Dr. Nik Usher
Associate Professor at the University of San Diego in the Department of Communication. Their four books are: Making News at The New York Times (2014); Interactive Journalism: Hackers, Data, and Code (2016); News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism (2021); and Amplifying Extremism: Small-town Politicians, Media Storms, and American Journalism (with Jessica C. Hagman), forthcoming with Cambridge University Press.
Email: nusher@sandiego.edu
U.S. Election 2024
51. The powers that aren’t: News organizations and the 2024 election (Dr Nik Usher)
52. Newspaper presidential endorsements: Silence during consequential moment in history (Dr Kenneth Campbell)
53. Trump after news: a moral voice in an empty room? (Prof Matt Carlson, Prof Sue Robinson, Prof Seth C. Lewis)
54. Under media oligarchy: profit and power trumped democracy once again (Prof Victor Pickard)
55. The challenge of pro-democracy journalism (Prof Stephen D. Reese)
56. Grievance and animosity: Fracturing the digital news ecosystem (Dr Scott A. Eldridge II)
57. Considering the risk of attacks on journalists during the U.S. election (Dr Valerie Belair-Gagnon)
58. What can sentiment in cable news coverage tell us about the 2024 campaign? (Dr Gavin Ploger, Dr Stuart Soroka)
59. The case for happy election news: Why it matters and what stands in the way (Dr Ruth Palmer, Prof Stephanie Edgerly, Prof Emily K. Vraga)
60. Broadcast television use and the 2024 U.S. presidential election (Jessica Maki, Prof Michael W. Wagner)
61. Kamala Harris' representation in mainstream and Black media (Dr Miya Williams Fayne, Prof Danielle K. Brown)
62. Team Trump and the altercation at the Arlington military cemetery (Dr Natalie Jester)
63. Pulling their punches: On the limits of sports metaphor in political media (Prof Michael L. Butterworth)
Just six years ago, journalists mounted a collective front against Trump, in 2024, they stood down.
We’re in round two, but it’s already been a knockout insofar as standing up to President Donald Trump’s assault on professional journalism. News organizations have short memories of just how badly Donald Trump treated the American news media—weaponizing the term “fake news” to describe the real news that he didn’t like.
In this 2024 election cycle, both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times declined to endorse a president for candidate. Their non-endorsements got the most attention from the chattering class, especially as both newspapers are owned by billionaires and represent the fourth and sixth largest newspapers by circulation in the US.
The non-endorsement trend goes far beyond these newspapers, though. As per an Axios analysis, only about 30% of the nation’s top 100-circulation newspapers endorsed a presidential candidate in 2024. That’s down from 80% in 2016. Gannett’s 200+ newspapers, including USA Today, did not endorse anyone this election cycle, while Hedge-fund owned Tribune Publishing and MediaNews Group made the call in 2022 that their collective 68+ dailies and 300 weekly papers would not endorse anyone for president, according to Axios’ reporting.
These endorsements tell us where a news organization – where the institution of journalism itself – stand as a pillar of civil society. Journalists are “custodians of conscience,” and can challenge power even within the framework of objectivity insofar as they are pushing against the excess and corruption of powerful institutions and people, as scholars James Ettema and Theodore Glasser argued.
This failure to endorse a presidential candidate must be seen as not just an abdication of moral leadership, but a deeply concerning sign that the economic fragility of the American news media has compromised news judgement itself.
Perhaps news organizations have been hit just once too hard on their institutional heads by the crisis facing the news industry to remember what they once did together, sick of being bullied and denigrated by the then-president. On August 16, 2018, about 350 newspapers across the US collectively stood up against Trump’s anti-media attacks, using their editorial pages to defend the importance of journalism and the freedom of the press, many with the message, “We are not the enemy.”
As Matt Carlson, Sue Robinson, and Seth C. Lewis write in their book, News after Trump, “they went beyond just chiding Trump in their fight to reclaim power over… “journalism’s grand narrative; they were seeking to reclaim relevance.” By the end of the month, more than 600 news organizations had pushed back, from student newspapers to radio outlets to community papers, according to the authors.
Despite Kamala Harris’ best intentions, we are indeed going back – back to a president that said two days before the 2024 election that he wouldn’t “mind so much” if journalists were shot at his rallies.
But somehow, news organizations far and wide have chosen not to weigh in on suitability of this candidate for office. Most journalists themselves would admit what the social science tells us, which is that presidential endorsements really don’t shape public opinion. And if endorsements don’t matter to the public, then a news organization tipping its hat either way likely wouldn’t do much to undermine public trust. With this in mind, Washington Post publisher William Lewis’ claim that a non-endorsement is actually “a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions” seem at best circumspect and at worst, a dishonest excuse for backing down.
News organizations have fact-checked ad nauseum the presidential campaign. Ordinary journalism that would typically take down candidates did not. The will of the people has spoken, and democracy means that people pick winners and losers.
Journalists do not have to be the opposition or the resistance. In fact, the Washington Post steadfastly denied this role during Trump’s first term, with then-editor Marty Baron saying, “We’re not at war with the administration, we’re at work.” If just six years ago, news organizations banded together to denounce Trump’s treatment of journalists, and now most newspapers are unwilling to even take a stand, we should really be worried about whether news organizations will be able to even “do the work.”
But sometimes, the winners of democratic elections can also undermine the democratic processes that brought them to power. The mainstream news media may not be able to just do “work” as usual because the work has not been enough to check power. A robust defense of democracy needn’t be politically-aligned; but it is clear that many news organizations are led by executives who may find that simply doing journalism by checking the excess of power is too political and too risky to the bottom line.
The only recourse journalists have if their reporting isn’t sticking may be moral leadership, and the question is whether news organizations and their owners will step up to the call to battle against democratic backsliding – but we shouldn’t hold our breath hoping.