The News Media Has the Power to Set the News Agenda. It Needs to Assert That Power.

The Morning After

Saturday night viewers of CNN were offered the chance to see George Clooney on stage as Edward R. Murrow.

The parallels between Murrow’s reporting on Senator Joseph McCarthy and the questions journalists face today reporting on the second Trump administration are easy to draw. The picture is complicated by the fact that a substantial number of American voters are fully bought in to the idea of Trump as president and his leadership style for the same reason revenge movies are popular. Everyone likes an easy and punishing solution to a difficult problem.

Murrow had an advantage in his work to expose McCarthy; the audience was captured by a few dominant sources of information and CBS News was considered to be near the top. When Murrow dedicated several broadcasts to McCarthy, or later when Walter Cronkite declared the war in Vietnam un-winnable, people saw it, they listened, and in some cases they took action. It was easier during that period of history for reporters to reach a wide audience and it was more likely the audience would see or read the work.

If a cable news anchor, or Substack writer, made the same choice today that Murrow made then, to devote exclusive attention to one story, a fraction of Murrow’s audience would hear about it and the impact would be minimal.

There is however something of Murrow’s tactics that can be applied today across platforms. Murrow wrestled with the conflict between his obligation as a reporter to cover all sides of the issue and his obligation to reveal the truth.

In today’s debate about the direction of journalism, this is often described as the choice between reporting the truth versus “both siding” a story. I’d like to suggest that anyone engaging in journalism related to President Trump should focus purely on reporting the objective truth, since offering Trump and most members of his administration a channel of communication invariably platforms lies. There are at least three techniques reporters should be using daily on the Trump beat:

The Simple Question

“Why do you want to be president?”
Roger Mudd to Ted Kennedy in 1980

“What [newspapers] do you read on a regular basis?”
Katie Couric to Sarah Palin in 2008

“What did [Neville] Chamberlain do wrong?”
Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews questioning a guest in 2008 who had invoked the name of Chamberlain, but could not answer the question

As a tried and proven technique, that precedes his time as president, Trump is constantly tossing out words and phrases that are non-specific and misleading. He needs to be stopped in his tracks to the point of frustration and the news media must have the patience to play the game.

When the president says, “everyone says I’m right,” the immediate question should be; “name one person who says you are right.” Followed by, “now name another one.”

When the president says that the immigrants he is deporting forcibly from the country are “the worst of the worst” he should be asked for specific names and a specific description of their crimes. If he is able to produce a name and a crime he should be asked in which state or federal prison they are being held, because obviously the worst of the worst, would have been convicted and sentenced prior to deportation.

When Trump says “other people are handling” some of the most controversial policies in his administration, he should be asked “who is handling that policy and, do they report to you or not? Are you the president or not?”

Retrospective Coverage

It is too easy for the news media to get caught up in the tornado of outlandishness that characterizes the Trump administration. To combat the tendency to chase the latest outrage, reporters and news organizations should take Murrow’s example. Be aware of what is happening today but take the time to go back and put what has already happened in context.

I did this several weeks ago when I analyzed the meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy even though the meeting happened in February.

During that meeting Trump and Vice President Vance humiliated Zelenskyy and then kicked him out of the White House. Most coverage focused on the circus of it all. It’s still talked about in those terms today, but the bigger story is what the meeting meant for U.S. foreign policy and America’s place in the world.

In that 40 minute meeting, an ally was mistreated, but the president and vice president also made clear that Europe can no longer depend on the United States as a military partner and leaders around the world learned they can not trust Trump or — by extension — the United States of America.

That meeting represented a historic turning point in U.S. foreign policy. Coverage of the meeting needs to look beyond the personalities and look more deeply into what it means for the country for at least the next four years. The press has a responsibility to explain it and the public has a right to have it fully explained.

Set The Pace

Politicians and their communications advisors are always trying to set the agenda for the news media. The Trump administration has adopted a strategy it calls “flooding the zone.” It is defined as pushing out so much information on a daily basis that the news media can’t possibly keep up. Under the cover of this chaos Trump can get away with enacting policies that would end the careers of other politicians.

The press needs to reclaim its power to decide what is news. The press needs to set the coverage agenda. Each news organization needs to take a more active role in deciding what it considers the most important news of the day. That means most of Trump’s outrages will not be covered. It means the press will take the time to inform the public about what really matters. It is the opposite of stenography. It is basic editorial decision making.

Trump can try to set the pace, or the news agenda, but it only works if the press gives up its own power to do so.

Take Elon Musk. Please!

As this newsletter posts, the news media is obsessed with the clash between President Trump and his supporter and advisor Elon Musk. It is arguably a battle between the most powerful man in the world and the wealthiest man in the world. Or perhaps it is a battle between the two most powerful men in the world.

Regardless, the journalistic focus should not be on the high school antics of two powerful brats, it should be on what it means — if anything — for the U.S. and the world. Both men are in position to do damage if they act out beyond their social media feud.

Why It Matters

• Musk has important contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense
• Musk has control over one of the most powerful social media companies in the world
• X can be used to influence public opinion for or against the United States
• Trump has the power to use the federal government to punish Musk in ways that could effect other companies, markets, and consumers
• The fight between Trump and Musk will further expose the danger of conflicts of interest presented when government leaders take on private sector leaders as major funders and close allies
• Musk has access to all sorts of confidential information as the former leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency(DOGE)
• When he departed the White House a week ago, Musk said he would continue to be available as a friend and advisor to Trump and that the work of DOGE would go on. What about that? Who is in charge of DOGE now? What is its mission?

Trump Speaks for the Kremlin

Following Ukraine’s drone attack on Russian air bases last weekend, President Trump and Russian President Putin spoke on the phone. After the call Trump casually acted as a Kremlin spokesman on his social media platform.

Though Putin at that point had not spoken publicly about the successful Ukrainian drone attack, Trump told the world that Putin planned to retaliate. And by the end of the week he did.

What was remarkable about Trump’s role is that he said nothing publicly in defense of Ukraine — a U.S. ally — after his talk with Putin. Instead, he matter of factly announced that Russia would launch a counter attack and seemed to imply Russia had every right to do so.

It is the latest example that shows Trump personally has no concern for Ukraine or the message sent when he gives tacit U.S. support to the country that launched an unprovoked attack on Ukraine three years ago. He doesn’t understand and he doesn’t care. He believes the U.S. can go it alone in the world.

Radio China

Two months after President Trump effectively shutdown Radio Free Asia, an internal report shows China is filling the void with its own news broadcasts that support Chinese government policy in the region.

The report prepared by the U.S. Agency for Global Media(USAGM) was not supposed to be made public, but it was obtained by the Washington Post.

The motivation for the Trump administration’s cuts to the USAGM is not known, but the results are predictable. When the U.S. withdraws from any commitment in the world, others — most likely our adversaries — are happy to step in.

This is another example of how America first means America alone.

Radio Free Asia, and similar U.S. funded international news services, are known for delivering un-biased news. That is the source of their credibility. Chinese news broadcasts are known for pro-China bias. We have not only ceded ground to China, but we are allowing them to shape the reality of millions of people throughout Asia.

~

Tuesday: We have entered an era of increasing lone actor political violence.

Inflection Point
June 8, 2025

For more writing by Dean Pagani on politics, public relations, and journalism, visit Media Attaché on Substack.