“We Will Not Be Bullied” — A 2018 Reflection on Media Power and Public Trust

We Will Not Be Bullied by the Media

Originally written 2018 — revised for clarity

In August of 2018, The Boston Globe invited national media outlets to coordinate a public response against President Donald Trump. I offer this response not in defense of a man, but in defense of honest journalism.

Two weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency, The New York Times published a story claiming that the President wandered the White House in a bathrobe, confused and searching for light switches. I ask a simple question: what purpose did that serve? What public interest was advanced? Was this reporting — or was it ridicule?

Traditionally, respect for the highest office in the land encouraged restraint. Gossip, unnamed sources, and paparazzi-style speculation were once discouraged, not celebrated. That standard was abandoned almost immediately in the case of President Trump, making him arguably the most aggressively and personally targeted president in modern history.

In a recent column, Thomas Jefferson was quoted selectively to justify this posture. The familiar line — “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government…” — was written when Jefferson was a minister, not a president. As president, Jefferson became sharply critical of the press, writing later that “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.” Leaving that context out is not accidental; it is misleading.

The press performs a critical role in holding power accountable. But when ideological agendas interfere with that role, credibility collapses. Too often, facts are emphasized or ignored depending on whether they fit an approved narrative.

Examples are plentiful. President Trump’s remarks following Charlottesville were widely described as an endorsement of extremism, despite his explicit condemnation of hate. Images of children in detention facilities were attributed to his administration, though they originated during the Obama years. These were not small errors — they were narrative choices.

One must ask whether this behavior stems from bias so intense that truth becomes secondary, or whether accuracy is knowingly sacrificed for political ends. Either way, the result is the same: public trust in the media has eroded to historic lows. Doubling down has not repaired that damage.

A free press is essential to a free society. But a press that abandons fairness, context, and restraint does not strengthen democracy — it undermines it. The media is not immune from accountability, and it should not be shocked that the public has begun to withdraw its trust.

Note: I wrote this piece in 2018, at a time when public trust in the media was beginning to fracture, and emotions were running high — including my own. Eight years later, I would choose my words more carefully, but not my concern. The tone was raw, but the question remains: when reporting becomes ridicule and narrative replaces inquiry, trust is lost. That lesson has only become clearer with time.