CAN a news organization banish stories of the presidential campaign of one candidate from the politics section to its entertainment pages?
“The Huffington Post,” a.k.a. in short as “Huff Post” or “HuffPo,” is a U.S.-based online news aggregator and blog. It offers news, blogs and original content and its coverage includes “politics, business, entertainment, environment, technology, popular media, lifestyle, culture, comedy, healthy living, women’s interests and local news.”
Last July 17, “Huff Post” decided it won’t report on Republican Donald Trump’s campaign as part of its political coverage but as part of its entertainment section.
“The reason is simple,” Ryan Grim, Washington D.C. bureau chief, and Danny Shea, editorial director, explained. “Trump’s campaign is a sideshow. We won’t take the bait. If you are interested in what Tump has to say, you’ll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and the Bachelorette.”
A month later, on Aug. 18, when asked if it had changed its policy, “Huff Post’s” Grim said they’re “more committed” than ever. “Over the last month, we’ve seen our central argument proven right: that Trump is nothing more than a sideshow and not a legitimate presidential contender with serious policy ideas for moving the country forward.”
‘Reality TV’
The Republican debate, Grim said, was “fantastic reality TV but it came across more like a twisted political version of ‘American Idol’ than a presidential debate.”
The decision has stirred arguments among media watchers in the U.S., aside from an explosion of wrath in the Trump group, but hardly a ripple elsewhere.
The issue raises an interesting though not complex point in the States, in this country and wherever journalism is practiced: How much right does (a) a media organization have in the classification of news and (b) its public to accept or reject the medium’s decision?
Applied to “Huff Post’s” rule on the Trump coverage, can it unilaterally relegate a story about him to the entertainment section without doing violence to the basic rule of fairness and equal treatment, not to mention the standards in assigning a story to where it belongs? Categorizing stories, after all, aims for convenience to the news consumer.
To be sure, “Huff Post” can do what it wants and has done so for more than two months now. And its audience can take its business with the news medium elsewhere.
More than a sideshow
Since it enforced the rule, Trump has continuously led the Republican primary and has put on the table policy proposals on such issues as immigration and trade with China. That should assail “Huff Post’s” premise that Trump is “nothing more than a sideshow.”
There’s still no doubt though that Trump offers entertainment, which largely explains how as celebrity and entertainer he drives internet traffic and boosts TV ratings. And there are questions about his capacity to sustain his roller-coaster ride, whether he’d suddenly crash or keep it up and ultimately face the Democrats’ pack leader Hillary Clinton.
But shouldn’t that matter be for the Republican party and its constituency to worry about and settle: whether Trump is a serious contender or a buffoon who would battle against Hillary?
“Huff Post” must think it can do more than depict and criticize Trump as a joke -- and that’s by throwing him to the entertainment section.
Effects on market
The news outfit must know what it’s doing and possible effects on its position as market leader. In July 2012, it was ranked No. 1 in the “15 Most Popular Sites” list by ebizMBA rank. It’s not known yet if its anti-Trump policy has in any way diminished its audience.
In most newsroom and boardroom debates, market “imperatives” influence the policy the company adopts and keeps. In a Philippine setting, as anywhere else, the question is, how would it affect business? The matter of credibility, which journalism standards prop up, is also tied up to how much the decision will change figures on the ledger.
Complicated
Within “Huff Post,” among its editors, the Trump ban initially caused some confusion. Did it mean that any story about Trump is automatically consigned to entertainment section? What if Trump is involved in a story with a “serious candidate,” say his tangling with Carly Fiorina on an important issue?
That could be nettlesome. Choosing which Trump story to keep and which to dump to the other section could spark bickering among editors. Not to consider the element that bugs every platform: deadlines. Sections, even in online editions, have different news cycles.
And who should cover Trump: entertainment reporters or political reporters? It could be complicated if an entertainment reporter, clueless about politics, is suddenly faced with a weighty political issue involving Trump.
Doing a Trump
Amid the torrent of comments from consumers of “Huff Post” was this: isn’t the news outlet behaving like Trump himself?
Or maybe “Huff Post” is straying from the herd, refusing to join the “media frenzy” and “pandemonium” or to be “seduced” by Trump who says and does “outrageous things for headlines and ratings.”
Perhaps “Huff Post” has come to find a way to magnify its point, even if in the process it must do a Trump. Story of the furor over the “Huff Post” theatrics may even deserve a place in its entertainment section too.
[publicandstandards@sunstar.com.ph or paseares@gmail.com]