In a democracy, journalism plays a vital role in keeping citizens informed and holding leaders accountable. But what happens when that very freedom is threatened by the leader himself? That's the dilemma facing media outlets today as they grapple with how to cover Donald Trump's anti-democratic rhetoric and actions. The problem isn't just about calling out lies or labeling bigotry for what it is. It goes deeper, to questions of fairness and balance when a significant portion of voters support someone many see as an existential threat to the nation. Should major media outlets overtly tell tens of millions that they are voting for evil? That's a position that reflects arrogance, even if journalists believe it. 

The media's reluctance to more vigorously report on Trump's incompetence and lack of moral compass is understandable given his loyal base of supporters. But by not overtly calling out attacks on democratic institutions as an existential threat, the media normalizes dangerous behavior and provides cover for those seeking to undermine democracy itself. This misleads the public and often leads to a vacuum filled by more extreme voices. 

How do we improve coverage? It starts with acknowledging that this is a difficult problem without clear solutions. We need honest discussions about how the media's quest for fairness can conflict with reporting plainly on threats to our democracy, even if it means alienating millions who support Trump. Our free press must be willing to report the news as it sees fit, not just afraid of losing readers. In a crisis of integrity like this, perhaps the first step is for media outlets and journalists to ask themselves: What's more important - my reputation among 70 million people or my responsibility to tell the truth about someone who threatens everything we hold dear? The future of our democracy may depend on how they on how they answer.

Media Integrity Crisis: How to Cover Trump's Threat to Democracy

Actions