How 21st-Century News Weakens the Presidency

Donald Trump's second term has ushered in a new, assertive vision of presidential power, often referred to as the "imperial presidency." The Supreme Court's decision to grant presidents immunity from most prosecution and to weaken independent agencies has bolstered his authority. The media, in turn, have seemingly supported him, inadvertently or otherwise.

As traditional news outlets have vanished due to economic pressures and digital dominance, Trump has leveraged his omnipresent presence in the news to his political advantage. He recently barred CNN, MSNBC, and Politico from the White House due to their critical reporting, a move that a judge later deemed unjustified. However, the transformation of the news landscape over the past century suggests that this strengthening of presidential power may be illusory, potentially undermining the presidency instead.

Individual journalists and publications still serve as vital checks on the president, but the industry's structural shifts have made it harder for presidents to exert control. The media's fragmentation, with its proliferation of new forms, formats, and players, offers more opportunities for targeted messaging or "narrowcasting."

This trend, evident during the 2024 campaign, allows challengers to reach specific audiences more effectively than incumbents. However, broadcasting has become less effective over the past four decades, with prime-time TV addresses losing their potency. In the last four decades of the 20th century, a televised address was a powerful tool, especially for skilled presidents like Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton.

Yet, today, audiences for Trump's State of the Union speeches are smaller than those in the 1980s. Furthermore, a larger portion of voters now encounters the president's message through mediated sources like reporters, commentators, or social media, rather than directly. This indirect exposure could have been detrimental to influential leaders like FDR, JFK, or Reagan.

While Trump has skillfully used social media to reshape the national conversation, often announcing major policy and personnel moves, it falls short of television's power. Short-form social media messages tend to be telegraphic rather than educational, serving more as announcements than persuasions. Additionally, social media allows intermediaries to interpret messages, reducing the president's direct influence.

This shift likely weakens the president's capacity to "teach" the nation, as demonstrated by Roosevelt's fireside chats. A president aiming to educate today would find that potential listeners are less likely to engage and that their messages are filtered and colored, often by non-journalists. An exception may exist during genuine crises, but presidents must seize such moments and be disciplined in their approach.

Trump's daily COVID-19 briefings in 2020, while well-intentioned, illustrate how quickly such opportunities can be squandered. The increasing partisanship of the media, especially cable television, can bolster the president's support by pressuring other officials in his party to rally behind him. However, this also creates a permanent opposition faction in the press, which can be as formidable as the supportive faction, potentially limiting consensus-building and compromise.

The nationalization of news, driven by a decline in local reporting and an influx of national events, further exacerbates the issue. As less local news is produced and more local events go unobserved, Congress members who once heard about district-level matters now miss out on crucial information. In essence, the transformation of the news business over the past century has weakened the presidency, making it more challenging for presidents like Trump to exert control effectively.