Some US media appease Trump at NATO
Headlines credit Trump for wrong reasons
Major U.S. media fell in lock step behind the president at NATO this week, writing stories that praised Trump and called it a “win” for forcing European countries to agree to spend more on defense.
The headlines were definitive, unlike the more nuanced stories:
In a Win for Trump, NATO Agrees to a Big Increase in Military Spending (NY Times)
Trump gets a big win on NATO — but key questions over the alliance remain (CNN)
Trump touts NATO agreement on defense spending as ‘big win’ (ABC News)
NATO clinches defense spending deal in big win for Trump (Politico.eu)
The CNN story ignores Russian aggression as a factor, but the Times and Politico stories give equal credit to Trump and Russia in the ledes but leave Putin out of the headline.
With far too many readers not getting past the headlines, the editors who write them need to be precise to avoid people coming away with incorrect or incomplete information. Readers of these headlines will get the impression that all the credit goes to Trump, when that is clearly not the case.
In the five months since Trump took office, European media has been full of stories and analyses about NATO countries increasing their military budgets. The two main reasons discussed have been Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, along with the potential for further aggression, and heightened anxiety about being abandoned by America as Trump cozies up to Putin and treats allies as enemies.
The headlines make it sound like the NATO leaders agreed to spend more primarily because Trump came to town and made a demand. That’s what Trump wants people to believe, and the heads on these stories only played to that narrative instead of reflecting what their own stories reported. Just like he wants people to believe that he “solved” overnight Israel’s preemptive war on Iran.
If Trump gets some credit, it’s due more to his disengagement from historical allies that is convincing NATO leaders’ they can no longer count on America to support them if attacked by Russia.
Media and think tanks in Europe have a very different take than those in the U.S. on why NATO countries are now willing to spend more:
European defence spending: three technical reasons for political cooperation (The Conversation, March 19)
NATO allies agree to hike defence spending, reaffirm collective defence (France24, June 25)
Unprecedented rise in global military expenditure as European and Middle East spending surges (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 28)
Nato members willingly increasing defence spending amid rising threat from Russia, says Rutte (Guardian, June 24)
Change in Nato mindset brought on by Vladimir Putin as much as Donald Trump (Guardian, June 25)
The first three don’t even mention Trump and the third highlighted more the Europeans’ fear of Trump’s unpredictability and Putin devotion than it did his demands of NATO. The last three are about, at least in part, how defense spending has already been rising in Europe.
The “big win” out of NATO is NATO. They pampered the president just enough to get him to keep the U.S. in NATO and supporting the alliance.