The ongoing government shutdown presents a significant challenge for the media: how to cover a recurring political crisis without normalizing it. As the Senate went through the now-familiar ritual of rejecting funding bills on Wednesday, news outlets struggled with the task of conveying the severity of the situation while avoiding the sense that this is just business as usual in Washington.
There is a danger that constant coverage of shutdowns can desensitize the public. If every funding deadline is treated as a five-alarm fire, the audience can develop “crisis fatigue.” The media must find ways to explain the real-world consequences—the airport delays, the missed paychecks—to keep the story grounded and urgent.
Another challenge is avoiding “both-sidesism,” the journalistic practice of giving equal weight to both parties’ arguments, which can sometimes create a false equivalence. The media must accurately report on the specific demands and tactics of each party—the Democrats’ linkage to the ACA, the Republicans’ refusal to negotiate—so that the public can make an informed judgment about who is responsible for the stalemate.
The use of inflammatory rhetoric, like Speaker Johnson’s “communist” remark, also poses a dilemma. Reporting on such comments is necessary, but it risks amplifying extreme and unsubstantiated claims. The media must provide context and fact-checking without allowing the debate to be dragged to the lowest common denominator.
In a deeply polarized nation, the media’s role as a source of shared facts is more important than ever. Covering the shutdown requires a delicate balance of urgency, context, and factual rigor to ensure that this profound political failure is not treated as just another day at the office.