When American journalism faces existential threats, the McDaniel controversy risks making this important institution even more irrelevant for much of the country.
When American journalism faces existential threats, the McDaniel controversy risks making this important institution even more irrelevant for large sections of the country.
N BC’s firing of former Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, days after hiring her as a political analyst for the 2024 election, is shocking but not surprising. Despite being a major news network, NBC is still a private company that may hire and fire employees as it pleases, especially as relates to the company’s bottom line or reputation. Plus, anyone who watched the parade of powerful NBC journalists, anchors, and talking heads — McDaniel’s new colleagues — rush to condemn her must have seen the writing on the wall.
However, this sordid episode reflects truly troubling ways that the U.S. media landscape has changed for the worse. It also points to an ironic but sad development in journalism: the declining commitment to the spirit of core American principles — free expression and diversity of opinion — among journalists themselves.
Once upon a time, journalists were unafraid of controversy and willing to engage with those who held different political opinions. In 1913, future U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis wrote that “publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. . . . Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In other words, the best way to defeat a bad idea was to expose it to public debate and criticism, where it could be refuted. The “marketplace of ideas” was a free-for-all where the most reasonable, logical ideas would rise to the top, while unfavorable or dangerous concepts would sink.
This principle, once a cornerstone of American journalism, is now on the retreat. Too many in the media and on the left believe that free speech is a privilege, not a right — that certain people or groups have earned the opportunity to be heard, because of their status or commitment to proper ideas. To allow “unapproved” voices into the discussion is to give them a platform, which risks allowing their ideas to become more popular. Better to simply de-platform those who are deemed unfashionable or dangerous.
McDaniel’s firing is Exhibit A for this trend. To her critics, what McDaniel said and did to advance former president Donald Trump’s agenda during and after his time in office (including raising questions about the 2020 election) disqualified her voice from the public stage. It is appropriate to subject a public figure to scrutiny. But rather than discuss such matters openly, critics decided that her unique perspective as a former RNC chairwoman, and her merits as a political commentator who can provide valuable insights on Donald Trump and the Republican Party ahead of the November election, should not even be heard.
The McDaniel saga reflects another aspect in which journalism has lost its way: Journalists and news outlets now prioritize the comfort of their employees over journalism’s core mission of seeking truth, sometimes by exploring unpopular narratives. Starting with journalism’s muckraking era a century ago, journalists have subscribed to a courageous professional credo: “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Traditional journalism had a distinct edge to it; a journalist was someone who followed the facts wherever they led, unafraid to irritate their colleagues or upset the powers that be.
Watching McDaniel’s NBC colleagues tear her down because they didn’t want to share a workplace with her, it was hard to see any trace of journalism’s fearless, confident spirit. It was reminiscent of when the New York Times showed opinion editor James Bennet the door in 2020 for his role in approving a controversial op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton. The Times fired Bennet not because he’d acted unprofessionally, but because it was the easiest way to quell a revolt in the newsroom, especially among those who suggested that an opinion piece by a U.S. senator would somehow put Times journalists in physical danger.
At a time when American journalism faces existential threats — an outdated business model, the rise of social media, and a decline in public trust — the McDaniel controversy risks making this important institution even more irrelevant for large sections of the country. Despite its current flaws, a free press is still vitally important for our system of government, which depends on a well-informed public.
We must support journalists who stick to the traditional principles of honest, courageous reporting. My organization recently launched the Center for Excellence in Journalism, which will create more opportunities for young journalists who espouse these principles to have successful careers in the media. By supporting the next generation of fair-minded, courageous journalists and bringing these traditional values back into newsrooms, we can restore balance to this critical American institution — before a future Ronna McDaniel loses her job.