How Radical Wokeness Derailed Journalism in the 2024 U.S. Election

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s remarkable victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, one might expect the so-called ‘liberals’ and their intellectual champions to exhibit at least a modicum of self-reflection. Yet, instead of engaging with the reality of Trump’s win they have, unsurprisingly, resorted to the absurd, the ridiculous, and the profoundly self-deluding. The rhetoric from many in the progressive camp has shifted from disbelief to outright refusal to confront their own intellectual and moral failings.

Besides common sense, one of the most striking (and disturbing) casualties in the Republican victory has been the vocation of journalism. Respectable and so-called ‘progressive’ outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC and CNN among others have revealed a profound abdication of journalistic integrity.

With fashionably woke anchors like Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow relentlessly spouting their vacuous ‘politically correct’ bilge, the disconnect between East Coast elites and the American electorate was even more mind-boggling than in 2016. Their constant drumbeat of “Trump as existential threat” to democracy and comparisons to Adolf Hitler left little room for thoughtful criticism of the campaign the Democrats were running and of Kamala Harris’ incompetency, and reluctance to field questions seriously.

At MSNBC and CNN, the trend toward partisan hyperbole was even more pronounced. Anchors like Joy Reid embodied the network’s turn from news to activism. Coverage was not about presenting both sides of the story but about demonizing one side to the point where any debate seemed futile. Reid has used her platform not as a journalist but as a political propagandist, the result being that MSNBC ratings are tanking precipitously in the aftermath of Trump’s triumph.

As in 2016, the failure to engage with middle America, compounded by the coastal elite media’s reliance on narrow, metropolitan perspectives, created an echo chamber that insulated journalists from the electorate. The resulting disconnect between the press and the public has severely undermined the trust that is essential for democracy to function.

The New York Times, considered the ‘gold standard of journalism’ in J-schools across the globe including India, has become a sorry example of how ideological capture distorts reporting.

To me, this response evokes uncomfortable historical parallels to the intellectuals and journalists of the Left who, in the 20th century, turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the regimes they once celebrated.

One of the most egregious examples in the New York Times’ long history is its role in covering up or downplaying Soviet atrocities under Stalin, especially the Holodomor - a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine in the early 1930s that led to the deaths of millions. The NYT, under the influence of its Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty, became infamous for its failure to report the truth about the famine, instead whitewashing the Soviet regime’s actions.

Rather than offering an honest portrayal of the horrors unfolding in the Soviet Union, Duranty chose to downplay or outright ignore the mass starvation of Ukrainians during the Holodomor, instead attacking journalists like Gareth Jones who dared to report on the truth. Duranty’s denial of the Holodomor and his repeated misrepresentation of the Soviet regime’s actions despite the overwhelming evidence of mass starvation was a betrayal of the basic tenets of journalism.

This is not to say that Trump’s flaws were irrelevant or should have been ignored. But the media’s singular focus on his personal shortcomings - his rhetoric, his alleged legal issues, his supposed moral lapses - shifted the conversation away from the deeper, more substantive issues affecting the country. A media system that once prided itself on holding power to account became, in effect, a political arm of those opposing Trump. Instead of challenging the status quo, it became an enabler of it.

The rise of ‘cancel culture’ and the enforcement of ideological orthodoxy on social media and newsrooms mean that journalists who stray from the ‘party line’ are going to get punished. In an era where media organizations increasingly rely on digital platforms to fuel their revenue models, this uniformity of thought and style helped reinforce a worldview that was detached from the reality of millions of Americans.

The accusation that Trump’s supporters are fascists, racists, or far-right extremists has become a knee-jerk reaction. But in this narrative, it is liberals who often display an authoritarian streak, a kind of moral absolutism that mirrors the totalitarian certainty once exhibited by Soviet apologists. While they stridently denounce climate change deniers, flat-Earthers and vaccine skeptics, the deeper questions of their own complicity - of why Trump won again, why so many voters flocked to his campaign, and whether progressive elites have misunderstood the needs and desires of vast swathes of the population - remain unanswered.

In Richard Brooks’ gripping 1952 newspaper drama ‘Deadline U.S.A.’, the old-school, no-nonsense editor inimitably played by Humphrey Bogart curbs the zeal of a young reporter by remarking, “We’re not detectives and we’re not in the crusading business!” Today’s crusading ‘journalists’ in the U.S. and elsewhere would do well in heeding this wisdom if they wish to restore the public’s faith in the media.