Playing It Safe Is Risking Democracy: Media’s Silent Endorsement of Authoritarianism
As the 2024 election looms, media self-censorship in response to Trump’s potential return threatens the democratic role of journalism.
I woke up this morning thinking about authoritarianism.
In his 2017 book On Tyranny, historian Timothy Snyder introduced the concept of "anticipatory obedience," warning that "most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given." He argued that in uncertain times, individuals and institutions might preemptively adjust their actions to align with what they believe a more repressive regime would want—often without being asked.
Forward to the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, and Snyder's warning feels eerily prescient. Media outlets, facing the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House, appear to be tiptoeing around coverage that might provoke his ire. This self-censorship isn't just a disservice to journalism; it's a disservice to democracy.
Take the turmoil at the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper, which had endorsed Democratic candidates in every presidential election since 2008, chose not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris—or anyone—this year. The decision wasn't based on a shift in editorial stance but was a directive from owner Patrick Soon-Shiong.
Mariel Garza, the editorials editor who resigned in protest, wrote in her resignation letter:
"How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?"
Her departure was soon followed by two more editorial board members, Robert Greene and Karin Klein, who also resigned over the decision. The fallout wasn't just internal; readers noticed. According to internal figures shared with Semafor, the day after the news broke, 1,300 readers canceled their subscriptions—double the previous day's number. Of those, 398 cited "editorial content" as the primary reason.
This isn't just about one newspaper. It's indicative of a broader trend where media organizations are seemingly adjusting their coverage to avoid drawing negative attention from powerful figures. As NPR's David Folkenflik reported, "Recent episodes involving major U.S. news organizations have stoked fears that outlets are preemptively self-censoring coverage that could offend former President Donald Trump."
Trump has made no secret of his disdain for the media, frequently threatening to revoke broadcast licenses and attacking outlets that criticize him. While his claims often lack legal grounding—the FCC doesn't license networks, only local stations—the threats contribute to a chilling effect.
Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy put it succinctly in a statement to NPR:
"Outlets from the Los Angeles Times to perhaps even the Washington Post are engaging in what the historian Timothy Snyder has called anticipatory obedience—pulling back from their obligation to tell the truth in order to placate the tyrant so he doesn't come after them."
The decision by media organizations to self-censor isn't just about avoiding a confrontation; it's about compromising journalistic integrity. When news outlets shy away from reporting the full truth, they fail their fundamental mission to inform the public.
Oliver Darcy highlighted this concern in his Status newsletter:
"But media reporting from within an institution is often most important when it is the most uncomfortable to perform... Speaking truth to power is what journalism is about, and the institutions that allow their reporters to freely engage in such a manner are better for it."
By not endorsing Harris—or at least providing a transparent explanation—the Los Angeles Times left readers confused and mistrustful. In a statement to Semafor, Jim Newton, a former editor who revived the paper's endorsement tradition in 2008, expressed his disappointment:
"It makes you wonder, and when people wonder, they assume the worst."
The issue extends beyond endorsements. As NPR notes, NBC reportedly delayed airing a documentary critical of Trump's immigration policies until after the election. Filmmaker Errol Morris questioned the decision on social media, asking why his film wasn't being shown prior to the election.
These instances suggest a media landscape increasingly hesitant to challenge power—a dangerous precedent in any democracy. When the press begins to police itself out of fear, it relinquishes its role as a watchdog and becomes complicit in undermining democratic norms.
Media Matters for America’s Matt Gertz shared a smart take on X:
I think the key element here is that individuals and corporations who own major news outlets often have a host of other business interests vulnerable to government power. When Trump threatens to investigate Comcast over NBC/MSNBC coverage, it puts [executives] to the test over how committed they are to a division that provides a small fraction of the corporation's revenues.
For example, Donald Trump has been attacking CBS News, whose parent company is Paramount Global, which is currently pursuing a merger with Skydance Media. These are mammoth multimedia companies with substantial TV/film/video game interests, CBS News is a tiny piece of the pie.
If Trump gets elected and has regulators put a pause on the merger, and then Lachlan Murdoch calls up Skydance head David Ellison and says, I've heard your having problems, maybe you should sell me CBS News... what happens? How committed is David Ellison, a billionaire film producer, to journalism?
This is quite literally what happened during Trump's presidency with regard to CNN. CNN's parent company stood up to Trump. More business leaders with little personal investment in the press will be put to that test if he returns to office.
In times like these, it's crucial for media organizations to remember their responsibility to the public. Anticipatory obedience may offer short-term safety, but it poses long-term risks to the very fabric of democracy.
As Snyder urged, we must not "obey in advance." The media's role is not to anticipate and conform to the desires of those in power but to hold them accountable. It's time for news outlets to stand firm, prioritize truth over appeasement, and fulfill their duty to inform the public without fear or favor.
I cancelled ny NYT subscription 2yrs ago and began signing up with Substack content creators instead. It's a bit more expensive overall, but it's paid off in terms of staying on top of current events and being able to provide references to the casually- or ill-informed in typical conversations.
And now WaPo has followed suit. Cowards.