Maddow Comments On Networks Decision


As former President Trump continues to garner attention with his public remarks, the debate over how news organizations should cover him has once again resurfaced.

Some, like MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow, argue that it is “irresponsible” to air his speeches in their entirety, knowing that he will likely make false statements. However, this approach only perpetuates the partisan divide in our country and undermines the public’s right to hear from their leaders.

Maddow and others who share her viewpoint claim that cutting away from Trump’s speeches prevents him from spreading misinformation. Yet, this assumes that the American people are not capable of critically evaluating the statements made by their leaders. It suggests that they cannot think for themselves and must be protected from hearing anything that does not align with a particular narrative.

Furthermore, who gets to decide what is considered a “lie”? By censoring Trump’s speeches, news organizations essentially play the role of fact-checker and arbiter of truth. This is not their job.

Their job is reporting the news, not manipulating it to fit their agenda. If Trump says something false, the media must report on it and provide the necessary context and fact-checking. That is how a free and fair press operates.

Cutting away from Trump’s speeches is a disservice to the American people who have the right to hear from their elected officials, regardless of their political beliefs. By selectively choosing which parts of Trump’s speeches to air, news organizations are silencing a significant portion of the population who support him. This only widens the growing divide in our country.

On the other hand, some argue that fact-checking Trump after the fact is the best way to hold him accountable. However, this approach is inadequate as it does not change the fact that millions of people have already heard his false statements and may have already formed their opinions.

Additionally, it is nearly impossible for news organizations to fact-check every statement made in real-time, and even if they could, it would disrupt the flow of the speech and lose its impact.

News organizations should resist the urge to censor speeches and instead provide fair and balanced coverage by airing them in their entirety. It is not their job to decide what the American people should or should not hear.

Their job is to report the news and let the public make their own judgments. By cutting away or fact-checking selectively, the media only fuels the polarization in our country and undermines the principles of a free and unbiased press.

The Hill