Historical story

Is Trump going after Putin with the media?

Sara Haverkamp wins the KNAW Education Prize for her profile paper on the media under Putin and Trump. A strong and very extensive piece of work that shows how journalism is increasingly getting into trouble, also in the United States.

Trump won the American election in 2016 and the Russian media played a role in this. What had happened here? What was the influence of the media? This recent event was a source of inspiration for Sara Haverkamp for her Culture &Society profile paper 'Making or breaking the news? The Influence of Putin and Trump on Journalism. With this piece of work she is awarded with the annual Education Prize of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW).

Murdered journalists

For her paper, Sara has combined her interest in media and journalism with a highly topical political subject. She looked at Russia under Putin and the United States under Trump. How do these presidents deal with the media? Has the media landscape in both countries changed in recent years? And last-but-not-least:can journalists do their work undisturbed? Sara compared the various journalistic functions and to what extent they could perform them in both countries:providing information to the population, entering into debate with politicians or about political topics, and acting as a watchdog. She then painted a clear picture of the situation.

The last question, for example, is a no-brainer as far as Russian journalists are concerned. Russian state television has come into the hands of the Kremlin and other media are also under Putin's control or owned by his wealthy friends. They have cut back considerably on news editors, censor journalists or journalists engage in self-censorship for fear of self-censorship. Threats to journalists are the order of the day and even murder is not shunned. The information comes from the state and is therefore not reliable and the opinion is precipitated. Foreign journalists, on the other hand, are left more alone:​​their criticism fits nicely with the Kremlin talk that the West is trying to blacken Russia, according to Marc Bennetts. This English reporter works in Moscow and is one of the journalists interviewed by Sara.

State propaganda is rampant in this media-free Russia. Despite the Russians knowing this, the majority still trust Putin and state television. In the United States, on the other hand, trust in television is not so great, as the majority of channels are owned by commercial parties. They only show what is in their interest, or that of their advertisers. However, renowned newspapers and news channels are still highly regarded, as is investigative journalism.

Discussion Debate

Featured by the editors

MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!

AstronomySun, sea and science

BiologyExpedition to melting land

What Sara clearly demonstrates in her research is not so much these well-known differences, but rather the similarities between the two countries, which in certain areas are increasing with Trump at the helm. Because although he cannot use Putin's display of power and violence against journalists, the American president is indeed tinkering with the journalistic functions through his dealings with the media.

By reducing the number of press conferences, Trump speaks to journalists a lot less than his predecessors. To get their information, journalists rely on the press officers of the White House. However, these information officers primarily serve the president and are not always reliable, just like in Russia. President Trump himself not only debates less with the media, he also mainly proclaims his own truth via Twitter. Journalists can do little more than check and respond to his tweets, which only extends Trump's reach.

Sara clearly shows that in this situation control is no longer with the media, but with Trump. The comparison with Putin is strong here. Both leaders want nothing more than direct contact with their voters and manipulate them with the help of media. A strong weapon in this is framing:you can influence the interpretation of readers with your choice of words. The word 'kopvoddentax' by Geert Wilders is a good example of this.

Fake news

Trump constantly claims that the media is spreading fake news about him, his family and his policies. He only has something positive to say about the conservative news channel Fox News. For her profile paper, Sara analyzed Trump's tweets about the media during the first 100 days of his presidency. In the extensive appendices (C and D) it can be read that 85 percent of his claims, which have been checked, appear to be incorrect.

The disturbing fact, however, is that the constant discrediting of the news media has left something lingering on Americans. If you hear or see the same thing often enough, you will automatically believe it. There is therefore a danger that the American news media will lose credibility. Given the facts the Sara shows, that is not unjustified. Budget cuts are also taking place in American newsrooms, while checking the 'facts' presented to them by the president and his information officers is a lot of work.

Trump's handling of the media appears to have a major influence on the news and the parallels with Russia are visible. Separating fact from fiction is becoming an increasingly difficult task for American journalists, and Americans have less and less of the trademark American watchdog, which has exposed many political scandals in the past:it is also being cut. A disturbing message.

Original

The impressive profile paper is an extensive 140-page book, including sources and appendices with analyzes of tweets and interviews with journalists from Russia and the United States. It looks more like a master's thesis than a profile paper, and that doesn't just apply to the size. The topical subject has been expertly researched and the research clearly described.

The jury of the KNAW Education Prize has the same opinion in its report:“With her profile paper, Sara has unequivocally proven to have an academic mindset. Her original input and thorough analysis have resulted in a 'top product'. The judges unanimously felt 'caught by the quality' of it.”