海角大神

This election season, the news-industry ideal of giving comparable attention to the major presidential candidates has utterly collapsed, and Donald Trump has been the undisputed beneficiary.

Twin forces are at play. The Manhattan billionaire has a clear knack for putting himself in the news through a provocative statement or tweet. But a second factor appears to be at least as important: News organizations, in an era of wrenching financial upheaval, are often following paths of least resistance in their quest for profits.

The tug-of-war between principles and profits in campaign coverage isn鈥檛 new for media outlets. But it鈥檚 in a new phase, say some experts on the news industry.

鈥淚n terms of fairness, they鈥檝e completely blown that concept up,鈥� says Kevin Smith, former president of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and current member of its ethics committee. 鈥淭he amount of coverage they give to Trump compared to any other candidate is astronomical.鈥�

The coverage isn鈥檛 all favorable, by any means. But in focusing attention on one candidate, the numbers are stunning: Last week, an analysis in The New York Times found that Trump had amassed nearly over the course of the campaign, even as his campaign spends less by far than most every other candidate.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, running second now to Trump in the race for the Republican nomination, received about $313 million worth of coverage, according data the Times cited from , in Portland, Ore. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, received $746 million, the Times reported, while her competitor, Sen. Bernie Sanders, received $321 million. And Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the other Republican left in the race, has only received about $38 million in 鈥渆arned media鈥� coverage over the past year, according to mediaQuant.

The 鈥渁ll Trump, all the time鈥� coverage of many if not most news outlets violates the basic principle of balance in political coverage, Mr. Smith says. 鈥淎 lot of things that have happened during this election campaign coverage [are] going to find their way into ethics textbooks for years to come.鈥�

Yes, there鈥檚 self-referential irony in yet another story about Trump, now questioning that very coverage. But over the past week, the media profession has been doing a bit of journalistic navel gazing, if not hand-wringing, over the outsize coverage of the real estate mogul鈥檚 outsize personality. These are the sort of 鈥渃leansing conversations鈥� Smith says should happen on a daily basis, particularly during an election season.

Is the public service role of American journalism 鈥� its long-understood duty to inform an electorate and thus foster democracy 鈥� merely quaint in an era of rollicking Twitter and Facebook feeds?

鈥淚t鈥檚 a well documented challenge that journalism scholars have been lamenting for over a decade,鈥� says Aram Sinnreich, professor of communication at American University in Washington. 鈥淒espite recognizing that they鈥檙e violating their public service mandate, news organizations 鈥� for large structural reasons that have economic, policy, and technological origins 鈥� have an even more immediate mandate to grow audiences and advertising dollars and make more money.鈥�

Political journalism鈥檚 principle of fairness, or giving leading candidates at least comparable coverage, has been altogether abandoned this cycle, he says.

鈥淪o there is indeed a crisis within journalism, in terms of its ability to perform its central task of reporting the news and maintaining an informed electorate,鈥� says Professor Sinnreich, also a fellow at the

In late February, CBS Chairman Les Moonves told an audience at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco that "Donald's place in this election is a good thing."

"It may not be good for America, but it's [darn] good for CBS," Mr. Moonves said, according to. "Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now?... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he continued. "I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."

The cable news network CNN has seen its聽ratings climb 170 percent, and during the debates with Trump, ad revenues were 40 times higher than an average night.

鈥淚n terms of fairness, 鈥渨e always talk about ethical breaches as if they are assaults from outside the profession inward,鈥� says Smith, who is also deputy director of at the Ohio State University in Columbus. 鈥淪o when we revised SPJ鈥檚 ethics code in 2014, one of the things we purposefully inserted, something that I wanted in there, was about being an independent journalist 鈥� denying favored treatment to special interests and advertisers.鈥�

Governor Kasich, also chasing Trump for the Republican nomination, said voters are only now beginning to get his platform. "Trump got, you know, $1.8 billion worth of free media. I got, like, none. OK?" Kasich told Chuck Todd on NBC鈥檚 "Meet the Press"

By contrast, no candidate has mastered the click-hungry media landscape of the digital age more than the brand-savvy reality star. Trump simply taps out something provocative in 140 characters, and it becomes widespread news 鈥� a as The New York Times put it, between the GOP front-runner and the news media. As media watchers continue to discuss, after the March 8 elections all of the cable news outlets covered Trump鈥檚 entire 45-minute news conference 鈥� which he used to highlight Trump Steaks and Trump Wine. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton鈥檚 victory speech was not covered.

Sinnreich says the problem has been around since the demise of the 鈥渇airness doctrine鈥� in the 1980s, when terrestrial airwaves, the domain of the public, gave way to cable lines, which are private property. 鈥淏roadcasters always hated the doctrine,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t limited their ability to make a profit, and they felt like it was limiting their editorial independence.

鈥淏ut Trump is a symptom of a new malaise afflicting journalism," he says: the rise of the 鈥渁ttention economy.鈥� 聽

鈥淪o anybody who wants to compete with Trump has to make this devil鈥檚 bargain of either trying to communicate something substantive, via a medium that is architecturally antithetical to substance, or to stoop to his level and try to became as much of soundbite-able branded commodity as he is,鈥� Sinnreich says.

And as this happens, Smith says, a 鈥渧icious cycle鈥� begins in which journalists mimic the larger profit-driven media culture instead of maintaining their long-held professional and ethical standards.

鈥淎nd what I believe is happening, journalists, instead of encouraging and trying to bring more people, non-journalists, into the ethical tent of the media, instead find a way to get out from under the tent,鈥� Smith says.

鈥淲e should [operate] with the understanding that we have standards,鈥� he says. 鈥淎nd they should be high standards.鈥�