In Trump’s Early Days, News Media Finds Competing Narratives

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/business/trump-news-media.html

Version 0 of 1.

During his first 11 days in office, President Trump has provided news outlets with plenty of material, at all hours of the morning and night. But his maelstrom of activity — the bold executive orders, the fiery Twitter posts, the brazen speeches — has also exposed, and perhaps exacerbated, ideological differences.

For those devouring news about the administration, the choice of narratives has become starker, with brighter lines drawn around the content. For the readers and viewers, it’s follow the narrative of your choice, and be wary of the great chasm between.

Over the weekend, as protesters descended on airports across the country in response to Mr. Trump’s immigration ban, fissures began to emerge even among right-wing news organizations. On Monday, the divide only widened. And not everyone behaved predictably.

Bill O’Reilly, the outspoken Fox News host, expressed skepticism about the rollout of Mr. Trump’s plan and called it “a mistake” to rush it. While he did make some effort to defend Mr. Trump, he was also somewhat moderate in one segment.

“It is certainly responsible and logical for a new president to institute updated protections for this country by ordering specific temporary immigration actions,” Mr. O’Reilly said. “However, it’s also responsible for a federal judge to order that foreigners with the proper credentials already issued not be punished. There should be room for case-by-case decision making.”

He even invoked the Statue of Liberty to make his point.

Some of Mr. O’Reilly’s guests were also critical. Karl Rove said of Mr. Trump that “the controversy is hurting him more than the controversy is helping him.” Brit Hume said it was handled “very clumsily.” And Charles Krauthammer said it was introduced in the “most amateurish, botched way.”

But, in more typical form, Mr. O’Reilly also focused on what he said he perceived to be Mr. Trump’s political calculation, adding that much of the country was “getting fed up with the anti-Trump people.”

By late Monday, order on Fox News had been fully restored. In his opening monologue, Sean Hannity followed a familiar trope, criticizing the mainstream news media for “freaking out and completely misrepresenting” the immigration ban. The Trump administration, he said, was trying to “set the record straight, but the media won’t listen.”

The Wall Street Journal, part of the Rupert Murdoch-controlled News Corporation, delivered a scathing editorial on Monday denouncing Mr. Trump’s “blunderbuss” policy. But on Tuesday, some journalists at the publication were frustrated after a note from the editor in chief, Gerard Baker, instructed editors to avoid the phrase “seven majority Muslim countries” when writing about the order.

“It’s very loaded,” Mr. Baker wrote Monday night in the note, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times (and reported earlier by BuzzFeed). “The reason they’ve been chosen is not because they’re majority Muslim but because they’re on the list of countries Obama identified as countries of concern. Would be less loaded to say ‘seven countries the U.S. has designated as being states that pose significant or elevated risks of terrorism.’”

The note caused concern among some editors and reporters in the newsroom as inappropriate interference.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for The Journal said Mr. Baker’s note was “part of a larger conversation discussing late-breaking developments as a story was being edited on deadline.” In the same email chain, she said, Mr. Baker also pushed to include more comments from critics of Mr. Trump’s policy.

On Tuesday, Mr. Baker sent a memo to employees saying there was “no ban on the phrase ‘Muslim-majority country’” but that the publication should “always be careful that this term is not offered as the only description of the countries covered under the ban.”

The unrest was only the latest manifestation of greater concern among a faction of reporters and editors at The Journal who are dissatisfied with what they view as sympathetic coverage of Mr. Trump. Mr. Baker has maintained that the publication is committed to fair reporting.

Elsewhere in the news and entertainment empire of the Murdoch family, there was a more pointed response to Mr. Trump’s immigration policy.

In a memo to employees of 21st Century Fox on Monday evening, James and Lachlan Murdoch suggested they did not fully support Mr. Trump’s executive order. “21CF is a global company, proudly headquartered in the U.S., founded by — and comprising at all levels of the business — immigrants,” they wrote. “We deeply value diversity and believe immigration is an essential part of America’s strength.”

Among far-right organizations, the tone in the last few days has been predictably defiant and jubilant, reflecting their position on the conservative spectrum. Several seized on Mr. Trump’s accusation that Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, had shed “fake tears” over the ban. The Federalist, a right-leaning web magazine, published an article under the headline, “No, Trump’s Immigration Order Isn’t Racist or Reminiscent of the Holocaust.”

After Mr. Trump fired Sally Q. Yates, the acting attorney general, on Monday night for refusing to carry out his immigration order, Breitbart News went with the spirited headline, “You’re Fired: Trump Fires AG for ‘Betrayal.’” The conservative Daily Caller called Ms. Yates’s decision a “brazen act of defiance that cost her the post.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Breitbart readers may have been surprised to see the site covering protests — but the blaring headline would have quickly showed the organization’s focus. “Trump Supporter Knocked Unconscious at Portland Airport Protest,” the site wrote.