Every day, we’re told attacks on journalists are attacks on democracy. That in attempting to undermine our democratic institutions, President Donald Trump is leaving it all on the field this time — no longer constrained by the guardrails the political establishment and the media imposed upon him in his first term. 

In many of these reported cases, he personally attacks journalists with impunity, bars reputable news organizations from actively participating in press conferences and targets corporate overseers of news outlets he views as oppositional with lawsuits they ultimately settle.

After a decade of “fake news” politics and the return of the president who once referred to the press as the “enemy of the people,” it comes as no surprise that the news industry is in crisis — one that will require a drastic adjustment from news producers to abate.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center showed an uptick in trust of information that comes from national news outlets since Trump’s return to office — driven not by Democrats, but by Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, just over half of whom say they now have “at least some trust in the information they get from national news organizations.” This seems heartening, especially in a time when the work of journalists is more crucial than ever.

But if the national news media is the bulwark against authoritarianism we are led to believe it is, then its trustworthiness ought not to sway with the political winds, no matter how unprecedented the times.

The role of a journalist is relatively simple: to be society’s storyteller — distributing information to citizens and enabling them to make more informed decisions, from electing presidents to purchasing movie tickets.

However, in their neutral and objective aspirations, journalists reporting on Trump’s second term have rendered ordinary citizens apathetic to the news subject they so diligently report on. They have pushed these consumers to look elsewhere for more energizing forms of information, such as social media platforms rife with misinformation and “independent” influencers who gain traction from a kind of populist brazenness toward the biases they bring to the table.

In the same Pew Research survey, 54% of respondents aged 18-29 reported having “a lot of/some trust” in the information they get from social media. Trust in national news organizations was only slightly higher, at 60%.

The truth of the matter is that the internet’s emphasis on individuality has persuaded many to view journalists not as scientific arbiters of information, but as human beings like themselves — naturally compromised people who cannot possibly be truly objective.  

To rectify the industry’s decline and the pervasive lack of trust along political lines, journalists — and, indeed, journalism school faculty guiding the next generation — must decide whether objectivity in name or independence in practice is the better way to fight those who seek to discredit the profession. 

By being transparent about their perspectives, journalists may compromise their “objectivity” as it is taught at Medill, but only through this practice can they reinforce the trust readers have in their functional independence from those they are writing about. 

For years, journalism students have been taught the facts come first. That, above all, the job of a journalist is not to inform the news, but to cover it. But considering the crisis of interest plaguing the news industry today, it is more important now to strike a balance between the facts of the case and the innate humanity of this critical moment in our shared history. 

Not all hope is lost. Across all groups polled, 80% expressed trust in local news. The public still retains faith in journalistic methods at the local level. But to regain it nationally, journalists must separate the objective facts of the story from the inherently subjective analysis of their context. 

Being excessively honest and transparent about bias is how the most prominent influencers of our time have steered our conversations. This strategy may be driven by a pursuit of clicks, but as is much of the world today.

I disagree that journalists should be activists. A journalist’s job, first and foremost, is to be an effective storyteller, uncompromising in language and tone. A journalist does not endorse a candidate or tell you who to vote for, they provide a snapshot of what society is grappling with and pursue the throughline that brings it all together. This is what makes a story, and what inspires righteous activists to emerge.

But as we march slowly toward a less democratic society, it has become apparent that the ways these stories are being told have become obsolete. Earning trust back may start with capturing attention. 

The news today is as shocking as it is significant. That much is objective. Coming up with ways to shock people with it may save the industry — one we know better than anyone else our republic needs to survive.

Aidan Klineman is a Medill sophomore. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.