Shielding audiences from the lies of Donald Trump and other difficult subjects is a betrayal of what journalism is for.
I have never believed that it is the role of journalists to tell people what to think. We are not the arbiters of truth. Our job is to help make sense of the world we live in, explain things fairly and accurately, and allow people to make up their own minds. This doesn’t mean presenting facts and opinions as having equal weight; where there is misinformation, we should highlight it, explain why something is untrue, and provide evidence to counter any false narrative. A free press plays a vital role in any functioning democracy.
So, when I learned that two of the largest US television news networks chose not to broadcast Donald Trump’s victory speech from the Iowa caucuses in full, I felt deeply uneasy. Historically, censorship has been more often the preserve of the right, and it is unsettling that others are now following that path. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow explained to viewers, “At this point of the evening, the projected winner of the Iowa caucuses has just started giving his victory speech,” but the network would not show the speech live. She stated that MSNBC believed in telling the truth, which justified their decision not to air it.
However, this decision raises troubling questions about the role of journalists in handling challenging subjects. By refusing to air Trump’s speech in its entirety, the network made a subjective decision based on the belief that broadcasting untrue statements would be irresponsible. While I understand the concern about false narratives, I fear that censoring such speeches could be seen as compromising the integrity of journalism itself.
Journalists should be prepared to face the challenges of presenting difficult or controversial subjects, even when those subjects come from figures like Trump. Rather than censoring them, news outlets should provide the context, fact-checking, and explanations needed to counter disinformation. Barring audiences from hearing something because it is deemed untruthful undermines the role of a free press, which should empower people to draw their conclusions based on all the information available to them.
Censorship, even in the name of truth, creates dangerous precedents. If news organizations choose to censor content because it conflicts with their views of truth, they risk sacrificing objectivity for ideological consistency. A free press is about allowing the public to see all sides, not about shielding them from uncomfortable or controversial speech.
As journalists, we have a responsibility to show people the full picture — even when that includes unfiltered and unverified statements. If we are serious about fostering a democracy that values truth and transparency, we must resist the temptation to censor or filter information, no matter how challenging it may be.
Ultimately, shielding audiences from the lies of Donald Trump and others is a betrayal of what journalism is meant to accomplish. Journalists are tasked with facilitating understanding, not hiding the inconvenient realities of the world.
