism where a writer was able to explain how hopes and dreams, although not always apparent, are still real.
Too bad modern journalists didn’t understand the lesson.
Instead, they interpreted this opinion piece as the power of the pen to convince people to believe whatever it was that journalists thought people should believe.
Journalists have morphed their role to inform into a role to persuade, to convince.
The editorial page is certainly a forum for that, and that’s exactly where the letter to Virginia ran in 1897.
Today, mainstream media sources would have ran that story on the front page as news rather than the editorial page.
In their view, so sayeth the media, so let it be law.
The mainstream media has witnessed a massive decrease in audience recently after telling America that Donald Trump had no chance and that Kamala Harris would easily ascend to the presidency.
They told us that Trump was a fascist, and democracy was literally on the line.
They didn’t just quote Harris calling Trump a fascist, their talking heads made the same accusations, and editorial boards at far left publications fumed when their owners opted not to endorse in the presidential race in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles.
Their communities were voting Harris for sure, and so they had little to lose if they did endorse.
But the ownership had witnessed their publications loss of perspective. They saw their editorial boards only representing one side of the political spectrum, and they wisely chose to sit out.
A good newspaper, or news outlet, would understand that an endorsement is a reflection of a community, and the outcome should almost always match.
Journalists today believe that their endorsement creates the outcome rather than reflecting the readers they serve.
They have been insulated by social media which has allowed cheerleading voices to have an inordinate share of the public conversation. This does not necessarily reflect what happens at the ballot box. To the contrary, it almost always misses the mark.
To this day, many still believe Trump will not be certified. They have been convinced by the malpractice media that Trump will be deemed ineligible despite winning the vote of the American people.
It’s also malpractice to believe it is the role of the media to “save” democracy.
What will be left of the media when Trump’s term ends in 2029, and he leaves? How will the media explain that Trump did not become the dictator they claimed he would?
In their delusion, they will claim the reason Trump did not become president for life was because “they” fought for democracy and saved the nation by ringing the alarm.
The shrinking faction that follows them will believe that to be true, but we all know better.
Trump never was a threat to democracy, and his election was evidence of a functioning democracy that worked.
By the end of Trump’s presidency, the media landscape may look very different than it does today. It may be more web based with multiple options rather than the handful of ultra liberal sources that have dominated the landscape for decades.
In the end, the media may have saved democracy by committing professional suicide and allowing journalism to be reborn by those who tell the truth not their truth.
