Sabrina Siddiqui is a reporter for The Guardian US, where she covers national politics and the Trump administration. During the 2016 election, Siddiqui covered the Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton campaigns. Previously, Siddiqui was a congressional reporter for The Huffington Post and worked on the White House desk at Bloomberg News. Siddiqui is a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and frequently appears as a political analyst on MSNBC and CNN.
BPR: How does the Trump administration treat the press differently than prior administrations did?
SS: All administrations are difficult to cover in terms of access. They’re very guarded, and there’s not a great deal of transparency. However, this administration is unlike any other because they have a very adversarial view of the press and the First Amendment. They’ve gone on the record no shortage of times declaring war on the media, and the President called the media the “enemy of the state.” Ultimately, the White House will still have the daily briefings and the media can still ask questions, and sometimes the administration will respond to your emails if you’re looking for a statement. But there’s a complete lack of the professional rapport that you had with other administrations— a lack of respect. There is also an effort to discredit the media. In any administration, there is an effort to spin the news in the administration’s favor, and smart administrations have done this very well. But it’s different to portray the media as an enemy that cannot be trusted in order to craft this universe where you and your supporters can operate. It’s not dissimilar to what you see under a lot of dictatorships or authoritarian states.
BPR: How can reporters remain unbiased towards the administration after the President’s public displays of animosity, like calling the press the “enemy of the American people”?
SS: I think that there is an important role that the media has to play with respect to maintaining credibility. There’s a lot of disdain towards the attacks that are made against the media, as there should be. However, I think sometimes this reaction is disproportionate to the response when disenfranchised, underrepresented groups are attacked in similar, if not far worse, ways. I wonder if we can be as outraged when there is an attack on immigrants, women, or on African Americans after Charlottesville, as we are when there’s an attack on us. Otherwise, it seems like we’re only getting really worked up when it’s personal.
BPR: Do you think that the media benefits from the chaotic atmosphere of the White House?
SS: I think the quote which best summed that up was made by an executive at CBS during the campaign: “Donald Trump is bad for America but good for ratings.” Now that Trump is President, we’re operating with this baseline that anything he says or does is news. Wall-to-wall coverage of Trump can overshadow what the administration is doing behind the scenes. In some ways, this reporting is important and revealing—it tells you how dysfunctional things are, and it tells you about the President’s temperament and personality. But this type of news is the easier target, and that means there is less coverage driven by policy nuances.
BPR: How do you remain unbiased and impartial given the president’s and his administration’s attacks on minority groups?
SS: For myself, as a Muslim American and someone who was born to immigrant parents, this was a very difficult election to cover. But if you read my stories, I’m not going to cover the travel ban as anything but a news reporter. I think one thing journalists can do is contextualize where it is appropriate. If I’m going on TV to analyze a policy, I can say for the public’s information how it would affect families like mine. I think people really need to know who is being affected by someone’s rhetoric or policy changes. People can’t be walking on eggshells because these topics make us uncomfortable. It’s our job to be open, honest, and frank with the public.