Where are the Page 1 editorials against Trump?

Major newspapers should run front-page editorials declaring clearly that a vote for Trump is a vote to end democracy.

Donald Trump is a fascist who wants to be a dictator.

How do we know this? Because he tells us so, over and over.

America’s major news organizations are beginning to say it too, belatedly. The nation’s two most influential newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post, are writing stories about how he plans to weaponize the Justice Department to punish his political enemies, how he plans to put millions of immigrants in camps, and how he may order the military to shut down public protests if he takes office in January 2025.

But these news outlets sometimes sugar-coat Trump’s poison. A recent New York Times headline, for example, referred to Trump’s “authoritarian leanings.” Really? Leanings? If he “leaned” any more, he’d be lying down.

It’s past time for major news organizations to take a bold stand against Trumpian fascism before their soft-pedaling of the threat puts the public in further danger and causes the news outlets themselves to keep losing credibility.

Here’s one clear way to take that stand: Major newspapers should run front-page editorials declaring clearly that a vote for Trump is a vote to end democracy.

There’s a long history of major media running front-page editorials, sometimes for important reasons, such as announcing their presidential endorsements or taking a courageous stand on a local issue. For example, the Arkansas Gazette lost subscription dollars but won a Pulitzer Prize for Page 1 editorials defending Black students’ right to attend Little Rock Central High School in 1957.

Other front-page editorials have been frivolous over the years. The Pine Bluff (Ark.) Commercial announced in a Page 1 editorial in the early days of the Depression that it was banning the terms “financial depression” and “hard times” from its pages. In 1973, the Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader took up Page 1 space to disavow its sponsorship of Miss New Hampshire after she came out in favor of rights for women and gay people.

In contemporary times, front-page editorials have seemed somewhat unfashionable, perhaps because they run up against the myth of objectivity that many mainstream journalists foster. Plus, fewer people are reading print newspapers, so it doesn’t matter as much what’s on the front page. But the decision to run a front-page editorial should be accompanied by a decision to put that story at the top of the news outlet’s homepage. The point is to make a loud statement about its values.

The New York Times recognized the potential impact when it ran a front-page editorial in 2015 calling for action on gun violence. And earlier this year, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a Page 1 editorial to demand action after its investigation exposed safety hazards in apartment buildings.

In the first few years of Trump’s ascendance, there were some Page 1 editorials that attempted to confront him. The Detroit Free Press published a front-page editorial in 2015 denouncing Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.

In 2018, the Boston Globe became so alarmed by Trump’s attacks on the press that it called on newspapers nationwide to write editorials on the same day to push back. More than 400 did, mostly inside the paper. But the Philadelphia Inquirer put its editorial on Page 1. The instigator of the campaign, the Boston Globe, ran its own editorial inside, but featured a prominent promotion of it on the front page. The New York Times participated in the project; the Washington Post did not. Some journalists thought the coordinated campaign fed into Trump’s claims of a media plot against him.

But there was another perception problem: It looked like the press defending itself rather than defending the American people. When news outlets take a stand against Trump, they need to leave no doubt that they see it as a public service.

That’s why the New York Times, the Washington Post and other major papers should make Page 1 statements declaring that they support democracy and that Donald Trump does not.

Of course, such a pro-democracy campaign in the news industry should go beyond newspapers. In the past, when television personalities have engaged in audacious truth-telling, they’ve made a major impact on national events.

In 1954, CBS’ Edward R. Murrow confronted the fraud of McCarthyism. He didn’t “both sides” it. In 1968, CBS’ Walter Cronkite took a reporting trip to Vietnam and then told Americans they were failing to win the war there. Both reports are cited as turning points in public perceptions of major events in American history.

News networks must do more to warn their viewers about what’s at stake in the 2024 election. On MSNBC, anchors and guests regularly talk about the prospect of authoritarianism. But rival news shops are more cautious. It’s time for a news anchor to stop the scheduled programming, motion for the camera to approach for a close-up, and tell the audience directly that Trump wants to overthrow democracy and must be stopped.

Lester Holt, are you listening? Jake Tapper?

And New York Times and Washington Post, are you listening? Are you ready to devote a little space on your front page to help save the country?