American newspapers have come out against Trump – and this is why it won't change a thing

In a remarkable show of unity, nearly 350 American news organisations have today published editorials highlighting the dangers of Donald Trump’s ceaseless attacks on the media.

The Boston Globe, which made the initial call to action, sought to remind the president that “journalists are not the enemy”.

The Post-Dispatch in St Louis argued that they are, indeed, “the truest of patriots”. The New York Times said Trump’s anti-press comments were “dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy”, while the Topeka Capital-Journal – which endorsed Trump’s run for the presidency – described his actions as “sinister” and “destructive”.

That these critiques should come just as the media and the president are engaged in a row over whether to give credence to the remarkable claims by Omarosa Manigault Newman – former contestant on The Apprentice, ex-White House staffer, and now Trump critic-in-chief – adds an extra layer of piquancy.

It was notable, however, that some outlets expressed scepticism over the media’s moment of solidarity. A few supported the Globe’s initiative but wondered whether it would make any difference to Trump’s behaviour – “not a whit”, in the view of the New York Post. Meanwhile, The Baltimore Sun noted the danger that “a coordinated response from independent – dare we say ‘mainstream’ – news organisations feeds a narrative that we’re somehow aligned against this Republican president”.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal declined to participate for that very reason, contending that news organisations should recognise the president’s right to free speech as much as their own.

Given that Trump’s hectoring of journalists sometimes seems to border on incitement, that is perhaps an arguable analysis. Freedom of expression is not, in the end, absolute – and never has been; rightly so.

Nonetheless, there is certainly a dilemma for media organisations (aside from those which are slavish in their devotion and which cast themselves as alternatives to the dreaded “MSM” in any event).

On the one hand, Trump’s regular invective at “traitors” in the media who he claims are peddling “fake news” is plainly a matter of genuine concern. His supporters, following the president’s cue, have become ever bolder in their harassment of journalists – both online and with verbal harassment in live settings. There can be no doubt whatsoever that his tactics are both deliberate and that they provide grim echoes of the type of political leader many thought had been consigned to history.

It is also obvious that Trump’s polemic has been effective, at least in consolidating his base – even while deepening broader divisions. Although less than a third of voters like the president, according to a poll this week by Quinnipiac University, and only 41 per cent approve of the job he’s doing at the White House, among Republicans, his presidential approval rating jumps to 83 per cent.

And when it comes to views on the news media, a slender majority of Republicans believe the media is “the enemy of the people” rather than an important part of democracy. That Trump’s malign message has gained such traction is deeply disturbing. But it has made headway precisely because of the way Trump has created a “them versus us” dynamic. His supporters may well, therefore, see today’s editorials as proof that the bulk of the news media – indistinguishable from other perceived elites swimming in an establishment swamp – is precisely what Trump says they are: the enemy.

As such, The Wall Street Journal’s anxiety may not, in this context, be unreasonable, although of course some will note that the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch and – rightly or wrongly – draw their own conclusions. Still, on the basis that not speaking out is the easiest way to hasten a drift towards more formal curtailments on free speech, the decision by the bulk of the American media to take a stand against the president’s abuse – and his habitual lies – is surely right.

After all, there seems no reason to be confident that Trump would not, given half a chance, take direct steps to interfere in the rights of journalists to go about their legitimate business. He has so many hallmarks of an autocrat – the disregard for truth, the paranoia about plotters, the thin skin, the love of spectacle – that the US media’s unease about how his criticism of journalists might manifest itself in the future (especially if he wins a second term, as seems highly possible) feels absolutely justified.

At the very least, it seems eminently sensible to cry foul now (loudly and regularly) than wait until it’s too late.