How should the media cover a criminal defendant like Trump?

People rally outside the federal courthouse in Miami where former President Trump was arraigned on June 13.

By Paul ThorntonLetters Editor

June 17, 2023 3 AM PT

It’s been about 50 years since Donald Trump entered public life and almost seven since he was elected president, and many in the media are still asking: How do we cover this guy?

And not just as media savvy ex-president who lies constantly and foments an uprising against the U.S. government. Now, Trump is a criminal defendant twice over, most recently as a result of the federal investigation of his handling of government documents. Don’t forget he’ll also go on trial in New York. Further indictments related to the Jan. 6 insurrection and his attempt to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election result may loom. Did I mention he’s the Republican front-runner for president in 2024?

Many readers have expressed dismay over the hours-long TV coverage of his arraignments in New York and Miami, saying they repeated past media mistakes that they believe handed Trump the presidency in 2016. Times columnist LZ Granderson faulted commentators who called the former president’s indictments “unprecedented,” as if Trump hasn’t faced legal problems since the 1970s.

So, I’ll ask again: How do we cover this guy? Here are some ideas from readers.

————

To the editor: Like LZ Granderson, I’m appalled by all things Donald Trump, and I’m sympathetic to the idea that we’d be better off if the media ignored him completely.

But even if Trump disappeared, the sentiments he expresses would persist.

Go back and read the text of the ad he ran after the Central Park Five were prosecuted in 1989. More than 30 years ago, he was espousing the “tough on crime” ideology that he and his followers are now. Is Trump the only politician promoting that viewpoint, and would a more intelligent approach suddenly gain widespread public approval if Trump were to go away?

If dedication to free speech is a brilliant idea, then the best response to Trump is not to muzzle him — it’s to relentlessly argue why he’s wrong.

Jeffrey Vaughn, Encino

To the editor: I found Granderson’s otherwise thoughtful column troubling for overlooking decades of outstanding journalism about Trump and for blurring the lines among various forms of media.

A half-century of journalistic malfeasance? Maybe if you put TV shows about rich people on par with investigative journalism.

Trump’s legal disputes were indeed a “red flag” for Wayne Barrett, who began reporting about Trump’s business deceptions in the 1970s for the Village Voice. Timothy L. O’Brien, now with Bloomberg, has long reported on Trump’s possibly criminal activities.

And Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston first dug into Trump’s thuggery 35 years ago when he was the Atlantic City, N.J., bureau chief at the Philadelphia Inquirer. Johnston’s work has appeared in a variety of mainstream outlets, including the L.A. Times, where he was formerly on staff. He continues this work.

Let’s not be vague about the word “media” and ignore critically important journalism, past and present.

Zan Dubin-Scott, Santa Monica

To the editor: Thanks to Granderson for showing the public, the media and members of Congress how one speaks truth to power.

Do not forget what the character Maximus in “Gladiator” asked the crowd at a Roman arena: “Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?”

Sarah Vogel, Laguna Beach

To the editor: Granderson couldn’t be more right about what he says in the last sentence of his article. “[W]hy are the media still letting Trump’s tales wag the supposed watchdog?”

Why? Because of ratings.

I am firmly convinced that without the media slurping up all his lying words and spitting them back to us, Trump would never have become president.

Just as vampires can only thrive on blood, Trump can only thrive on attention. Without that blood, vampires die. Without that attention, Trump would have just faded away.

Bonnie Sanders, Malibu

To the editor: Granderson has asked the question most educated people have been asking — why is there so much coverage of Trump, and often in an apparently flattering way?

On the same day this column ran in the print edition, The Times had a big photo of a smiling Trump on its front page, instead of the dour courtroom drawing of him, which would be more appropriate for a man facing 37 counts of criminal behavior, including violating the Espionage Act.

His possession of top-secret documents should horrify any patriotic American.

So who are the “real Americans?” It doesn’t seem to be the media. And certainly not his defenders.

Anthony Blake, Woodland Hills

To the editor: In this depressingly polarized world, can we at least agree that we all know what Trump looks like?

I’m tired of being visually assaulted every morning by a new photo of said subject above every story about him. No matter what the story, it’s accompanied by yet another picture of him raising his fist in front of a bank of flags, or waving to an imaginary adoring crowd.

For the love of all that is holy, make it stop!

Tom Walsh, West Hills