On Monday, President Trump announced that he would give an Oval Office address on Tuesday evening, about the government shutdown and his proposed border wall. Fox News and CNN quickly announced that they would carry the speech live, but the broadcast networks did not; instead, they spent hours deliberating, before agreeing to air the address. This caused an outcry online and among many journalists, who argued that giving Trump the airtime—to inevitably engage in blatant falsehoods and racist fear-mongering—showed poor judgment and an unwillingness to learn the lessons of Trump’s dominance of television during the 2016 campaign. Late on Monday evening, the Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi demanded that their party receive equal airtime.

To talk about those network deliberations, and what they signal about how the media will cover Trump in the run-up to his next campaign, I spoke by phone with Brian Stelter, the chief media correspondent at CNN and the anchor of the show “Reliable Sources.” During our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed what likely led the networks to agree to the White House’s request, the ways in which the networks have improved their coverage of Trump during the past two years, and the traps that the media must avoid in 2020.

Why do you think the broadcast networks agreed to air this?

I think the broadcast networks are making a very traditional decision. The broadcast networks—they are literally broad. They try to appeal to everyone. They try to reach all of America, all the time. Increasingly, they fail to do that, but they try. And it is a worthy pursuit, I think. What we saw with this decision we have seen for decades: the broadcast networks believe they have a responsibility to present the President’s announcements about big stories on big moments in the news. Obviously, what is different this time is that the President can’t stop lying, or won’t stop lying. But at the end of the day the feeling that this is the President and he has a speech to make outweighed the concerns about his lying and deception.

It is not that television networks are unaware or uninterested in the President’s mendacity. But I think that tradition, that custom, of broadcasting the President simply outweighs the concerns.

Then why don’t you think they aired the prime-time speech Obama gave on immigration in 2014?

I wish executives at the networks would address that directly themselves. I am talking to you as a CNN reporter, not on behalf of CNN. So I don’t always know what the bosses at any of these networks are really thinking. But I think there are some big differences between Obama in 2014 and Trump in 2019. For one thing, virtually all of Obama’s prime-time addresses were carried live by the broadcast networks. This one in 2014 wasn’t for a few reasons. One is that it was—and I know this sounds like a really ridiculous reason—a big night on TV. I am laughing saying that, because I know it sounds ridiculous, but these are the factors that networks think about: what schedule will be on, which shows are being interrupted, how much ad revenue is on the line, how many ratings points are on the line, how disruptive is the speech going to be, how long is the speech going to be.

I also think a big difference is that Obama had been President for [nearly] six years and had given many speeches in prime time. Think about the power of the Presidency. Part of the power of the Presidency is to give an Oval Office speech, and Trump is choosing for the very first time in his Presidency to use that Oval Office setting [for a prime-time address]. I have a feeling that was a big factor in the broadcast networks’ decision.

Can I just add that it was remarkable that the broadcast networks didn’t say yes right away? When I was reaching out to spokespeople for the networks, I thought it might be an instant yes. An immediate yes. That is the custom, at least sometimes. It was notable they spent some time thinking about this. Oh, to be a fly on the wall. [Laughs.]

There has been an outcry on Twitter and some commentary to the effect that the networks just want ratings, and Trump brings ratings. My sense is that he doesn’t bring huge ratings anymore, and that, because the networks will have to interrupt their regular shows and air this without commercials, this is not an obvious money play. What do you think?

I agree with you on both counts. And I think that is really important to emphasize. I am walking through the Village at night in the cold. It is a reminder that Twitter is not real life. Far from it. But the conversation on Twitter is critical, and I am glad it’s happening. I am glad there is an outcry about the decision. Frankly, I think the outcry should be directed to the networks—to the ABCs and NBCs and CNN. If viewers support or oppose the decision, they should tell the networks. That is more valuable to the companies than on Twitter.

But I think the Twitter chatter has been really revealing. It’s yet another reminder of how incredibly, awfully divided we are. Trump forces us to ask questions we didn’t used to ask. Of course we would broadcast any other President. We didn’t used to ask these questions. I am glad these questions are coming up, but I think it is incumbent on the broadcast networks to answer them.

As for your point, when the President gives a speech, it is obviously aired commercial-free, and typically it is a drag on the ratings. On Tuesday night, the ratings were not going to be off the charts, anyway. But when you are airing a speech you are not getting ad revenue. You are foregoing those ads. If anything, it hurts your lineup for the night. So, in the small sense, this is not about ratings. In the big sense, coverage of Trump, that’s a different question.

I don’t know what you meant by that, but a friend pointed out to me that it might not help their ratings tomorrow, but it is in the broadcast networks’ interest to seem bipartisan in the long run. Bending over backwards to not be called “Fake News”—even though, of course, Trump will do that anyway—is part of the calculation they are making. So, in one sense, they are making a ratings calculation. What do you think about that theory?

I am not saying there is nothing to it. I think the President’s attacks and threats are baked in at this point, so they are not an overriding factor on anyone’s mind. It is remarkable how much we now shrug when the President of the United States delegitimizes and dehumanizes our work. The things he said today were so hateful about journalists, and we call that Monday. So I don’t think that’s a major factor on the minds of television executives. I think the major factor is really simple. He’s the President. And he’s giving a Presidential address. And I know that sounds old-fashioned. And I know a lot of people don’t like that answer.