Profit and Propaganda: How Corporate Media Normalized Trump’s Authoritarianism
The election of Donald Trump in 2016 was not simply the culmination of voter discontent or ideological polarization. It was a reflection of an American media machine more obsessed with spectacle than substance, more interested in clicks than context. From the moment Trump entered the race, the press failed to treat him as a threat to democracy; instead, he was treated as entertainment. But the media’s complicity didn’t end in 2016. It metastasized across Trump's presidency, through his failed coup attempt, and into his continued political resurrection. Today, the same institutions that claim to safeguard democracy continue to give voice and airtime to a man who has repeatedly tried to undermine it.
Ultimately, these failures are not incidental. They are structural. The media is not some impartial fourth estate standing outside the fray of politics and economics. It is a profit-driven industry embedded within the very capitalist framework it is often tasked with scrutinizing. Its primary stakeholders are not the public, but shareholders. As such, the media’s role in Trump’s rise is not a deviation from its function; it is a fulfillment of it.
A Faustian Bargain: Ratings Over Responsibility
From day one, Donald Trump was a boon to ratings. Networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News recognized early on that Trump’s outlandish statements and theatrical campaign style drew massive audiences. A 2016 study from The New York Times estimated that Trump received nearly $2 billion in earned media coverage during the primaries alone, far surpassing his competitors (Confessore & Yourish, 2016). Outlets gave him extended, uncritical airtime, often broadcasting his rallies live and unfiltered, as though he were a headliner at a Vegas revue rather than a candidate for the highest office in the land.
This media saturation was not accidental. Executives openly acknowledged the profit motive behind Trump’s coverage. CBS's then-CEO Les Moonves infamously quipped that Trump "may not be good for America, but he's damn good for CBS" (Folkenflik, 2016). The media wasn't covering Trump in spite of his divisiveness; they were covering him because of it. His provocations became a drug, and the media, desperate for eyeballs in a fractured attention economy, became addicted.
Trump was perfect for the capitalist media machine. He was cheap to cover, required no investigative journalism, and generated enormous returns. In a media economy where financial survival depends on engagement metrics and ad revenue, truth becomes negotiable. Conflict sells. Outrage sells. Trump sold.
The False Equivalence Trap
The media’s commitment to balance, even when balance was inappropriate, further distorted the public’s understanding of Trump. In an effort to appear unbiased, journalists consistently compared Trump's rhetoric and actions with routine political missteps by others, creating a grotesque equivalency. Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, though investigated and found lacking criminal conduct, received relentless scrutiny. Meanwhile, Trump’s explicit racism, xenophobia, and repeated falsehoods were couched in euphemisms like "controversial" or "unconventional."
Instead of calling out lies as lies, the media resorted to timid language: "Trump makes claim without evidence" became the standard formulation, as if his statements merely lacked sourcing rather than being outright fabrications (Sullivan, 2016). This linguistic cowardice allowed Trump to dictate the narrative, shape public perception, and deflect accountability. False equivalency gave his candidacy legitimacy; it made the absurd appear serious and the dangerous appear debatable.
And yet again, this tendency reflects the demands of the market. False equivalency creates the illusion of fairness, which attracts a broader audience. In a capitalist media system, truth must compete with popularity. The goal is not clarity, but commercial viability.
Normalizing the Abnormal
Even more damning was the media's role in normalizing Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. His denigration of the press as the "enemy of the people," his flirtations with white nationalism, and his open admiration for autocrats were treated not as existential red flags, but as flavor for the 24-hour news cycle. Pundits framed his threats to imprison political opponents as jokes, his incitement of violence as hyperbole, and his disregard for democratic norms as savvy political theater (Graham, 2018).
This normalization extended into editorial decisions. News outlets gave platforms to Trump surrogates who spread disinformation, treating them as legitimate counterweights rather than as propagandists. Major newspapers like The New York Times often published op-eds by administration officials without sufficient fact-checking or context, further blurring the line between truth and spin. The result was a media ecosystem in which lies could flourish unchecked, and where the outrageous lost its power to shock.
Again, normalization was not a journalistic failure alone; it was a market calculation. Outrage and normalization can coexist, provided they both keep viewers watching. The absurdity of Trump made people tune in. The normalization ensured they wouldn’t turn away.
Post-Election Malpractice: The Big Lie and Beyond
The media had an opportunity to course-correct after the 2020 election. Trump lost decisively, both in the Electoral College and the popular vote. But instead of cutting him off, many outlets continued to indulge his baseless claims of a stolen election. They covered his press conferences, aired Rudy Giuliani's unhinged legal briefs, and treated the "Stop the Steal" movement as a political controversy rather than what it was: an attempted coup (Bump, 2021).
Even after the deadly January 6th insurrection, the media failed to draw a clear line. Rather than isolate Trump as an anti-democratic figure, he was reabsorbed into the mainstream news cycle. His social media ban temporarily quieted his voice, but coverage of Trump never really ceased. Journalists breathlessly analyzed his every post on Truth Social, every ambiguous public appearance, every statement from Mar-a-Lago, treating each as worthy of national focus.
Worse still, major outlets reverted to old habits as Trump re-entered the 2024 race. His incoherent rants, recycled talking points, and increasingly delusional worldview were again given airtime under the guise of political coverage. Networks once more aired his rallies, dissected his slogans, and speculated about his electability. In doing so, they signaled that the lessons of 2016 and 2020 had been ignored, or worse, that the media simply didn’t care.
Because ultimately, they couldn’t care. The system incentivizes attention, not integrity. In the capitalist logic of media conglomerates, even insurrectionist rhetoric becomes another content vertical.
The Spectacle of Madness: Covering the Deranged as if it Were Debate
Today, Trump often veers into what can only be described as schizophrenic rambling: wild assertions about windmills causing cancer, immigrants "poisoning the blood" of the nation, or bizarre threats to start civil wars. These are not policy proposals or even political statements. They are dangerous delusions. And yet, news channels and online outlets continue to plaster them across screens, dissecting their implications as if they deserve to be taken seriously (Beckett, 2025).
This is not journalism. It is infotainment. The endless coverage validates the idea that Trump remains a legitimate political force rather than a seditious has-been. It tells the public that his views, no matter how incoherent or bigoted, are still within the bounds of acceptable discourse. And it drowns out serious policy discussions and democratic engagement in favor of outrage and fear.
In the attention economy, madness is marketable. The more bizarre Trump becomes, the more profitable his coverage. And so, the media turns mental instability into must-see TV.
Capitulation by Design: Media Silencing Its Own Critics
Most alarming is the media's recent willingness to silence or sideline its own critical voices in response to Trump's political and legal pressures. Trump has increasingly targeted legacy news outlets like CBS, NBC, and even individual journalists, accusing them of bias and threatening retaliation. And disturbingly, it is working. Instead of standing firm, these networks have begun to cave.
CBS, once among the more critical mainstream outlets, not only has recently settled an egregious lawsuit brought on by Trump but has reportedly pressured or dismissed several nonpartisan analysts and veteran reporters following Trump’s accusations of media bias. In their place, more "palatable" voices have been elevated; those willing to frame Trump’s actions in softer terms or provide false balance in the name of access (The Guardian, 2025). This capitulation amounts to self-censorship. It signals to other media organizations that standing up to authoritarian rhetoric is not only risky but punishable by removal or silence.
This internal purging of dissenting voices hollows out the Fourth Estate from within. It ensures that future coverage of Trump, and candidates like him, will be even more deferential, more sanitized, and more concerned with optics than truth. The press is not merely enabling Trump; it is reorganizing itself to accommodate him.
An Industry Addicted to the Arsonist
The American media helped build Trump, amplified him, normalized him, and continues to replatform him. What began as a ratings-driven spectacle became a dereliction of civic duty. The press, tasked with informing the public and holding power to account, instead enabled a demagogue and now helps keep his fire burning.
But this cannot be understood solely as a series of bad editorial decisions. It must be understood as a consequence of capitalism itself. The media is a business. Its product is attention. Its currency is outrage. And its loyalties lie not with truth, but with quarterly earnings.
If journalism is to be more than performance, it must reckon with its own role in the erosion of democratic norms. That means no longer pretending that Trump is just another politician, no longer giving his lies uncritical airtime, and no longer covering absurdity for its entertainment value. The next authoritarian won’t be as loud or obvious. And if the media doesn’t learn to prioritize truth over traffic, they’ll help crown the next one, too.
References:
Beckett, L. (2025). Trump is waging war against the media—and winning. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jul/05/trump-attack-us-media
Bump, P. (2021). How Trump’s election-fraud falsehoods became the GOP’s gospel. The Washington Post.
Confessore, N., & Yourish, K. (2016). $2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump. The New York Times.
Folkenflik, D. (2016). CBS's Moonves On Trump: 'It May Not Be Good For America, But It's Damn Good For CBS'. NPR.
Graham, D. A. (2018). What Normalizing Trump Means. The Atlantic.
Sullivan, M. (2016). How the media helped Donald Trump win. The Washington Post.
The Guardian. (2025). Yes, the media's Biden coverage was flawed. But its reporting on Trump was far worse. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/17/trump-biden-election-media-coverage