Ok, so everywhere you look, it’s election season – Trump vs. Kamala. It’s all anyone can talk about: who’s going to take the win, what this means for America, the world, and what this could mean for the press.
I recently stumbled upon an article by Margaret Sullivan on The Guardian, and she makes some pretty strong claims about the threats to press freedom. And I thought it would be interesting to share here since the Olas Protocol’s ethos is all about protecting press freedom.
In her piece, Sullivan argues that the stakes for journalism are higher than ever in this election, especially if Trump makes it back to the White House. She’s calling out what she sees as a full-scale assault on the free press, warning about potential rollbacks of protections and very real risks for journalists if the erosion of press freedom continues.
Now, while I get where she’s coming from – we’ve all seen the tensions between Trump and the press – it’s worth asking: is she being realistic, or is this a bit alarmist, especially considering the political narratives that many mainstream media outlets are following?
There’s no denying that Trump’s relationship with the media has been… let’s say, rocky. He has a history of branding unfavorable coverage as “fake news” and has even suggested legal action against journalists. But, personally, I think this situation also highlights the frailties of the current media model itself. It feels like mainstream media is operating on an outdated, vulnerable system that’s open to disruption – whether from Trump or any other powerful institution.
So, here’s my question to you all: do you think Sullivan is right to be concerned, or is this more about stoking fears in an already divided political climate? And, if mainstream media is as fragile as it seems, shouldn’t we be focusing on how to build a model that works?