Telling the Truth in a Trump World

Twenty-two hours ago (at the time of this writing), President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted something that has been nagging at me as a journalist with 27 years of experience in both newsrooms and the freelance magazine landscape:

"If the press would cover me accurately & honorably, I would have far less reason to 'tweet.' Sadly, I don't know if that will ever happen!"

Initially, I freely admit, I took offense. My knee-jerk emotional response was, "You are the President-Elect, and critical press coverage is part of the package."

I covered politics for The Associated Press in the Pennsylvania Statehouse from 1995 to early 1999, during the governorship of Tom Ridge, who eventually became known in the aftermath of 9/11 for heading up the Department of Homeland Security. And I should first say this about politicians, and it is meant as a sincere compliment: They have really thick skins. I can remember chasing stories that would have raised the ire of the gentlest of souls, and yet every politician with whom I ever came in contact always treated me with grace and respect. You have to understand that my office was right in the center of the Capitol, too -- right at the top of the sweeping marble staircase of the Rotunda. I was *in* and *among* these politicians, hour by hour, day after day. I saw them at committee meetings, at lunch counters, in hallways, even in my office. Regardless of the political party, regardless of the story I was writing, they were always courteous. Of course the things that I wrote made them angry, when I was revealing something they didn't want revealed. But they never complained about my objectivity and never gave me pause to think that they held personal ill will against me for just doing my job.

Now let's speed up to Trump's tweet yesterday. Given everything I've just told you, you might understand why I would initially feel that he needs to man up and learn his new role as Commander in Chief and how the press corps figures into that relationship.

But as I contemplated it some more, the fairness that dictated my life during those days at the AP also must apply to Trump.

So to be fair to him, you have to look at the history of what has happened in the past 12 months leading up to that tweet:

First of all, Trump needs to not be so disingenuous by ignoring the fact that he was given unprecedented favorable coverage for his rallies during the months leading up to the primaries. Anytime I turned on any news station, they were rolling those rallies in their entirety. I have never seen anything like it. While networks cut away from other candidates mid-speech, Trump commanded the air waves night and day, and many of the rallies were broadcast without interruption.

I also would point out that there were many times when Trump's surrogates were allowed to spew falsehoods -- sometimes unchallenged by the broadcasters who had them on their shows. And one network -- CNN -- even hired Trump's former campaign manager. Tell me that isn't favorable coverage.

However, we saw the tide start to turn when the Access Hollywood tapes emerged. By this time, even those who had been favorable to Trump changed their coverage approach.

What we saw in the few short weeks between the release of that tape and Election Day was definitely an all-out assault on Trump. Every news outlet, with the exception of Fox News, threw everything they had AGAINST him.

Regarding print media, the only outlets I saw that consistently were negative in their coverage were The New York Times, The Washington Post and Newsweek.

I have to approach this topic with two personas: my journalist persona, and my "private American citizen" persona.

As a private American citizen, I was thrilled with the aggressiveness demonstrated by The New York Times, Washington Post and Newsweek. I follow their reporters on Twitter and heavily retweeted their stories, in the hopes that it would be enough to defeat Trump.

As a journalist, however, I have to admit to you that Trump is correct -- currently. In the beginning, he was treated as the golden boy, and now he is definitely being held up for as much public ridicule as the media can throw at him.

Now why should this matter to those of you in the profession? Just this thought: The overwhelming bias for Trump in the beginning of 2016 ... and the overwhelming bias AGAINST Trump at the end of 2016 has severely curtailed the trust the public now has in what you are reporting.

The problem now is ... even when Trump is engaging in terrible conflicts of interests, rocking the boat with China, appointing questionable mentally-balanced individuals to his Cabinet ... you as journalists have lost public trust to believe your stories, based on your performance in 2016.

And you may wonder, "Well where were YOU, Heidi Lynn Russell, in 2016, if you're such a great journalist?"

I was staying away from writing about politics. I knew I had zero objectivity to be able to cover anything fairly. So I stayed with my military stories and my business stories. As an American citizen, I was vocal against Trump. As a journalist, I didn't write one piece about anything he was doing on the campaign circuit. I didn't feel that with the training and experience I'd had, it was morally or ethically right for me to throw my hat into the ring on that front.

Going forward, I really don't know what the future of our profession will be. It seems that Trump is laying the groundwork to go after the First Amendment, and we already see disturbing actions and words concerning the press. However, to re-win the public's trust in your coverage, you're going to have to fairly cover ALL of Trump's actions -- both negative and positive. For example, I did see a couple of Cabinet appointments that aren't all bad. And despite that phone call with Taiwan, as a private citizen, I wondered if it wouldn't be so bad if China knew they couldn't push us around. But I didn't see any news coverage that looked at this angle -- rather, everything I saw bashed Trump. In every story we cover, there is always a nugget of the other side of the story, and in all of the coverage, I didn't see that "other side" reflected.

The bottom line here is that if you got into this profession to tell the truth, then tell the truth. Cover every single story as if you're an insect on the wall, observing it impassively. That's what we're paid to do. Let the public draw their own conclusions.

Your job is to solely present the facts.

And if you do that, then Trump will not ever be able to tweet again that you're not playing by the rules.

The Troubling Development in the Lewandowski-Fields Fiasco

I usually feel like I have lived two lifetimes. The first was that of a news reporter, chasing stories on deadline and crashing into whichever politician, law enforcement authority or shady business that got in my way. The second is my current life, that of a freelancer and single mom to a boy on the autistic spectrum. My current life is not at all like the former, as you can see. So when a story like the Corey Lewandowski-Michelle Fields fracas hits, I'm intensely curious about what happened, given that previously, I found myself rubbing elbows frequently with people like Lewandowski.

Until this morning, I was firmly in the Fields camp. And anyone who follows me on Twitter knows that I am hugely outspoken against Trump. (How can a "journalist" spout their personal views? That's a topic for another blog, but the short answer is that I no longer cover politics as a beat, therefore I am speaking out as a private citizen. But let's get back to this matter at hand -- the night in question.)

You can hit this link and read Lewandowski's words for yourself (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/corey-lewandowski-michelle-fields-222005), but in the meantime, let me shed some perspective:

When I was in Fields' shoes, I was about her age, covering politics for AP in the Pennsylvania statehouse. Before that, I also covered court trials for a tiny newspaper in a little-known town, Elkton, Maryland. I also covered local school districts for a mid-sized newspaper in York, Pennsylvania at another paper. In all three assignments, I dealt with characters who seemed to stop at nothing to prevent me from getting the information I needed for a story. And I was not at all shy about standing up for myself and demanding answers. There were several times when I got into shouting matches with these people, and as unprofessional as it sounds, for me, it was effective. That's because, like Fields, I looked on the outside like a female who could be pushed around. However, I used this to my advantage. I allowed people to think that I was unobtrusive and easily cowed. When they put a toe over the line, I'd drop the hammer. And they never forgot it, either -- and I always got my story.

Now here's the thing about the Lewandowski interview that bugs me:

He claims that he called Fields that night to discuss the matter AND that he has cell phone records to prove that he placed that call.

We already know that he lied about grabbing her. That much has been established with the video tape and the photos of the bruises on her arms, and I am not excusing that at all. And because he lied, we might say that he is probably lying about calling her.

But.

He has cell phone records that he placed the call.

Now this is why this is important:

Even though I had no problems going head to head with someone who tried to run roughshod over me like Lewandowski did Fields, I can ALSO tell you that in each and every case, the person ALWAYS called me to apologize.

This is why I believe Lewandowski, because this happened with me as a reporter countless times.

Maybe Fields didn't get the call. Maybe she was in the bathroom taking the photos of her arm when her cell phone chimed, and she was too upset to talk. Maybe she wanted to run the situation by her editors before talking to Lewandowski, because they of course would have to collaborate about an approach to a subsequent story.

But even if that was the case, when someone calls you, you know they've called. As a reporter who is covering a news event, it's incumbent on you to pick up the phone, even if you don't want to talk to them, and have it out.

And you know what?

If they apologize, you accept their apology, and you move forward.

In each and every case when someone apologized to me, I said, "Thank you. I accept your apology." And then even if I felt like they were 100 percent in the wrong, I still always added, "You know, few people realize I have an Irish temper and am a hot head. So I'm sorry for my part in this."

I'm not saying Fields would have had to apologize for anything, because truthfully, she didn't do anything wrong here. She was a reporter out to get a quote, and she was probably on deadline, and any reporter worth their salt is going to chase down the source and get that needed quote. Absolutely, I would have done what she did, and I did on countless occasions.

However, if Lewandowski called her afterwards, that was her opportunity to say, "Dude, do you realize how hard you grabbed me? I lost my balance. I have bruises on my arm! I just needed a quote, and this is why I went after your candidate."

That would have opened up the opportunity for her to then forge a valuable source relationship with Lewandowski, because at that point, he is beholden to her. She's in the driver's seat going forward.

And yes, I can say this definitively, because this happened to me personally. I always established a positive relationship going forward, and if they tried to block me from getting information, I always found a way around them. I always chased the story as if it were a game to me. The "Lewandowskis" were just pawns standing in front of the queen on the chess board.

We don't know what Lewandowski's motives were that night, and of course, everything out of his mouth is highly suspect going forward. We're not in his head.

But if he has cell phone records, proving that he made that call, it was incumbent on Fields at that point to accept the call, accept the apology, discuss things like a grownup, pursue an exclusive interview with Donald Trump (that's how I handled similar situations, and I always got those interviews) ... and let this guy know going forward that she was not to be treated like a Barbie doll.

That's it.

If you find yourself in a situation like Fields, first fight for that story. That's your job, and she did so valiantly. But if the person comes back later to apologize, you stand to lose everything if you refuse to pick up the phone -- and you stand to gain a lot personally, professionally and ethically by talking to the person who wronged you.

And in the process, you will earn their respect, whether they admit it or not.