The answer to what makes President Trump’s relationship with the press uniquely dangerous to American society and the public specifically can be characterized into four specific categories: a history of encouraging violence, current technologies expanding communication capabilities, the unique diction and tone Trump employs as a part of his personality, and his overall impact on the continued political polarization the United States has been suffering from in the past twenty-five years. By analyzing these three aspects of the Trump presidency, and how they relate to and build upon Trump’s relationship with the press, we can draw larger conclusions about why Trump’s relationship with the press is more dangerous than usual.

             The most obvious factor making President Trump more dangerous to the press is his pattern of inciting physical violence against his opposers. After congressional candidate Greg Gianforte assaulted a reporter by body-slamming him into the ground for asking him a question about healthcare, he still managed to win his senate race the following day (Lach, 2018). Trump had endorsed him earlier in the race, then double-downed on his support, saying “Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of guy” (Lach, 2018). This type of behavior is Trump finding a way to normalize very inappropriate abnormal behavior. It reflects his personal attitude and despise of the press, as he takes satisfaction in the physical assault of a reporter. What makes this so dangerous is how Trump spoke about the topic and the subsequent reaction of Trump supporters at his rally. He said “Well, wait a minute. I know Montana pretty well. I think it might help him. And it did” (Lach, 2018). This is President Trump analyzing his followers attitude towards the press and encouraging it further. Trump is constantly pushing the line of acceptable behavior and supporting physical violence against the press is the greatest form of intimidation yet. This attitude about violence against reporters aligns with his encouragement of violence against protestors at rallies, building the case that President Trump looks to incite violence against opposers (Keneally, 2018).

            Another factor which makes President Trump uniquely dangerous is the technologies available to him compared to past presidents. Trump has been attached to his twitter account since his campaign began and his use of the app has really revolutionized the way the President communicates with the American people, even more so than Roosevelt’s fireside radio chats. However, it’s this change in communication method that is also most responsible for making Trump’s negative relationship with the press more dangerous than Presidents past. Trump has direct access to technically every American with a twitter account, circumventing the press entirely. On paper Trump doesn’t have to hold a single press conference, and could instead just tweet out any message he wants to spread. This is practically what he has done, holding a record low, single press conference, through his first year in office (Bernstein, 2018). Yes, this is markedly lower than his 2568 tweets sent out across the same time span (Tognotti, 2018). By limiting and avoiding direct contact with the press, and instead setting a precedent that twitter will be his main communication tool, Trump naturally limits their ability to do their job to the highest quality, and fulfill their role as the public’s watchdog.

            Another reason why Trump’s excessive use of twitter makes his negative relationship with the press especially dangerous is because of his control of the narrative. The press is still able to report their view of the situation, exposing the truth to the best of their ability, but to millions of Trump’s loyal followers, all that matters and all they see is what Trump writes on twitter. Twitter is becoming more Americans’ news source, and if it is incorrectly used as the only news source, Trump has unparalleled control of the narrative (Shearer, 2017). This is dangerous because historically, a somewhat positive consequence of a poor president-press relationship was exposure to a variety of information from both sides, offering different opinions; today Americans have greater control over what information they choose to expose themselves too, following certain websites and people and blocking out others. Finally, the danger of these technologies combined with a hostile relationship between the president and the press sprouts from the lack of accountability demanded. When President Trump is asked a question by a reporter, he is vulnerable to immediate criticism or correction if he were to lie. On twitter, President Trump can lie all he wants, doing so an astonishing 6420 times through his first 649 days in office (Kessler, 2018). That’s 9.9 times a day. Since presidents of the past did not have access to this tool, they couldn’t dream of spreading this many lies and avoiding direct, immediate criticism for them. This is what separates Trump, he despises the press and can actually avoid them, making it harder for them to hold him accountable by simply avoiding direct confrontation.

            Throughout this historical dive into history there has been an acknowledged difference between President Trump’s eloquence in the way he speaks and writes and Presidents of the past. A large part of a president’s job is how he conveys his message, whether that be to his administration, the American public, or to the press. That message is constructed through the words he chooses, the tone he sets, and the way he talks. President Trump is unique in his rhetoric. He sticks to a small vocabulary, consistently makes grammatical errors in late night (or early morning) tweets, and relies on the same elementary adjectives to convey his attitude about something—”great,” “incredible,” “amazing,” “crooked,” “best”...”fake” (Leith, 2017). His speech patterns helped him connect with a wide base during the campaign as they connected with his inclination to tell it as he saw it. In his supporters’ eyes he refused to play politics. Perhaps, the largest distinction between his presentation and his predecessors is in his inability to shift tones based on the situation (Leith, 2017). The ability to speak poetically about an issue, building up a moment, and then shifting to a sensible joke about yourself. The ability to poke at an enemy without appearing in all-out attack. These are so commonly practiced routines that they’re what the word “presidential” has become associated with. It’s an expectation, and that’s why it’s blatantly noticeable when the President says something you haven’t heard a President say or speaks in a tone that you haven’t heard a President speak in. This unique diction is especially dangerous for the press for a few reasons. First, it makes Trump difficult to argue with, or ask a critical, direct question like Acosta. He’ll dodge the question, getting back to his routine explanations for each issue, then resort to personal attacks on reporters. This connects to the other reason his diction is dangerous to the press—it can intimidate. In a press pool days after the Acosta incident, Trump responded to one reporter’s question about Robert Mueller  with “What a stupid question that is” before repeating himself again, then saying “You ask a lot of stupid questions” to the reporter (Bowden, 2018). These personal jabs add up, and combined with the lower level rhetoric combine to create the image of a school yard bully. A bully with that much power gets what he wants.

            The overarching effect of the meteor which Trump has become in the political sphere is his impact on political polarization. No president in the modern era has had as large as a discrepancy between partisan approval ratings as President Trump, garnering approval from 84% of Republicans and just 7% of Democrats on average across his term thus far (Tyson, 2018). How does being a divisive figure make his relationship with the press more dangerous than usual? Well, in a perfect world, the average American would receive her news from a multitude of sources, some more right-leaning, others more left-leaning. This would help offset any negative effects from a President trying to restrict freedom of the press or intimidate reporters and similarly, combat any negative effects from a news organization writing unfairly about a President. Through a healthy, diverse basket of information they could then draw conclusions about what they believe. As a divisive figure there isn’t much room for this healthy basket of information. Any form of criticism, or even any form of disagreement paints you as an enemy in the President’s eyes. There’s “good guys” and “bad guys” for Trump and they, for the most part, follow partisan lines. The news for the most part has their fingers pointed at Trump calling out “liar,” and Trump is pointing right back saying the same. There isn’t room for compromise or clarification anymore in a relentless never-ending race to maintain control over the narrative, and that attitude has clearly extended itself to conservatives and liberals struggling to find common ground.