One of the under reported concerns of the Trump era is the possibility that other politicians will see the incoming president’s political success as a sign that his strategies and tactics are the right ones and they should be emulated.
Key to Trump’s playbook are; the absence of shame, the willingness to survive rather than avoid negative news coverage, and the use of the threat of retribution as a means to silence the opposition.
It is the third tactic, the threat of retribution, that could be especially effective at the local level. There have been several examples in recent weeks of Trump using the threat of legal action to keep the news media in its place. The most glaring case was the decision by ABC News – and its parent the Disney Corporation – to settle a lawsuit with Trump at a cost of $15 million in what was a very weak argument against the network.
If politicians at a local or state level were inclined to use the threat of legal action to halt negative news coverage it might be very effective. Locally owned news organizations have small profit margins and are notoriously cheap. Given the option of standing by tough reporting or footing the bill for a long court fight, most local news organizations would opt for an apology or some other less painful way out.
The same can be said for local news organizations owned by national chains. Most big chains are in the advertising business more than they are in the local journalism business. If coverage threatens the bottom line, the bottom line wins.
On the campaign trail we have already seen candidates for office use the tactic of ignoring negative news coverage and blaming that coverage on the “fake news media.” It seems like a good bet to assume that at some point a local politician will use actual legal action as a means to chill critical coverage in the hope that the target news organization does not have the financial resources to fight back. This tactic has nothing to do with the merits, it’s all about who has more money to spend on lawyers.
