How to avoid the "exhaustion" of covering four more years of Trump

A new story in the Hollywood Reporter quotes a number of White House correspondents and network producers who are bemoaning the prospect of what they call four more "exhausting years" of covering the Trump presidency.

Ah yes, there's nothing more endearing than a group of professionals complaining about all the hard work they have to do covering the leader of the free world.

Considering the boost in the ratings and readership the Trump White House has given the industry overall, this seems like a bit of a phony complaint. But just in case these journalists are truly worried about being exhausted if President Trump wins another term in office, here are some important pointers they should follow to, let's say, pace themselves:

1) Stop chasing down every anti-Trump leak or rumor like it's the Great Pumpkin and you're Linus

Cultivating confidential sources is an important part of reporting, but the use of unnamed sources since Trump was first elected has gone beyond the point of just irresponsibility. It's become a major joke.

We've heard and seen some many, "sources say the end is near!", stories over the last three years that it's truly ridiculous. The most common false narratives are major congressional Republicans are abandoning Trump, a key White House aide or current/former cabinet member is going to testify against the president, or that everyone inside the administration knows Trump is actually insane. These kinds of stories never seem to dissipate no matter how many of them never come close to fruition.

In fact, I've been obliged on many occasions since 2016 to write several columns explaining how the latest "this is going to end Trump" mania wasn't going to work. But it became so tiresome, I no longer bother.

That should tell you something about your sources. Journalists covering the White House need to be tougher on their sources and tougher on themselves. It's amazing just how many reporters and cable news hosts haven't been dismissed or at least suspended for pushing blatantly inaccurate stories, but that doesn't mean they're fully getting away with it. There's a reason why trust in the news media is at an all-time low.

So if you're a journalist getting a hot tip from someone supposedly inside the Trump administration who tells you the fate of the free world hinges on their information, but they also need to remain anonymous because they might lose a golf membership if their name gets out, try to recognize how those two statements don't jive.

And if you're buying the "my safety is at risk if I'm identified," do a better job of remembering that just about every so-called Republican or conservative who has come out publicly against Trump has been rewarded much more than he or she has been attacked in public. Last I checked, Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Anthony Scaramucci, and even total crooks like Michael Cohen have been praised, paid, and protected for attacking Trump.

The more likely reason why your "source" is staying anonymous is because his or her information isn't true, or he or she doesn't really have the position or proximity to the president they claim.

Keep that in mind and you'll save yourself a lot of "exhaustion," if that's what we're calling journalistic laziness and malpractice these days.

2) Try focusing on the effects of policies, and not just words

This is essential three-pronged advice for any journalist no matter who the president is: a. Actions speak louder than words. b. Focusing on policies are more important that personalities. c. Do more to float potential solutions to problems/think like a "journalist/engineer.

Let's start with the "words" part of that advice. Yes, it's true that presidential words have more importance than just about anyone else's, but the president's actions are still more important and deserve at least the same amount of coverage as his words. But that takes more work and the cultivation of true expert sources than simply republishing a Trump quote and generating outrage over it.

Focusing on policies and how they're working or not working is a much loftier and effective journalistic goal. But Trump policies are not really covered after an initial "analysis" piece, or they're simply covered in the context of how people presumably effected by the policy are responding to it emotionally.

Getting informed thought on even harder-to-grasp economic policies and their effects is still possible. One good example is economist Alan Tonelson's "Reality Chek" blog that continues to assess the effects of the Trump tariffs on the U.S. economy. That's just one example, but the problem isn't so much that the Tonelsons of this world aren't getting more exposure, it's that misinformed, hyper-partisan "experts" dominate the screens and the column inches of the news media 24/7.

In my own work, specifically my many years' worth of pieces for CNBC written as a full-time editorial columnist or as a outside contributor, I've made it my mission to focus on what works, what doesn't work, and presenting new ideas on how to fix current challenges. I haven't succeeded in doing that kind of work exclusively, but it is the dominant theme in my published output. I try to think of myself as if I were one of the problem solvers in the same way engineers often view the world and their role in it. To paraphrase what author and "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams often says, no one should think they've seen all the best analyses of an issue or a challenge until the engineers have had their say.

Of course we all realize that emotional and bombastic guests on cable news shows and alarmist quotes usually draw more viewers and clicks than reasoned analysis. I could have probably generated a bigger following if every column I ever wrote for CNBC were more like this one in early 2017 alleging there was a virtual "coup" to remove Trump from office, (there was... but that's beside the point). But I realized there's a limit to how much analysis I can do of secretive institutions and their operatives from afar. Speculation journalism is often the worst journalism, even though I hit a bulls eye that time.

Instead of wild speculating, get a little training in framing informed debates and arguments from the SEO folks at your news website or the more seasoned editors at your paper to close that enthusiasm gap. That's more ethically sound and a lot less emotionally exhausting.

3) The Jay Rosens of this world are not your friends

Jay Rosen is a professor of journalism at NYU and a longtime advocate of advocacy journalism in search of the truth. I had limited contact with Rosen when I taught at NYU as an adjunct professor for six years, but his thinking about journalism's realities came through loud and clear.

In short, Rosen trashes the idea of a so-called "unbiased journalist," both as a matter of human nature and the absurdity of thinking people get interested in journalism so they can be disinterested referees. He happens to be right about both of those points. There is no such thing as an unbiased person. It's also much better to admit your biases and leanings, in addition to clarifying the purpose of your journalistic work. Then try to work as fairly as possible from there.

But where Rosen goes terribly wrong is his continuing mission to admonish all journalists to only seek out and expose the lies and distortions coming from the political right. In so doing, he undermines his otherwise realistic and productive message. Rosen seems like he only wants journalists to eschew all pretenses of being unbiased so they can focus more freely on bashing Republicans, conservatives, and FOX News. To Rosen, lies from the left or Democratic Party politicians aren't really worth exposing because, well... they apparently lie less. Yes, his premise is ridiculous, hypocritical, and laughable.

In fact, in true leftist authoritarian fashion, Rosen has also been a frequent advocate of just silencing opposing voices. He recently called for all news networks to stop airing the White House coronavirus briefings, apparently comparing the content in those briefings as being tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That's an extreme stretch, since it's the sloppy and dishonest journalists covering these briefings after the fact who have been deliberately spreading the most dangerous misrepresentations of the briefings.

But Rosen is a real danger for journalists covering Trump because he's basically like the guy who offers to hold your coat for you while he pushes you get into a street fight with a big dude he doesn't like. If you have voices like Rosen's whispering in your ear all the time, you'll never find peace or even perspective in your work covering the president or any political issues.

Rosen and the others want you to be the foot soldiers in a battle they've been fighting against one side of the aisle for many years and long before Trump came around. You're nothing but fodder for Rosen et al, and they won't care if you become exhausted, discredited, or fired in the relentless attack on the right they want you to fight for them.

4) You are NOT the story

Whether it's CNN's Jim Acosta deliberately trying to instigate arguments with the president, or his colleague Chris Cuomo faking a "coming out of quarantine" pantomime, too many journalists now seem to think it's appropriate to insert themselves by name, face, and body into major stories.

In so doing, these journalists take on the exhausting job of trying to cover a story and self-promote at the same time. That's a dangerous game to play. Let your news organization's P.R. department do the promotion part of work, and stick to focusing on others.

Another aspect of this story, and a big contributor to the exhaustion so many journalists are complaining about, is the news media's very thin skin and tendency to conflate criticism with physical threats.

To be clear, President Trump's frequent attacks on certain journalists and their employers is an attack on their professionalism and it's fair game. Characterizing those comments as a direct assault on the First Amendment is irresponsible hyperbole. Meanwhile, those same people complaining about Trump's criticisms still are awfully quiet about President Barack Obama's wiretapping of FOX News and AP reporters, including one FOX News reporters' elderly parents.

Yes, these are the same journalists who have often ruined innocent people's lives with everything from unfair coverage of criminal trials, to incriminating and embarrassing "perp walk" videos. These are the same people who haven't really cared that the accusation usually goes on page one and the correction and exoneration is buried on page 32. These are also the same people who are now trying to portray themselves as helpless innocents who should be shielded from criticism or excoriation of any kind.

Many of these journalists see themselves as the heroes of investigative and advocacy journalism, inspired by the fictionalized accounts of media figures in movies like All the President's Men and The Post. Of course, the movies that should really be educating today's journalists are the ones that remind us just how much power we have to hurt innocent people, like Richard Jewell and Absence of Malice. The printed word and the video broadcast is like a loaded gun. The person using it must practice safety measures to protect others and themselves.

Remember also that so many journalists in other countries truly are facing physical attack, imprisonment, and death. Try telling Daniel Pearl's family that they should feel sorry for Don Lemon because the president tweets that he's a stupid news anchor.

In short, it's time for America's White House press corps to wise up and grow up. No wonder so many of them are so tired; I can't imagine anything more exhausting than trying to continue to do this job with half their brains and consciences tied behind their backs.