Members of the media gather outside Manhattan Criminal Court, Tuesday, April 16, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

The first week of the Trump election interference case in New York revealed nothing new about the former president. He behaved in the same thuggish manner we’ve seen display now for over nine years.

Are any of us surprised that he’s threatening jurors in and out of the courtroom? Or sitting with eyes closed and slack jawed at the defense table? Or lying about what actually happened in the courtroom during his end-of-the-day ramblings? Of course not. That behavior is exactly on brand for the former president, who is now officially the first president of the United States to stand trial on criminal felony charges.

Nor did the first week of trial coverage reveal anything new about the media. The many struggles the media has covering Trump are well documented and are evident yet again with this unprecedented trial. There is no live video or audio of the trial, so news organizations are leaning into live blogging about the courtroom proceedings. While that real-time reporting is important, it’s too often lacking the depth and analysis this historic trial requires.

Are we really surprised that many news outlets underplayed the biggest story of the week? No story was bigger than the way Trump and his media propaganda partners harassed and intimidated jurors. It got so bad that one juror begged off the case because she was too frightened to serve.

This is mob trial stuff, but I question whether the news coverage met the moment. I mean, they’ve actually got experience covering mob trials and have told this story before in other contexts. The Trump intimidation effort is just as serious and deserves the same kind of coverage and analysis. It’s a real-life, “Soprano’s” mafia-style effort that we’ve seen Trump deploy before, especially with his effort to overturn the 2020 election. Now, he’s apparently aiming for a mistrial in this Manhattan fraud case by actively making comments and posting on social media about jurors and potential witnesses.

Chris Hayes talked about it on his MSNBC show: “It is pure thuggery, plain and simple. It is a violation of the gag order on its face, and it’s a scandal.” Hayes also reported how Fox is working hand in hand with Trump to frighten jurors. He especially called out Fox News anchor Jesse Waters, who spent at least two nights revealing information about jurors and questioning their motives. Why aren’t other media outlets calling out Fox for this egregious and dangerous behavior?

Another problem with the news coverage was the overzealous reporting about the jurors. Some reporters were live tweeting very specific information about individual jurors until the judge eventually ordered the press to stop. This time it’s not just right-wing media to blame but many legacy media outlets as well.

Rex Huppke of USA Today lambasted his fellow journalists:

“Anyone paying attention knows threats and intimidation go hand-in-hand with Trump and his MAGA movement, and few know that better than journalists, who were long ago labeled “the enemy of the people” by Trump himself. So I’ll ask my fellow journalists out there: What the hell do you think is going to happen to these people if you make it easy for others to identify them? They will be targeted. They will be threatened. And what’s the news value in any of that?”

Juliet Jeske of Decoding Fox News added this reminder of what happened to other people in Trump’s crosshairs:

I’m disgusted by my profession for the proliferation of ‘Meet the Trump jurors’ articles. Ruby Freeman and her daughter were harassed within an inch of their lives. People showed up to their home. They got hundreds of threats. It’s irresponsible to publish details about the jury.

Much of the media also seemed to ignore Trump repeatedly falling asleep in the middle of his own high stakes court battle. It was especially notable when Trump nodded off the very first day of the trial. But surprisingly, both ABC and NBC neglected to mention it on their nightly newscasts. CBS did mention Trump sleeping and also published this piece where a reporter explains how she herself verified that Trump had closed his eyes during the proceedings.

“Since bringing binoculars, I’ve seen Trump sitting with his eyes closed for stretches of time. I’ve seen it while they were going over outstanding issues with the judge in the morning and when jurors have given answers to the 42-question questionnaire,” wrote reporter Alice Gainer.

Verifying the information is key, especially in today’s conspiracy theory-laden world. But it’s also a big deal in the context of Trump’s fitness for office. After all, mental and physical acuity are now big issues in the campaign. Reporters have already written dozens of stories about Joe Biden’s age and appearance. They should now be digging into those issues about Trump.  Plus, as CNN media critic Oliver Darcy points out, Trump himself made “sleepy” a thing:

“…if not for The NYT’s Maggie Haberman reporting on the matter Tuesday, it’s unclear whether the public — which is relying on news organizations to be its eyes and ears in the courtroom, given cameras are barred — would know about it. It’s all the more bizarre given that Trump has made attacking ’sleepy Joe’ a central tenet of his campaign, framing the president as lacking the stamina to serve in the nation’s highest office. Which is to say, the fact that Trump is the one apparently unable to stay awake in his own criminal trial isn’t a trivial story. It’s important. So why has much of the press fallen asleep at the wheel?”

Much of the news coverage of the Trump trial is very good. There is certainly an enormous commitment of time and resources, but I also think some of the biggest stories are getting lost. There are too many laundry list style stories featuring “today’s takeaways” or “things to know about….” or “Meet the Judge…” but not enough deep dives or analysis. This CBS News piece promised a “look at the first week,” but it never mentions the Trump juror issues or his sleeping in court. Those are some stunning omissions.

So where do things go from here? Opening arguments in the case began today. That step is an important mile marker in this unprecedented case, and I expect media coverage will be thorough and well-balanced. But I’d like to see some important tweaks to the news coverage in the days and weeks ahead.

Most importantly, the over-emphasis on the minute-by-minute courtroom happenings should not eclipse the larger storylines that will develop. I’d encourage reporters to tweet less, listen more and then write stories using a wider lens.

In addition, follow the lead of Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC who is refusing to carry Trump’s afternoon post-court diatribes live because of his habit of lying but also because she doesn’t want to give him a platform to attack the jury. She’s right: No one can fact check him well enough or fast enough.

Finally, none of this is normal so news coverage should be infused with that context. Trump is the first former president on trial on criminal charges, and he is actively misleading the public while simultaneously doing whatever he can to vilify all involved. Report that.

Jennifer Schulze is a former Chicago journalist who talks media every month on WCPT 820AM on “Live, Local & Progressive with Joan Esposito” with former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob. You can follow her on Threads @jenniferschulzechi or Twitter/X @NewsJennifer.