The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
Gerald Farrington
Can Donald Trump destroy freedom of the press?
Should the Arizona Daily Star be worried? Yes. Can Trump destroy freedom of the press? Yes, because he’s already trying and he’s succeeding. Is the Daily Star vulnerable? Yes, because if the Washington Post, ABC News, and the Des Moines Register are vulnerable, then so is the Daily Star.
It may take awhile, and there are some weak guardrails to make any autocratic destruction, or severe limitation, of media freedom difficult, but First Amendment protection is no longer what it was only a decade ago.
Trump’s weapons for assault are (as they have been) the “bully pulpit,” the already-existing tools of the presidency (such as the unchecked power to direct tariffs as a weapon), the extant partnership (both overt and merely “understood”) between Trump and the ever-growing “oligarch class” of billionaires, and defamation lawsuits. My premise is that it may well be difficult for small and medium-size newspapers (like the Star) to have or to develop tools to withstand Trump’s deployment of three of these weapons.
One of these, weaponized tariffs, won’t directly affect the Star’s freedom and vulnerability to assault, but the use of tariffs to control the billionaire oligarchs, could easily affect the vulnerability of the media to attack — such as the preemptive need for press self-censorship if a billionaire (affected by threatened tariffs) is encouraged to purchase a newspaper or newspaper chain so as to control management’s selection of news prioritization of content, influence of advertising, and diversity of allowable opinion.
The “bully pulpit,” as a Trump tool to attack the press, was already a tool employed by Trump against the media during his first administration (except for friendly right-wing media entities). During the course of four years, his daily assault on social media (especially Twitter) and through Fox right-wing pundits, was an unrelenting howl about his victimization by “fake news.” He singled out specific news outlets (especially CNN and MSNBC) and certain of their liberal-leaning pundits. “Fake news” morphed into “the press is the enemy” of the people. He knew, or quickly learned, that repetition of the lie (any lie) over and over again soon becomes “truth” and an “article of faith” for the indoctrinated faithful. Emboldened by a popular majority election (and a new term) after promising “autocracy”, MAGA control of all the organs of federal power, a near-total immunity from criminal prosecution by SCOTUS in Trump v. United States, and a nervous (once critical) liberal media (sometimes timid, sometimes intimidated), Trump is now free to do as he rhetorically pleases with the media he doesn’t like.
That a partnership now exits between Trump and the oligarchs, the billionaire class, is so palpable that it cannot be denied, except maybe by the flat-earth society folks and the climate change deniers. The evidence gob-smacks us daily. Some examples should suffice.
In May 2024 Trump solicited a billionaire campaign donation from oil company executives in return for promises of policy benefits. Elon Musk alone contributed almost a quarter of a billion dollars to Trump’s 2024 campaign, and the three top donors together contributed almost 400 million dollars to his campaign. Some of the biggest donors will end up in Trump’s cabinet or will occupy senior positions in Trump’s second administration. The “pay for play” examples abound. A “direct” provable “quid pro pro” is the crime of bribery. Just ask recently convicted former New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. An “understood” quid pro pro is just “good politics” in America, and it has been so for a long, long time.
Billionaires, individually, or in collaboration have the wealth to control and divert advertising dollars (the financial life blood) of media entities, big and small. They can take over or affect the ownership of local newspapers and newspaper chains and media entities, large and small, and affect biases, as well as news- emphasis choices — perceived or otherwise — with control of management decisions. That said, add Trump into the equation — mob-boss-like. All Trump has to do is to direct his retributive ire toward prioritized media targets (reporters, pundits, media advertisers, and management personnel) and his oligarchs will do the rest. Vintage autocracy — intimidate and control the media by “grabbing them by their ... ,” and their hearts and minds will follow, as the saying goes.
The fourth method of Trump’s plan for media intimidation to neutralize all but modest criticism is with defamation lawsuits that have no merit whatsoever. Understand, the lawsuits never have to go to trial, and they may only need to be threatened. This method to limit media criticism has already begun, and Trump has not been inaugurated yet to begin his second term.
Recently, ABC and Trump settled a lawsuit wherein Trump claimed ABC defamed him. This from a man who has pet intentionally defamatory names for each of his perceived enemies. The reasons for settling are likely complex, but in the end probably amount to a cost-benefit analysis of risk of affecting profitability. But, to many observers the settlement smacks of giving in to Trump’s bullying of the media. The social cost is likely to be media “self-censorship” for ABC and for other media entities to follow suit. Use of defamation lawsuits by billionaires, and now by a soon-to-be president, has nothing to do with succeeding at trial.
The 1964 SCOTUS case New York Times vs. Sullivan established the very high standard of proof to prevail against the First Amendment protection of Freedom of the Press. The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant published something false and did so with a provable intent to harm, or published with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of what was published. And, if what was published is “true” or arguably so, there is no defamation even if there is a damage to reputation. Also, the “harm” has to be specific enough to be proven.
Now, Trump has even threatened to sue the Des Moines Register for defamation for a poll predicting that Harris would win Iowa in the last election. The American rich and corporate America have long used the courts, not always for real conflict resolution, but often for bargaining leverage and intimidation. Trump learned this lesson well, but for a president to use the courts as a tool to intimidate the press is completely unprecedented in America, and is clearly a useful tool for an autocrat and supportive billionaire oligarchs. Many media entities, especially small and medium-size local newspapers, are already in serious decline and those that remain often struggle to remain profitable. The Des Moines Register likely could not withstand a lengthy costly, albeit specious, defamatory lawsuit. The threat, however, may be just enough.
The assault on a free press is already here. Media licensing and regulation, or attempted regulation, may also be in Trump’s playbook. He has already issued the threats. We all have to hope that management decisions for local newspapers and all media outlets and entities will not amount to serious self-censorship of essential news and opinion content.
Moreover, we should all support our local newspapers with our subscriptions and advertising, so as to make and keep them robust and profitable.
Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.
