presswatchers--2020-07-15--The media is covering this election all wrong

Donald Trump isn ’ t running anything remotely like a normal presidential campaign .
He ’ s not appealing to a wide swath of the electorate .
He ’ s not trying to win over the middle .
He ’ s not even trying to expand his base .
He ’ s just further instigating his core supporters with racist appeals , conspiracy theories , scare stories and culture-war rhetoric .
He ’ s narrowcasting to bubbles of ignorance and grievance and authoritarian submissiveness .
He doesn ’ t really have much choice .
Any informed , non-blindered analysis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the conclusion that he is dangerously incompetent .
His fury over the surging national protests against racism , inequality and police brutality has durably positioned him on the wrong side of history .
Those who continue to support him at this point are truly Trump dead-enders .
There is no way they constitute anywhere near a majority of Americans .
Covering this campaign with the hoary campaign-reporting algorithms made for typical elections would be a terrible mistake .
Those algorithms were constructed to cover elections in which there was a rational choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And even under those conditions , they failed miserably , overemphasizing who ’ s-up-who ’ s-down horse-race coverage , substituting balance for fairness and false equivalence for judgment , and obsessing over tactics rather than substance .
This time around there are really only two sets of questions worth asking , and reporters should be focusing on them with almost all their energy : 1 .
Can Trump and his dead-enders steal the election ?
There is ample evidence that Republicans will make unprecedented efforts to suppress the Democratic vote .
Could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states to take the Electoral College ?
Could Trump sow so much doubt about the voting and counting process — especially during the pandemic he has allowed to spread uncontrollably — that he and his supporters will be able to throw the country into chaos rather than accept defeat ?
If they effectively hold the nation hostage , will the rest of us give in ?
What can we do to prepare for this and take counter-measures ?
2. Who are these people ?
What are their motivations ?
How did they become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to teach them tolerance ?
Is there any way to reach them with accurate information ?
Is some large minority of the country forever wearing blinders and antagonistic to pluralism ?
Reporters should have been vigorously asking this second set of questions starting the day after Trump ’ s election in 2016 .
But considering that Trump had somehow managed to get nearly 63 million people to vote for him and was soon to be president , the nation ’ s political reporters chose to embark upon more immediate inquiries .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again — and perhaps more urgent than ever , given that these people are literally killing themselves and us right now , as well as potentially attempting to hijack our country for another four years .
The possible theft of the 2020 presidential election gets almost no coverage in the elite media .
But it gets a lot of attention from some very smart people who you all should be reading , if you aren ’ t already .
Start with Ari Berman ( @ AriBerman ) who writes for Mother Jones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an election law professor at the University of California Irvine School of Law who hosts the essential Election Law Blog .
Also , Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias ( @ marceelias ) and his Democracy Docket website , investigative journalist Greg Palast ( @ Greg_Palast ) , who just published a book titled “ How Trump Stole 2020 , ” and others on this ever-growing Twitter list I ’ m curating .
There are so many powerful story lines , starting with the question of whether it will be safe for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where there are typically long lines for minority voters .
There are many nightmare scenarios .
Meanwhile , Trump and the Republican Party are actively trying to limit voting by mail , even while reducing the number of polling places .
They plan to deploy an army of poll-watchers in a transparent attempt to intimidate minority voters .
All that comes on top of a lengthy and continuing history of Republican support for onerous voter ID requirements , voter roll purges and deceptive election practices .
Our biggest newsrooms should be devoting considerably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election preparation , election security and other related issues .
( “ I don ’ t buy the argument that there are insufficient newsroom resources , ” Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote in March . )
And they should be hyper-aware of the critical subtext beneath everything that Trump and GOP leaders say and do , which is that their goal is to create the possibility of minority rule .
A critical recommendation from a recent ad hoc committee of election experts trying to assure a fair election in a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ engage in a public information effort to provide voters with accurate information about the process by which election officials count votes and determine election winners.
” The subtext : Early results could show Trump doing better than he does in the final results , potentially leading his supporters to cry foul .
We ’ ve never held an election during a pandemic before .
Anything could happen .
Voters need to be informed , and the media needs to be prepared .
The surprisingly good news about the political media today is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamentally racist nature of Trump ’ s pitch to voters this time around .
It helps that Trump isn ’ t giving them an alternative narrative .
He is offering nothing new or conciliatory .
He can ’ t even articulate a second-term agenda .
It ’ s just confabulations and vitriol .
Political reporters prefer to couch their conclusions within stories about electoral tactics , and they use euphemisms to avoid outright describing the president of the United States as a racist .
But they ’ re calling it out pretty clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , you had Josh Dawsey writing in the Washington Post that despite mass protests and the pandemic , Trump “ seems most intent on inflaming an already burning culture war , using his Twitter feed to focus on vandalism by protesters and the well-being of statues that have been targeted.
” You had Robert Costa and Philip Rucker writing in the Post that “ Although amplifying racism and stoking culture wars have been mainstays of Trump ’ s public identity for decades , they have been particularly pronounced this summer as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over systemic discrimination by seeking to weaponize the anger and resentment of some white Americans for his own political gain.
” You had Maggie Haberman in the New York Times not making any excuses , but stating straight up : “ Almost every day in the last two weeks , Mr. Trump has sought to stoke white fear and resentment , portraying himself as a protector of an old order that polls show much of America believes perpetuates entrenched racism and wants to move beyond.
” You had Jonathan Lemire of the Associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s racial tensions as a reelection weapon , fiercely denouncing the racial justice movement on a near-daily basis with language stoking white resentment and aiming to drive his supporters to the polls.
” In the Los Angeles Times , you had Eli Stokols noting that “ Trump in recent days has indulged in a string of blatant appeals to racism.
” At CNN , you had Manu Raju , Kevin Liptak , Ryan Nobles and Donald Judd declaring that Trump is “ seizing on divisive culture wars and using race-baiting rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base to give him a second term in office.
” You had Jonathan Allen at NBC writing about a “ spate of racist rhetoric ” that “ represents a return to Trump ’ s favorite playbook of fear and bloviating.
” Some , like Allen , described desperation at work : “ Rather than deepening his support , though , this time it appears to have a more modest goal — to reclaim a portion of his eroding political base as his poll numbers slide.
” And New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ focus on his base at the expense of swing voters , who have historically been a key target for presidential campaigns , is almost certainly not enough to win him a second term in the White House , as even some Republicans concede.
” Sometimes , all this leads reporters to ask : Does he really want to win ?
So you had Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni writing in the New York Times that , according to anonymous sources , Trump ’ s “ self-destructive behavior has been so out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year that many advisers wonder if he is truly interested in serving a second term.
” But that ’ s a silly question .
Of course Trump wants to win .
The smart questions to ask are : Is this appeal to racism working ?
And can he win even with only a minority of Americans behind him ?
But wait , you say : Trump surprised everyone with the depth of his support last time — and not all of his supporters are racist or deluded .
Who ’ s to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The polls , however , are showing a distinct loss of support relative to his previous baseline .
And there ’ s a good reason for that shift : reality , and Trump ’ s conduct , have stripped away a lot of outliers this time around .
Last time , Trump benefited from some good and bad excuses that simply aren ’ t operative in 2020 .
Last time , Trump was the ultimate protest vote — a safe way of giving the finger to the system , because there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win .
That is no longer a reasonable option .
He ’ s the incumbent .
Last time , people suffering from economic anxiety or otherwise aggrieved by a political system unresponsive to their needs could legitimately have hoped that maybe Trump was a change agent for the better .
Anyone who says they still believe that is either delusional or dishonest .
Last time , when Trump spoke of “ draining the swamp , ” some people might legitimately have fallen for it .
No more .
Even the plutocrats who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax cuts must now realize the whole national enterprise is in danger .
And a lot of people really hated Hillary Clinton — some because of her personal history , but a lot simply because she was a woman .
Interviewing voters has taken on a bit of a bad name after a seemingly endless series of big-media visits to heartland diners to hear Trump supporters talk about how , yes , amazingly enough , they still support Trump .
But we need to get a better understanding of why , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pretty much the only Trump supporters that reporters regularly quote are those in a very small , terribly atypical subset : elected officials and political operatives who depend on him for their power and livelihood .
They are not going to say anything revelatory or useful ; their job is to lie with some degree of erudition .
Indeed , their job is precisely to provide a polite cover story for the actual , visceral appeal Trump is making to his dead-enders .
Interviewing the dead-enders properly , however , requires skillsets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press corps .
The key is not to settle for a few soundbites about how much they ( still ) like the guy , or a few talking points they lifted from Fox News .
That means acting more like sociologists than typical political reporters .
It means exploring not just voters ’ political opinions , but their formative moments and their value systems .
It means exploring certain dynamics that rarely get much attention from journalists : peer pressure , cultural tribalism , news consumption , residential segregation and educational standards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignoring all the other voters , of course .
It still feels like anti-Trump voters are basically invisible to elite political reporters .
They ’ re treated like background noise , rather than the voice of the majority .
So it was nice to see New York Times reporter Katie Glueck talk to suburban voters in swing states and report last week , without any hemming and hawing , that those interviews “ revealed abhorrence for Mr. Trump ’ s growing efforts to fuel white resentment with inflammatory rhetoric on race and cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturbing conclusions about Trump voters , which should inform the coverage .
Political science professor Philip Klinkner famously wrote a piece in Vox in 2017 headlined “ The easiest way to guess if someone supports Trump ?
Ask if Obama is a Muslim.
” He found that a high “ racial resentment ” score was more strongly correlated with Trump support than any other factor , other than simply “ being a Republican.
” The Pew Research Center , using its “ feeling thermometer ” ratings , found “ that attitudes about immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated ” with how “ warmly ” Republican voters feel about Trump — much more so even than “ opinions about whether the U.S. economic system is unfair and whether business profits are excessive.
” Racists feel very warmly about him indeed .
The Democracy Fund ’ s Voter Study Group has consistently found that about a quarter of American voters like the idea of a political system with a strong leader who doesn ’ t have to bother with Congress and elections ; fully 18 percent support military rule .
Their latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of support for authoritarian leadership come from those who are disaffected , disengaged from politics , deeply distrustful of experts , culturally conservative , and have negative attitudes toward racial minorities.
” If there ’ s one particular strand of Trump support that journalists should be pulling out for closer attention , it ’ s what I call fact-rejection .
That ’ s because it ’ s a challenge to our values — and our existence .
While there have been a number of academic studies about the rise of misinformation and disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual on-the-ground reporting .
Reporters — especially local reporters , who know their community — should fan out and talk to voters , asking them what they believe is true , and why .
Where reporters encounter fact-rejection , they should ( gently ) explore : Who is susceptible and why ?
How deeply does it affect people ?
How is it transmitted ?
What role does Fox News play in it , compared to social media , compared to social grouping ?
How persistent is it ?
What effect does it have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any way for people to recover ?
These are not the kinds of questions reporters generally ask .
But how people get the news , and what they believe , is increasingly central to so much of what we write about , including , of course , this election .
This kind of reporting , it seems to me , would be a lot more personally satisfying to journalists — and a lot more valuable to readers and viewers — then just more-of-the-same election coverage , which would inevitably normalize what is a @ @ @ @

Donald Trump isn’t running anything remotely like a normal presidential campaign. He’s not appealing to a wide swath of the electorate. He’s not trying to win over the middle. He’s not even trying to expand his base. He’s just further instigating his core supporters with racist appeals, conspiracy theories, scare stories and culture-war rhetoric. He’s narrowcasting to bubbles of ignorance and grievance and authoritarian submissiveness.
He doesn’t really have much choice. Any informed, non-blindered analysis of his leadership during the pandemic leads inescapably to the conclusion that he is dangerously incompetent. His fury over the surging national protests against racism, inequality and police brutality has durably positioned him on the wrong side of history.
Those who continue to support him at this point are truly Trump dead-enders. There is no way they constitute anywhere near a majority of Americans.
Covering this campaign with the hoary campaign-reporting algorithms made for typical elections would be a terrible mistake. Those algorithms were constructed to cover elections in which there was a rational choice between two reasonably proportional and plausible candidates.
And even under those conditions, they failed miserably, overemphasizing who’s-up-who’s-down horse-race coverage, substituting balance for fairness and false equivalence for judgment, and obsessing over tactics rather than substance.
This time around there are really only two sets of questions worth asking, and reporters should be focusing on them with almost all their energy:
1. Can Trump and his dead-enders steal the election? There is ample evidence that Republicans will make unprecedented efforts to suppress the Democratic vote. Could they succeed enough to win in enough states to take the Electoral College? Could Trump sow so much doubt about the voting and counting process — especially during the pandemic he has allowed to spread uncontrollably — that he and his supporters will be able to throw the country into chaos rather than accept defeat? If they effectively hold the nation hostage, will the rest of us give in? What can we do to prepare for this and take counter-measures?
2. Who are these people? What are their motivations? How did they become that way? Is there any way to teach them tolerance? Is there any way to reach them with accurate information? Is some large minority of the country forever wearing blinders and antagonistic to pluralism?
Reporters should have been vigorously asking this second set of questions starting the day after Trump’s election in 2016. But considering that Trump had somehow managed to get nearly 63 million people to vote for him and was soon to be president, the nation’s political reporters chose to embark upon more immediate inquiries.
Now, however, it’s supremely relevant again — and perhaps more urgent than ever, given that these people are literally killing themselves and us right now, as well as potentially attempting to hijack our country for another four years.
Stealing the election
The possible theft of the 2020 presidential election gets almost no coverage in the elite media. But it gets a lot of attention from some very smart people who you all should be reading, if you aren’t already.
Start with Ari Berman (@AriBerman) who writes for Mother Jones, and Rick Hasen (@rickhasen), an election law professor at the University of California Irvine School of Law who hosts the essential Election Law Blog.
Also, Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias (@marceelias) and his Democracy Docket website, investigative journalist Greg Palast (@Greg_Palast), who just published a book titled “How Trump Stole 2020,” and others on this ever-growing Twitter list I’m curating.
There are so many powerful story lines, starting with the question of whether it will be safe for people to vote, especially in high-population areas where there are typically long lines for minority voters. There are many nightmare scenarios.
Meanwhile, Trump and the Republican Party are actively trying to limit voting by mail, even while reducing the number of polling places. They plan to deploy an army of poll-watchers in a transparent attempt to intimidate minority voters.
All that comes on top of a lengthy and continuing history of Republican support for onerous voter ID requirements, voter roll purges and deceptive election practices.
Our biggest newsrooms should be devoting considerably more resources to voter suppression, poor election preparation, election security and other related issues. (“I don’t buy the argument that there are insufficient newsroom resources,” Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote in March.)
And they should be hyper-aware of the critical subtext beneath everything that Trump and GOP leaders say and do, which is that their goal is to create the possibility of minority rule.
A critical recommendation from a recent ad hoc committee of election experts trying to assure a fair election in a time of crisis was for the media to “engage in a public information effort to provide voters with accurate information about the process by which election officials count votes and determine election winners.”
The subtext: Early results could show Trump doing better than he does in the final results, potentially leading his supporters to cry foul.
We’ve never held an election during a pandemic before. Anything could happen. Voters need to be informed, and the media needs to be prepared.
Trump’s racist re-election strategy is clear
The surprisingly good news about the political media today is that elite reporters are forcefully addressing the fundamentally racist nature of Trump’s pitch to voters this time around.
It helps that Trump isn’t giving them an alternative narrative. He is offering nothing new or conciliatory. He can’t even articulate a second-term agenda. It’s just confabulations and vitriol.
And it doesn’t stop.
Trump yesterday:
– More white people than black people are killed by police
– People love the Confederate flag
– A housing desegregation rule would “abolish the suburbs”
– Protesters would’ve beaten up and burned down house of St. Louis couple if couple didn’t brandish guns — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) July 15, 2020
Political reporters prefer to couch their conclusions within stories about electoral tactics, and they use euphemisms to avoid outright describing the president of the United States as a racist. But they’re calling it out pretty clearly.
So just in the last few weeks, you had Josh Dawsey writing in the Washington Post that despite mass protests and the pandemic, Trump “seems most intent on inflaming an already burning culture war, using his Twitter feed to focus on vandalism by protesters and the well-being of statues that have been targeted.”
You had Robert Costa and Philip Rucker writing in the Post that “Although amplifying racism and stoking culture wars have been mainstays of Trump’s public identity for decades, they have been particularly pronounced this summer as the president has reacted to the national reckoning over systemic discrimination by seeking to weaponize the anger and resentment of some white Americans for his own political gain.”
You had Maggie Haberman in the New York Times not making any excuses, but stating straight up: “Almost every day in the last two weeks, Mr. Trump has sought to stoke white fear and resentment, portraying himself as a protector of an old order that polls show much of America believes perpetuates entrenched racism and wants to move beyond.”
You had Jonathan Lemire of the Associated Press writing that Trump “is wielding America’s racial tensions as a reelection weapon, fiercely denouncing the racial justice movement on a near-daily basis with language stoking white resentment and aiming to drive his supporters to the polls.”
In the Los Angeles Times, you had Eli Stokols noting that “Trump in recent days has indulged in a string of blatant appeals to racism.”
At CNN, you had Manu Raju, Kevin Liptak, Ryan Nobles and Donald Judd declaring that Trump is “seizing on divisive culture wars and using race-baiting rhetoric as he seeks to fire up his base to give him a second term in office.”
You had Jonathan Allen at NBC writing about a “spate of racist rhetoric” that “represents a return to Trump’s favorite playbook of fear and bloviating.”
Some, like Allen, described desperation at work: “Rather than deepening his support, though, this time it appears to have a more modest goal — to reclaim a portion of his eroding political base as his poll numbers slide.”
And New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney concluded quite definitively that Trump’s “focus on his base at the expense of swing voters, who have historically been a key target for presidential campaigns, is almost certainly not enough to win him a second term in the White House, as even some Republicans concede.”
Sometimes, all this leads reporters to ask: Does he really want to win? So you had Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni writing in the New York Times that, according to anonymous sources, Trump’s “self-destructive behavior has been so out of step for an incumbent in an election year that many advisers wonder if he is truly interested in serving a second term.”
But that’s a silly question. Of course Trump wants to win.
The smart questions to ask are: Is this appeal to racism working? And can he win even with only a minority of Americans behind him?
A smaller universe of potential voters
But wait, you say: Trump surprised everyone with the depth of his support last time — and not all of his supporters are racist or deluded. Who’s to say he can’t win re-election fairly?
The polls, however, are showing a distinct loss of support relative to his previous baseline. And there’s a good reason for that shift: reality, and Trump’s conduct, have stripped away a lot of outliers this time around.
Last time, Trump benefited from some good and bad excuses that simply aren’t operative in 2020.
Last time, Trump was the ultimate protest vote — a safe way of giving the finger to the system, because there was no way he was actually going to win. That is no longer a reasonable option. He’s the incumbent.
Last time, people suffering from economic anxiety or otherwise aggrieved by a political system unresponsive to their needs could legitimately have hoped that maybe Trump was a change agent for the better. Anyone who says they still believe that is either delusional or dishonest.
Last time, when Trump spoke of “draining the swamp,” some people might legitimately have fallen for it. No more.
Even the plutocrats who are rightfully beholden to Trump for his huge tax cuts must now realize the whole national enterprise is in danger.
And a lot of people really hated Hillary Clinton — some because of her personal history, but a lot simply because she was a woman.
What makes these people tick?
Interviewing voters has taken on a bit of a bad name after a seemingly endless series of big-media visits to heartland diners to hear Trump supporters talk about how, yes, amazingly enough, they still support Trump.
But we need to get a better understanding of why, and that requires talking to them.
Right now, pretty much the only Trump supporters that reporters regularly quote are those in a very small, terribly atypical subset: elected officials and political operatives who depend on him for their power and livelihood. They are not going to say anything revelatory or useful; their job is to lie with some degree of erudition. Indeed, their job is precisely to provide a polite cover story for the actual, visceral appeal Trump is making to his dead-enders.
Interviewing the dead-enders properly, however, requires skillsets not necessarily in abundance in the political press corps. The key is not to settle for a few soundbites about how much they (still) like the guy, or a few talking points they lifted from Fox News.
That means acting more like sociologists than typical political reporters. It means exploring not just voters’ political opinions, but their formative moments and their value systems. It means exploring certain dynamics that rarely get much attention from journalists: peer pressure, cultural tribalism, news consumption, residential segregation and educational standards, among others.
(See my October essay, “Political journalists are doing voter interviews all wrong,” which includes recommendations from a wonderful report from the Solutions Journalism Network called Complicating the Narratives, about how to understand what’s underneath someone’s political rage.)
None of this means ignoring all the other voters, of course. It still feels like anti-Trump voters are basically invisible to elite political reporters. They’re treated like background noise, rather than the voice of the majority.
So it was nice to see New York Times reporter Katie Glueck talk to suburban voters in swing states and report last week, without any hemming and hawing, that those interviews “revealed abhorrence for Mr. Trump’s growing efforts to fuel white resentment with inflammatory rhetoric on race and cultural heritage.”
Studies show: Trump voters are dangerous
Some studies have reached profoundly disturbing conclusions about Trump voters, which should inform the coverage.
Political science professor Philip Klinkner famously wrote a piece in Vox in 2017 headlined “The easiest way to guess if someone supports Trump? Ask if Obama is a Muslim.” He found that a high “racial resentment” score was more strongly correlated with Trump support than any other factor, other than simply “being a Republican.”
The Pew Research Center, using its “feeling thermometer” ratings, found “that attitudes about immigration, Islam and racial diversity are strongly associated” with how “warmly” Republican voters feel about Trump — much more so even than “opinions about whether the U.S. economic system is unfair and whether business profits are excessive.” Racists feel very warmly about him indeed.
The Democracy Fund’s Voter Study Group has consistently found that about a quarter of American voters like the idea of a political system with a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress and elections; fully 18 percent support military rule. Their latest survey found that “the highest levels of support for authoritarian leadership come from those who are disaffected, disengaged from politics, deeply distrustful of experts, culturally conservative, and have negative attitudes toward racial minorities.”
Fact-rejection is a threat to journalism
If there’s one particular strand of Trump support that journalists should be pulling out for closer attention, it’s what I call fact-rejection.
That’s because it’s a challenge to our values — and our existence.
While there have been a number of academic studies about the rise of misinformation and disinformation, there’s been shockingly little actual on-the-ground reporting.
Reporters — especially local reporters, who know their community — should fan out and talk to voters, asking them what they believe is true, and why. Where reporters encounter fact-rejection, they should (gently) explore: Who is susceptible and why? How deeply does it affect people? How is it transmitted? What role does Fox News play in it, compared to social media, compared to social grouping? How persistent is it? What effect does it have in real life? And is there any way for people to recover?
These are not the kinds of questions reporters generally ask. But how people get the news, and what they believe, is increasingly central to so much of what we write about, including, of course, this election.
This kind of reporting, it seems to me, would be a lot more personally satisfying to journalists — and a lot more valuable to readers and viewers — then just more-of-the-same election coverage, which would inevitably normalize what is a profoundly abnormal campaign.


presswatchers--2020-07-17--Washington Post campaign reporters describe Trump’s epic failings as ‘self-sabotage’

What do you call it when Donald Trump continuously spouts overtly racist and authoritarian rhetoric while obdurately refusing to take the necessary action to stop a raging pandemic ?
If you ’ re a campaign reporter for the mainstream media , you call it a tactical mistake .
You call it political “ self-sabotage.
” You call it “ self-destructive.
” Campaign reporters writing about Trump ’ s failing campaign are basically saying : He ’ s not doing it right .
They should be saying : He ’ s killing people with his stupidity , and race-baiting to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The only way he can win at this rate is if he steals the election .
But Friday ’ s campaign procedural in the Washington Post , prompted by Trump ’ s firing of his old campaign manager was headlined “ Republicans fear campaign shake-up can ’ t counteract Trump ’ s self-sabotage “ .
It was a classic example of obsessing over tactics rather than substance .
Reporters Ashley Parker , Josh Dawsey and Robert Costa described the problem clearly : “ a reelection effort cratering under the weight of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national reckoning on racial injustice.
” But they quickly adopted the view of their sources ( “ numerous Republicans and Trump allies ” ) that “ the main problem facing the struggling Trump campaign ” is “ the president himself and his chronically self-destructive behavior.
” They simply can ’ t acknowledge that this is who he is , this is what he ’ s done , and this is what his campaign , ineluctably , is all about .
The Post story distinctly echoed the zeitgeist of a June 17 New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Annie Karni , headlined : “ Does Trump Want to Fight for a Second Term ?
His Self-Sabotage Worries Aides “ .
Haberman and Karni described “ a recent meeting ” Trump held “ with his top political advisers , ” during which the advisers “ warned him that he was on a path to defeat in November if he continued his incendiary behavior in public and on Twitter.
” Trump ’ s response was : “ I have to be myself.
” But , channeling the views of “ people close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ defiance ” .
The people close to Trump , the Times reporters wrote , “ say his repeated acts of political self-sabotage — a widely denounced photo-op at a church for which peaceful protesters were forcibly removed , a threat to use the American military to quell protests — have significantly damaged his re-election prospects , and yet he appears mostly unable , or unwilling , to curtail them.
” Can you imagine writing off Trump ’ s triumphant march through Lafayette Park as a tactical mistake rather than a willful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ iconic moment ” for the Trump presidency – as Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and – guess who ?
— Ashley Parker herself ( ! )
wrote at the time : a “ created ” moment with “ outsize symbolism for a nation broken after yet another black man died in the custody of police.
” It was such a dramatic and freighted event that I even thought it had permanently pierced the detachment of the reporters covering it .
But apparently the hoary political-campaign-coverage algorithms snapped back into place .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s epic failing as a president and a human being are just value-neutral challenges for the campaign staff , apparently .
And it ’ s not just the Post and the Times .
Los Angeles Times reporters Eli Stokols and Noah Bierman wrote last week that , according to “ numerous ” anonymous campaign staffer , “ those involved in the reelection effort are increasingly resigned to getting behind their often self-destructive candidate.
” Julie Pace wrote for the Associated Press on Friday that “ [ t ] he issue that needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans , isn ’ t how Trump ’ s campaign is run .
It ’ s Trump himself.
” But what exactly is it about Trump himself ?
Pace ’ s answer is an anodyne , listless cover-up of Trump ’ s criminal incompetence and racism : Pace noted that “ privately , Trump ’ s campaign and outsider advisers acknowledge that the president ’ s situation is dire and showing no signs of improvement.
” But then she quoted Scott Reed , a senior political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new and improved level of message discipline that includes the White House staff ” – as if that ’ s the problem .
As I wrote yesterday , it ’ s time for reporters to put aside their normal-campaign-reporting habits and recognize that this is something new and different : A campaign aimed only at a distinct minority of voters that can ’ t win unless it steals the election .
Or maybe , as NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen tweeted , it isn ’ t really a campaign at all .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Still effective for his cult ’ is not a campaign .
It ’ s internal communications among pre-existing supporters .
A campaign tries to convert people.
” New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman chimed in on Friday with a Twitter thread about how we should all be more concerned that Trump will try to steal the election : And new polls are showing just how profoundly American voters are rejecting Trump .
A Washington-Post-ABC News poll shows 38 percent of Americans approve of Trump ’ s handling of the outbreak , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fully 52 percent disapproving “ strongly.
” A survey from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project show Trump ’ s approval rating has dropped 7 percentage points since April .
Meanwhile , in the New York Times , the campaign coverage continues , with Trip Gabriel marvelling that Ohio is in play .
How could it not be ?
It ’ s long been a presidential bellwether , it voted for Obama twice .
Trump was a shock not a trend .
Notably , Gabriel only quoted three Trump supporters : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican strategist , and a racist who self-identified with the quote : “ I ’ m not a NASCAR fan anymore ” .
Please see my other recent posts about campaign coverage .
And please consider making a donation to Press Watch , which depends on your support .

What do you call it when Donald Trump continuously spouts overtly racist and authoritarian rhetoric while obdurately refusing to take the necessary action to stop a raging pandemic?
If you’re a campaign reporter for the mainstream media, you call it a tactical mistake. You call it political “self-sabotage.” You call it “self-destructive.”
Campaign reporters writing about Trump’s failing campaign are basically saying: He’s not doing it right.
They should be saying: He’s killing people with his stupidity, and race-baiting to get his jollies. They should be saying: The only way he can win at this rate is if he steals the election.
But Friday’s campaign procedural in the Washington Post, prompted by Trump’s firing of his old campaign manager was headlined “Republicans fear campaign shake-up can’t counteract Trump’s self-sabotage“.
It was a classic example of obsessing over tactics rather than substance.
Reporters Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey and Robert Costa described the problem clearly: “a reelection effort cratering under the weight of a deadly pandemic, a stalled economy and a national reckoning on racial injustice.”
But they quickly adopted the view of their sources (“numerous Republicans and Trump allies”) that “the main problem facing the struggling Trump campaign” is “the president himself and his chronically self-destructive behavior.”
They simply can’t acknowledge that this is who he is, this is what he’s done, and this is what his campaign, ineluctably, is all about.
The Post story distinctly echoed the zeitgeist of a June 17 New York Times article by Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni, headlined: “Does Trump Want to Fight for a Second Term? His Self-Sabotage Worries Aides“.
Haberman and Karni described “a recent meeting” Trump held “with his top political advisers,” during which the advisers “warned him that he was on a path to defeat in November if he continued his incendiary behavior in public and on Twitter.”
Trump’s response was: “I have to be myself.”
Sounds pretty definitive, no?
But, channeling the views of “people close to him,” the Times reporters called that “defiance”.
The people close to Trump, the Times reporters wrote, “say his repeated acts of political self-sabotage — a widely denounced photo-op at a church for which peaceful protesters were forcibly removed, a threat to use the American military to quell protests — have significantly damaged his re-election prospects, and yet he appears mostly unable, or unwilling, to curtail them.”
Can you imagine writing off Trump’s triumphant march through Lafayette Park as a tactical mistake rather than a willful act of thuggery? It was an “iconic moment” for the Trump presidency – as Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and – guess who? — Ashley Parker herself(!) wrote at the time: a “created” moment with “outsize symbolism for a nation broken after yet another black man died in the custody of police.”
It was such a dramatic and freighted event that I even thought it had permanently pierced the detachment of the reporters covering it.
But apparently the hoary political-campaign-coverage algorithms snapped back into place.
In the context of campaign reporting, Trump’s epic failing as a president and a human being are just value-neutral challenges for the campaign staff, apparently.
And it’s not just the Post and the Times. Los Angeles Times reporters Eli Stokols and Noah Bierman wrote last week that, according to “numerous” anonymous campaign staffer, “those involved in the reelection effort are increasingly resigned to getting behind their often self-destructive candidate.”
Julie Pace wrote for the Associated Press on Friday that “[t]he issue that needs to be addressed, according to some Republicans, isn’t how Trump’s campaign is run. It’s Trump himself.”
But what exactly is it about Trump himself? Pace’s answer is an anodyne, listless cover-up of Trump’s criminal incompetence and racism:
Trump has often appeared to be out of step with most Americans in recent months. He all but declared victory over the coronavirus pandemic as infections were starting to surge in new pockets across the country, including in states like Florida, Texas and Arizona where he’s enjoyed strong support. He’s shown little concrete interest in police reform following the deaths of Black Americans and has instead focused much of his energy on defending prominent displays of Confederate monuments.
Pace noted that “privately, Trump’s campaign and outsider advisers acknowledge that the president’s situation is dire and showing no signs of improvement.” But then she quoted Scott Reed, a senior political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, saying the campaign needs a “new and improved level of message discipline that includes the White House staff” – as if that’s the problem.
As I wrote yesterday, it’s time for reporters to put aside their normal-campaign-reporting habits and recognize that this is something new and different: A campaign aimed only at a distinct minority of voters that can’t win unless it steals the election.
Or maybe, as NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen tweeted, it isn’t really a campaign at all.
He has a campaign organization, but I’m not sure Trump has a campaign. A campaign tries to expand the parts of the electorate that find a reason to vote for you. Is he trying to do that? I don’t see the evidence for it. I know it sounds wild, but maybe he doesn’t have a campaign. — Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) July 16, 2020
As Rosen added in a response: “’Still effective for his cult’ is not a campaign. It’s internal communications among pre-existing supporters. A campaign tries to convert people.”
New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman chimed in on Friday with a Twitter thread about how we should all be more concerned that Trump will try to steal the election:
Where we are now: at this point, it will be almost impossible for Trump to win reelection legitimately. It's quite possible, however, that he will try to steal the election. And if you don't think that can happen, you're not paying attention 1/ — Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) July 17, 2020
And new polls are showing just how profoundly American voters are rejecting Trump. A Washington-Post-ABC News poll shows 38 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the outbreak, down from 51 percent in March, with fully 52 percent disapproving “strongly.”
A survey from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project show Trump’s approval rating has dropped 7 percentage points since April.
Meanwhile, in the New York Times, the campaign coverage continues, with Trip Gabriel marvelling that Ohio is in play.
How could it not be? It’s long been a presidential bellwether, it voted for Obama twice. Trump was a shock not a trend.
Notably, Gabriel only quoted three Trump supporters: An adviser to the campaign, a Republican strategist, and a racist who self-identified with the quote: “I’m not a NASCAR fan anymore”.
————————————————
Please see my other recent posts about campaign coverage. And please consider making a donation to Press Watch, which depends on your support.


presswatchers--2020-07-22--Save lives? Or obsess about Trump’s tone? Political reporters make the wrong choice.

TRUMP TELLS EVERYONE TO WEAR A MASK – ‘ WHETHER YOU LIKE THE MASK OR NOT ’ That should have been the big headline out of Tuesday ’ s return of the Trump Show .
Trump actually did something great , for once : He told his followers in no uncertain terms to cut it out and put on their masks .
“ We ’ re asking everybody that when you are not able to socially distance , wear a mask , get a mask , ” he said , reading from his prepared text .
“ Whether you like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an impact .
They ’ ll have an effect .
And we need everything we can get.
” Granted , it was 109 days late .
( The CDC first urged their use on April 3 . )
Granted , Trump had in the interim ignored , undermined and mocked the idea of mask-wearing , inspiring his dead-enders to reject them as a symbol of liberal tyranny .
Granted , he still doesn ’ t seem to be taking his own advice .
And granted , he ’ s still not doing any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he – and only he – can do to martial the nation ’ s resources to effectively fight the pandemic , rather than let it run amok .
But what he did on Tuesday could save countless lives , especially if it ’ s sufficiently broadcast .
And , quite frankly , when Trump does something right , the media should encourage him .
But instead , the preponderance of the mainstream coverage of Tuesday ’ s “ news conference ” involved carefully assessing a possible “ shift in tone.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst of it on broadcast media .
The headline Trump quote in these stories was not about masks , but about his scripted statement that the pandemic will “ get worse before it gets better.
” Here ’ s the thing , though : There is no real news value in what Trump ’ s tone is like , or what his predictions are , or what he ’ s finally willing or not willing to acknowledge , or for how long .
None of that has any practical effect on anything .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do what experts have been telling him needs to be done for four-plus months now : Institute a robust national testing plan that includes massive supply-chain management ; support and guide a national contact-tracing initiative ; and forcefully request that people wear masks .
There is still no sign whatsoever that he ’ s going to do either of the first two things , which are absolutely essential .
Reporters should be holding him accountable for that calamitous failure , every day and at the top of their lungs .
But at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the third one .
Why such a skewed and misbegotten focus from the elite press ?
One big reason is that the wrong people are covering this story .
Political reporters and editors should be entirely out of the loop on pandemic-related coverage .
It ’ s too important to be covered through their warped optics .
Good health and science reporters make it their life ’ s work to cut through bullshit claims , determine who ’ s right and who ’ s wrong , and tell readers what they need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s entirely missing here , and they should be the ones in charge of all the related coverage .
Political reporters have other priorities .
And for those in the rarefied White House press corps , one of the top priorities is to continually justify their own value .
That means treating Trump as someone who is endlessly fascinating , potentially teachable , and enormously consequential – rather than describing him as a predictably venal , incoherent and unchanging narcissist .
I loved how attorney Daniel Nazer put it in a tweet on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ABC News analysis – actually preceding Trump ’ s briefing !
– that described Trump ’ s “ new tone and a new level of engagement.
” Another attorney , Rajat Soni , also nailed it on Wednesday : So did media figure and critic Soledad O ’ Brien : To its credit , the Trump campaign itself was one of the few places to give Trump ’ s mask comments the headline status they deserved , in this video : But the people who needed to hear Trump ’ s new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the ones who only read headlines , watch the network news , or heed Fox News and other right-wing outlets .
Reporters and editors in mainstream and right-wing media had a chance to take the high road and make a positive difference on Tuesday , by stating loud and clear that Trump himself wants you to put on your mask , dammit .
And they failed .
I ’ ve written a lot about Trump ’ s response to the pandemic , and here is what has been clear all along : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has no real plan to restore the country to health other than to peddle false hope , predict a quick end , adopt fake deadlines and shift the blame to others .
The most urgent need is to test , test , and test even more , but Trump has never liked testing because the results “ look bad ” .
The media has blown its coverage of the federal response by letting political reporters lead instead of health reporters .
Political reporters pay way too much attention to whatever Trump says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headlines .
They let Trump set the agenda instead of letting knowledgeable people do it .
Political reporters also give Trump way too much credit for trying , which he is not .
They cover up for his incoherence , ignorance , cluelessness , gaslighting , and yes , just plain stupidity .
They generally fail to properly exploit their rare access to him by confronting him with facts and piercing his bubble .
They don ’ t hold him accountable for the suffering and deaths he is causing .
They remain complacent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toll , instead of relentlessly demanding more forceful action .
Please consider supporting my work , which is dependent on your donations .

TRUMP TELLS EVERYONE TO WEAR A MASK – ‘WHETHER YOU LIKE THE MASK OR NOT’
That should have been the big headline out of Tuesday’s return of the Trump Show.
Trump actually did something great, for once: He told his followers in no uncertain terms to cut it out and put on their masks.
“We’re asking everybody that when you are not able to socially distance, wear a mask, get a mask,” he said, reading from his prepared text. “Whether you like the mask or not, they have an impact. They’ll have an effect. And we need everything we can get.”
Granted, it was 109 days late. (The CDC first urged their use on April 3. )
Granted, Trump had in the interim ignored, undermined and mocked the idea of mask-wearing, inspiring his dead-enders to reject them as a symbol of liberal tyranny.
Granted, he still doesn’t seem to be taking his own advice.
And granted, he’s still not doing any of the other, much harder things that he – and only he – can do to martial the nation’s resources to effectively fight the pandemic, rather than let it run amok.
But what he did on Tuesday could save countless lives, especially if it’s sufficiently broadcast.
That’s big news.
And, quite frankly, when Trump does something right, the media should encourage him.
But instead, the preponderance of the mainstream coverage of Tuesday’s “news conference” involved carefully assessing a possible “shift in tone.”
The Daily Show rounded up some of the worst of it on broadcast media.
The headline Trump quote in these stories was not about masks, but about his scripted statement that the pandemic will “get worse before it gets better.”
Here’s the thing, though: There is no real news value in what Trump’s tone is like, or what his predictions are, or what he’s finally willing or not willing to acknowledge, or for how long.
None of that has any practical effect on anything.
What matters is whether Trump is going to do what experts have been telling him needs to be done for four-plus months now: Institute a robust national testing plan that includes massive supply-chain management; support and guide a national contact-tracing initiative; and forcefully request that people wear masks.
There is still no sign whatsoever that he’s going to do either of the first two things, which are absolutely essential. Reporters should be holding him accountable for that calamitous failure, every day and at the top of their lungs.
But at least here, finally, he did the third one.
Why such a skewed and misbegotten focus from the elite press?
One big reason is that the wrong people are covering this story. Political reporters and editors should be entirely out of the loop on pandemic-related coverage. It’s too important to be covered through their warped optics. Good health and science reporters make it their life’s work to cut through bullshit claims, determine who’s right and who’s wrong, and tell readers what they need to know. That’s what’s entirely missing here, and they should be the ones in charge of all the related coverage.
Political reporters have other priorities. And for those in the rarefied White House press corps, one of the top priorities is to continually justify their own value. That means treating Trump as someone who is endlessly fascinating, potentially teachable, and enormously consequential – rather than describing him as a predictably venal, incoherent and unchanging narcissist.
I loved how attorney Daniel Nazer put it in a tweet on Tuesday, responding to my outrage over an ABC News analysis – actually preceding Trump’s briefing! – that described Trump’s “new tone and a new level of engagement.”
Decades of stenography and both-side journalism left them without the skill-set to report on a President who is an incompetent narcissist and compulsive liar. So they simply invent a different President to report on. — Daniel Nazer (@danielnazer) July 21, 2020
Another attorney, Rajat Soni, also nailed it on Wednesday:
. @EricBoehlert @froomkin @jayrosen_nyu well know the press is failing. But I think the way to understand WH correspondent “tone watch” is that reporters want to desperately believe they have important jobs and not see reality: their whole day is spent with venal pointless liars. — Rajat ????oni (@rsoxsea) July 22, 2020
So did media figure and critic Soledad O’Brien:
The media wants a narrative of learning and shifting so so badly, even when there’s no evidence of it. https://t.co/PpkVPJjCGD — Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) July 22, 2020
To its credit, the Trump campaign itself was one of the few places to give Trump’s mask comments the headline status they deserved, in this video:
But the people who needed to hear Trump’s new message the most were the low-information voters — the ones who only read headlines, watch the network news, or heed Fox News and other right-wing outlets.
Reporters and editors in mainstream and right-wing media had a chance to take the high road and make a positive difference on Tuesday, by stating loud and clear that Trump himself wants you to put on your mask, dammit. And they failed.
A note from Dan Froomkin:
I’ve written a lot about Trump’s response to the pandemic, and here is what has been clear all along: It’s an ongoing tragedy that he has no real plan to restore the country to health other than to peddle false hope, predict a quick end, adopt fake deadlines and shift the blame to others. The most urgent need is to test, test, and test even more, but Trump has never liked testing because the results “look bad”. The media has blown its coverage of the federal response by letting political reporters lead instead of health reporters. Political reporters pay way too much attention to whatever Trump says, such that whatever it is makes headlines. They let Trump set the agenda instead of letting knowledgeable people do it. Political reporters also give Trump way too much credit for trying, which he is not. They cover up for his incoherence, ignorance, cluelessness, gaslighting, and yes, just plain stupidity. They generally fail to properly exploit their rare access to him by confronting him with facts and piercing his bubble. They don’t hold him accountable for the suffering and deaths he is causing. They remain complacent in the face of a massive death toll, instead of relentlessly demanding more forceful action.
Please consider supporting my work, which is dependent on your donations.


presswatchers--2020-07-24--The New York Times has a misogyny problem, too

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes some people very uncomfortable , and apparently that includes some editors and reporters at the New York Times .
So rather than report on how Ocasio-Cortez ’ s riveting , viral speech on the House floor on Thursday was a signal moment in the fight against abusive sexism , Times congressional reporters Luke Broadwater and Catie Edmondson filed a story full of sexist double standards and embraced the framing of her critics by casting her as a rule-breaker trying to “ amplify her brand.
” First things first : If you haven ’ t watched and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
( There ’ s a transcript here . )
Then consider that the Times described the speech as “ her most norm-shattering moment yet , ” leading with the fact that “ she took to the House floor to read into the Congressional Record a sexist vulgarity that Representative Ted Yoho , a Florida Republican , had used to refer to her.
” Washington Post reporters John Wagner and Paul Kane , by contrast , led their story by describing how “ House Democrats rallied around a high-profile congresswoman Thursday in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical “ tell ” in the Times ’ s coverage – something perhaps only fellow journalists would fully appreciate at first – was how the paper had previously avoided directly quoting Yoho ’ s particular words , but did so now : Author , cultural critic ( and close friend ) Mark Harris was quick to call the Times out : In the first Times article on the matter , on Tuesday , Broadwater described Yoho ’ s words as “ a pair of expletives ” – noting that Ocasio-Cortez “ sought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In his second article , on Wednesday , he referred to it as “ a vulgar and sexist expletive.
” Now , all of a sudden , the Times was printing the words “ fucking bitch.
” James Fallows , the renowned Atlantic national correspondent , asked in a tweet : “ WHY should these words appear in a quote from AOC , at whom they were hatefully directed , rather than one from Rep. Yoho , who actually said them ?
” The Times reporters wrote that after her speech , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using her detractors to amplify her own political brand , invited a group of Democratic women in the House to come forward to express solidarity with her.
” Only then did the Times acknowledge the actual significance of the occasion : But then it was back to ascribing mercenary motivations , describing how “ the media-savvy Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had sprung into action to create a disruptive and viral event.
” Who edited this story ?
There ’ s no way to know .
But the fact that the Times printed the word “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the very top of the foodchain .
Hamza Shaban , a business reporter for the Washington Post , called attention to the similarities between the Times ’ s framing of the story and the story ’ s own description , toward the end , of how Republicans have demonized Ocasio-Cortez .
The fundamental problem with the story , as Shaban noted , was that it cast Ocasio-Cortez as the violator of norms , rather than questioning the norms she was denouncing so eloquently .
As British educator Sinéad Fitzsimons put it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norm-shattering moment… ’ is standing up against abusive # sexism ?
What exactly is the norm then ?
” Science fiction author Sarah Pinsker noted the double standard , tweeting : “ The NYT is doing exactly what AOC complained about in that speech , shaming her as if she somehow did something wrong in repeating the words he used against her.
” In fact , the double standards were everywhere .
New York magazine writer Rebecca Traister , responding to Harris ’ s tweet , noted : “ Women ’ s anger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regularly presented as path to self-advancement for the women .
Voicing fury at systemic degradation is read as opportunistic .
Whereas men ’ s abusive behavior rarely understood as fundamental to how they attained & maintain THEIR power .
But it is !
” Washington Post columnist Helaine Olen tweeted : “ I ’ m not into NYT bashing – newspaper work is hard and reporters and editors make bad calls !
— but referring to @ AOC masterful speech as a ‘ brand ’ exercise is a major , major miss.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s remarks serves as an antidote of sorts to the Times story .
Writing for the New Yorker , he gave her credit for her achievements : In a speech that “ should be studied for its measured cadence , its artful construction , and its refusal of ugliness , ” Ocasio-Cortez “ defended not only herself ; she defended principle and countless women , ” Remnick wrote .
And he clearly identified the real norm-killer : In the Washington Post , Monica Hesse wrote that “ On the subject of misogyny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the speech of a lifetime.
” Ocasio-Cortez is an extraordinary political figure : a smart , brave , charismatic , young Latina who refuses to be intimidated by anything or anyone .
Her very existence in Congress , along with her insistent , progressive agenda , her bold words and actions , and the ease with which she navigates pop culture and social media , have turned her into an icon – a singular walking , talking challenge to the conservative white male power structure .
As such , she tends to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And on Thursday , she brought out the worst in the Times .
I write a lot about the New York Times because it is hugely influential but does a terrible job of holding itself accountable .
They won ’ t pay for a public editor .
But you can help support Press Watch with a donation !

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes some people very uncomfortable, and apparently that includes some editors and reporters at the New York Times.
So rather than report on how Ocasio-Cortez’s riveting, viral speech on the House floor on Thursday was a signal moment in the fight against abusive sexism, Times congressional reporters Luke Broadwater and Catie Edmondson filed a story full of sexist double standards and embraced the framing of her critics by casting her as a rule-breaker trying to “amplify her brand.”
First things first: If you haven’t watched and heard her remarks yet, do so now. (There’s a transcript here.)
Here is my full response regarding Mr. Yoho and the culture of misogyny that inspired his actions. I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues and everyone speaking up and out against the rampant mistreatment of women both in Congress and across the country. ⬇ https://t.co/nFfxy5UdmP — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 23, 2020
Then consider that the Times described the speech as “her most norm-shattering moment yet,” leading with the fact that “she took to the House floor to read into the Congressional Record a sexist vulgarity that Representative Ted Yoho, a Florida Republican, had used to refer to her.”
Washington Post reporters John Wagner and Paul Kane, by contrast, led their story by describing how “House Democrats rallied around a high-profile congresswoman Thursday in an extraordinary denunciation of sexism.”
A critical “tell” in the Times’s coverage – something perhaps only fellow journalists would fully appreciate at first – was how the paper had previously avoided directly quoting Yoho’s particular words, but did so now:
“In front of reporters, Representative Yoho called me, and I quote: ‘A fucking bitch,’” she said, punching each syllable in the vulgarity.
Author, cultural critic (and close friend) Mark Harris was quick to call the Times out:
The NYT, which would not use the words when Ted Yoho spoke them, uses them tonight to quote @AOC–and it describes HER behavior, not his, as "disruptive" and a "norm-shattering moment," one that it implies is about "amplifying her own brand." JFC. pic.twitter.com/8LR7DV3uc0 — Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) July 24, 2020
In the first Times article on the matter, on Tuesday, Broadwater described Yoho’s words as “a pair of expletives” – noting that Ocasio-Cortez “sought to turn the insult to her advantage.”
In his second article, on Wednesday, he referred to it as “a vulgar and sexist expletive.”
Now, all of a sudden, the Times was printing the words “fucking bitch.”
James Fallows, the renowned Atlantic national correspondent, asked in a tweet: “WHY should these words appear in a quote from AOC, at whom they were hatefully directed, rather than one from Rep. Yoho, who actually said them?”
Progressive journalist Benjamin Dixon suggested a possible explanation:
When I heard @AOC use the exact phrase Ted Yoho insulted her with, my gut told me that someone somewhere would be more upset at her saying the words than Ted Yoho. Behold, the NYTimes: “… she had her most norm-shattering moment…punching each syllable in the vulgarity.” pic.twitter.com/bkan0VX8dF — Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) July 24, 2020
The Times reporters wrote that after her speech, “Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who excels at using her detractors to amplify her own political brand, invited a group of Democratic women in the House to come forward to express solidarity with her.”
Only then did the Times acknowledge the actual significance of the occasion:
More even than the profanity uttered on the House floor, where language is carefully regulated, what unfolded over the next hour was a remarkable moment of cultural upheaval on Capitol Hill.
But then it was back to ascribing mercenary motivations, describing how “the media-savvy Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had sprung into action to create a disruptive and viral event.”
Who edited this story? There’s no way to know. But the fact that the Times printed the word “fucking” means it must have got to the very top of the foodchain.
Hamza Shaban, a business reporter for the Washington Post, called attention to the similarities between the Times’s framing of the story and the story’s own description, toward the end, of how Republicans have demonized Ocasio-Cortez.
This story frames AOC as a norm-shattering, virality-chasing politician because she uses her social media platform and her position of power to call out colleagues who dehumanize her in racist and sexist ways….instead of focusing on the racism and sexism https://t.co/nVRbNsGkLD — Hamza Shaban (@hshaban) July 24, 2020
The fundamental problem with the story, as Shaban noted, was that it cast Ocasio-Cortez as the violator of norms, rather than questioning the norms she was denouncing so eloquently.
As British educator Sinéad Fitzsimons put it in a tweet: “’…her most norm-shattering moment…’ is standing up against abusive #sexism ? What exactly is the norm then?”
Science fiction author Sarah Pinsker noted the double standard, tweeting: “The NYT is doing exactly what AOC complained about in that speech, shaming her as if she somehow did something wrong in repeating the words he used against her.”
In fact, the double standards were everywhere. New York magazine writer Rebecca Traister, responding to Harris’s tweet, noted: “Women’s anger at male power abuse [is] regularly presented as path to self-advancement for the women. Voicing fury at systemic degradation is read as opportunistic. Whereas men’s abusive behavior rarely understood as fundamental to how they attained & maintain THEIR power. But it is!”
Progressive journalist Elizabeth Spiers:
When AOC does something to exhibit leadership, it's an exercise in brand building. When men do it–white guys, in particular–it's statesmanship. — Elizabeth Spiers (@espiers) July 24, 2020
Vanderbilt University law professor Gautam Hans:
This has so many anti-woman notes it’s Exhibit A on why it’s (still) a man’s world. A man standing up for oneself is brave; a woman doing it is “cheeky.” NYT: do better. @AOC — keep doing good. They wouldn’t come for her if they weren’t afraid. https://t.co/FtS6v8HuIs — Gautam Hans (@dispositive) July 24, 2020
Washington Post columnist Helaine Olen tweeted: “I’m not into NYT bashing – newspaper work is hard and reporters and editors make bad calls! — but referring to @AOC masterful speech as a ‘brand’ exercise is a major, major miss.”
David Remnick’s appreciation of Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks serves as an antidote of sorts to the Times story. Writing for the New Yorker, he gave her credit for her achievements:
Ocasio-Cortez has been at the forefront of major issues, including climate change, immigration, campaign-finance reform, and income inequality. Her ability to skewer a balky witness in committee hearings has proved as uncanny as it is entertaining.
In a speech that “should be studied for its measured cadence, its artful construction, and its refusal of ugliness,” Ocasio-Cortez “defended not only herself; she defended principle and countless women,” Remnick wrote.
And he clearly identified the real norm-killer:
The politics of our moment are dominated by a bully of miserable character, a President who has failed to contain a pandemic through sheer indifference, who has fabricated a reëlection campaign based on bigotry and the deliberate inflammation of division. His language is abusive, his attitude toward women disdainful.
In the Washington Post, Monica Hesse wrote that “On the subject of misogyny at least, her Thursday address was the speech of a lifetime.”
Ocasio-Cortez is an extraordinary political figure: a smart, brave, charismatic, young Latina who refuses to be intimidated by anything or anyone.
Her very existence in Congress, along with her insistent, progressive agenda, her bold words and actions, and the ease with which she navigates pop culture and social media, have turned her into an icon – a singular walking, talking challenge to the conservative white male power structure.
As such, she tends to bring out the worst in some people.
And on Thursday, she brought out the worst in the Times.
A note from Dan Froomkin:
I write a lot about the New York Times because it is hugely influential but does a terrible job of holding itself accountable. They won’t pay for a public editor. But you can help support Press Watch with a donation!


presswatchers--2020-07-31--The failed promise of “objective” political reporting

There are two main reasons why the leaders of America ’ s elite newsrooms are so devoted to the journalistic practice commonly referred to as “ objectivity ” , which precludes reporters from “ taking sides ” in their political coverage — even when one side is an obvious lie , or an affront to core journalistic values like pluralism and democracy .
The official reason is that they sincerely believe that press neutrality leads to a more informed electorate .
They argue that voters will trust their news sources more if those sources are “ unbiased , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be accepted as the truth if readers come to their own conclusions rather than being told what to think .
A news organization perceived as objective , they say , has an increased power to persuade .
The unofficial reason , which New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen pithily calls “ refuge seeking , ” is that the “ objective ” approach protects editors and reporters from criticism – specifically , from accusations of bias .
It also allows them to feel superior to partisans and activists , because they remain “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s review .
Our leading journalistic institutions engage in “ objectivity ” to achieve two major goals : So , here ’ s my question to New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet , Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron , Associated Press executive editor Sally Buzbee , and the other proclaimed and self-proclaimed guardians of our biggest , finest news organizations : How ’ s that working out for you ?
The obvious answer is that “ objectivity ” has failed miserably to achieve either goal – and is more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Some four out of 10 Americans currently believe all sorts of things that aren ’ t remotely true , like that the Black Lives Matter protests have been mostly violent , or that voter fraud is a problem and that mail-in voting makes it worse , or — despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary — that Trump is doing a good job .
Nearly three in 10 believe Covid-19 was made in a lab and that Bill Gates wants to use vaccination to implant trackable microchips in people .
Immune from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe these things because they heard them from Fox News or some other right-wing super-spreader of conspiracy theories , after having decided that the “ mainstream press ” is , like their president says , so biased that it has become “ fake news ” and the “ enemy of the people.
” And before you simply blame social media and filter bubbles – which of course are factors here – ask yourself this : Could it be that the “ objective ” approach to covering major political issues is simply too anodyne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fence ?
What if the mainstream , reality-based media armed its audience with facts as emphatically and effectively as Fox News arms its audience with misinformation ?
What if the New York Times aggressively advocated for the truth , rather than just putting it out there for the record ?
A large fraction of America has tuned out the elite media , treating it like so much white noise .
What if the Washington Post more assertively said in its news stories : “ Here ’ s what we believe are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they said : “ Here ’ s where we ’ re coming from ” ?
What if they said : “ Here ’ s our best explanation of why all this crazy stuff is happening and why you ’ re so screwed ?
And what if the mainstream media provided its audience with a true , overarching narrative in which to situate the day-to-day stories – true , evidence-based narratives as compelling as the false ones that Fox and OAN and others are selling — rather than throwing their hands up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
The only thing hard about this would be overcoming decades of self-censorship .
Reality-based reporters know the truth : Economic stories exist within a narrative of grotesque inequality sustained by the people who benefit from it ; the earth is in grave danger from climate change but fossil-fuel interests have blocked necessary action ; law enforcement is only one of many institutions that devalue Black lives ; and Donald Trump doesn ’ t fix problems , he exploits them .
People hunger for compelling and explanatory narratives – that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like George Conway and books like those by Mary Trump and Michael Wolff .
My view is that journalism as it is currently practiced by our most elite organizations simply isn ’ t persuasive .
It frustrates the liars enough that they ’ ll still try to delegitimize it – and succeed , in scary proportions .
But printing the truth and the lies and letting the people decide just isn ’ t working .
You have to shout the truth from the rooftops , and fight the lies in the streets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these issues to a head , the failure of objectivity is not just a Trump-era phenomenon .
Most notably and fatally , the failure of the press to assertively call out the flaws in the case against Saddam Hussein – out of fear of appearing biased — quite arguably led to a devastating war .
When a poll in late 2003 showed that a shocking 69 percent of Americans falsely believed Hussein had a role in the 9/11 terror attacks , newsroom leaders across the country should have launched a major reassessment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Trump openly challenging the basic mechanics of democracy , the question is upon us : When it comes down to a choice between authoritarianism and democracy , will the elite media “ take sides ” ?
Or will they be afraid of appearing biased ?
In a seminal tweet early this summer , during the battle over a particularly abhorrent op-ed , journalist Wesley Lowery set down a marker : Some have depicted this view as radical , demanding some sort of uniform view on all issues .
But what Lowery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing for is not moral conformity , just clarity .
Government “ by the people ” depends on voters being exposed to different points of view — but it also requires the media to fight misinformation .
So that means journalists should strive to present a variety of political arguments to their audiences .
But they need to be based in reality and presented honestly .
Alternately , political arguments that gain currency but are made in bad faith – particularly those that are racist , or sexist , inhumane , or anti-democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Journalists shouldn ’ t pretend they know the answers .
We should just stop pretending we don ’ t know what the problems are .
Heck , maybe “ moral clarity ” just means having an occasional open discussion in diverse newsrooms about how to do the work , rather than just doing it the way it ’ s always been done .
“ What I argue for is a more deliberate process that acknowledges that there are morals and ethics at all , ” Lowery told newsletter journalist Luke O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these folks get off on saying ‘ We don ’ t make any decisions ever .
This is what it ’ s always been ’ as a way of shielding the fact that they are constantly making decisions , and those decisions are subject to their biases.
” Lowery noted : “ I ’ ll be honest , in my experience there is far less discussion than there should be .
Everything operates on autopilot .
Objectivity is supposed to create a bond of trust between journalists and their audience .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , transparent journalistic application of moral clarity would enhance trust a lot more than the transparently bogus application of strained euphemisms , flagrant false equivalence , amnesia and credulousness .
As I wrote last month , editors like Baquet are pursuing a form of objectivity that encompasses a whole range of anachronistic attitudes and habits that actually reduce the accuracy and authenticity of news coverage , rather than enhance it – and the readers notice .
Intelligent readers cringe when they read star New York Times reporter Peter Baker join the he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer appears to be a viable strategy for Mr. Trump ” .
( The Times itself published an unsigned and oddly short-lived item in its live news updates a few days later , headlined : “ Trump Returns to Where He ’ s Mostly Been on Coronavirus : Denying Reality ” .
It started off : “ Trump ’ s supposed shift on the virus didn ’ t last long.
” ) Focusing on tactics rather than substance leads to horrors like this recent Washington Post article examining who will benefit politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for desperate Americans .
It literally featured headers saying “ Democrats say ” and “ Republicans say ” .
The worst thing , however , is the hypocrisy .
Reporters confidently describe Trump ’ s thinking when they ’ re making absurdly generous and incorrect assumptions ( as when he recently restarted his daily briefings because he missed the ratings , but the Times called it “ a tacit acknowledgment that the public health crisis he had hoped to put behind him was still ravaging much of the country ” ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write that he ’ s lying , or crazy , or stupid .
Consider how at the New York Times sometimes it ’ s important not to tell people what they should think about a news story , but other times it is – and a key factor seems to be whether it will annoy the left .
Don ’ t want to take my word for it ?
In his interview on the Times ’ s own Daily podcast in January , Baquet defended the paper ’ s both-sides coverage of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reader who just wants to pick up his paper in the morning and know what the hell happened .
I ’ m beholden to that reader , and I feel obligated to tell that reader what happened.
” But defending an article about Bernie Sanders ’ s entrance into the 2016 Democratic presidential primary that framed Sanders as a longshot who at best might shift Hillary Clinton a bit to the left , Baquet said : “ I think we got to tell the readers , in the moment , how should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I think the reader picks up The New York Times and says , Bernie Sanders , I ’ ve never heard of him .
How should I think about him ?
” There ’ s no consistency .
“ Objectivity ” seems to be based on an oversensitivity to the imagined views of a mythical center-right white male who doesn ’ t exist — and it pisses off readers who do .
Local journalism is dying , and to some extent I blame that on “ objectivity , ” too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in 2009 , when I wrote that “ Playing it Safe ’ Is Killing the American Newspaper ” : Maybe if local papers were pluckier and more assertive about advocating for the people in their communities those people would be more willing to pay .
If they want to take the public ’ s side , local , regional and national newspapers should consider creating beats based not on how officialdom organizes itself , but on major areas where people are getting screwed .
So maybe there should be a beat about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effects of criminal justice .
National news organizations are suddenly , finally , devoting resources to race issues .
But what about creating beats for inequality , misogyny , and official secrecy ?
There are signs of progress here and there .
In regards to Trump ’ s attempts to delegitimize the Nov. 3 election , the mainstream media has , effectively , taken sides ( with some notable exceptions . )
Some news organizations are recognizing that taking sides is just fine sometimes .
Here ’ s the vice president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the industry can change ?
Not so much in the short run , no .
That ’ s because there ’ s actually a third reason so many journalistic leaders cling to “ objectivity ” : Abandoning it would require them to admit they were wrong – and that “ liberals ” like me were right .
It would mean surrendering the moral high ground they treasure more than anything .
That ’ s why I don ’ t expect much to change until there ’ s a new generation of leadership @ @ @ @

There are two main reasons why the leaders of America’s elite newsrooms are so devoted to the journalistic practice commonly referred to as “objectivity”, which precludes reporters from “taking sides” in their political coverage — even when one side is an obvious lie, or an affront to core journalistic values like pluralism and democracy.
The official reason is that they sincerely believe that press neutrality leads to a more informed electorate. They argue that voters will trust their news sources more if those sources are “unbiased,” and that accurate information is more likely to be accepted as the truth if readers come to their own conclusions rather than being told what to think. A news organization perceived as objective, they say, has an increased power to persuade.
The unofficial reason, which New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen pithily calls “refuge seeking,” is that the “objective” approach protects editors and reporters from criticism – specifically, from accusations of bias. It also allows them to feel superior to partisans and activists, because they remain “above the fray.”
OK, let’s review. Our leading journalistic institutions engage in “objectivity” to achieve two major goals:
An informed electorate.
Immunity from accusations of bias.
So, here’s my question to New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet, Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron, Associated Press executive editor Sally Buzbee, and the other proclaimed and self-proclaimed guardians of our biggest, finest news organizations:
How’s that working out for you?
Not so great, huh?
The obvious answer is that “objectivity” has failed miserably to achieve either goal – and is more likely having the opposite effect.
Informed electorate? Some four out of 10 Americans currently believe all sorts of things that aren’t remotely true, like that the Black Lives Matter protests have been mostly violent, or that voter fraud is a problem and that mail-in voting makes it worse, or — despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary — that Trump is doing a good job. Nearly three in 10 believe Covid-19 was made in a lab and that Bill Gates wants to use vaccination to implant trackable microchips in people.
Immune from accusations of bias? Those misinformed voters believe these things because they heard them from Fox News or some other right-wing super-spreader of conspiracy theories, after having decided that the “mainstream press” is, like their president says, so biased that it has become “fake news” and the “enemy of the people.”
And before you simply blame social media and filter bubbles – which of course are factors here – ask yourself this: Could it be that the “objective” approach to covering major political issues is simply too anodyne to convince anyone who’s on the fence?
What if the mainstream, reality-based media armed its audience with facts as emphatically and effectively as Fox News arms its audience with misinformation? What if the New York Times aggressively advocated for the truth, rather than just putting it out there for the record?
A large fraction of America has tuned out the elite media, treating it like so much white noise. What if the Washington Post more assertively said in its news stories: “Here’s what we believe are the facts, and why”? What if they said: “Here’s where we’re coming from”? What if they said: “Here’s our best explanation of why all this crazy stuff is happening and why you’re so screwed?
And what if the mainstream media provided its audience with a true, overarching narrative in which to situate the day-to-day stories – true, evidence-based narratives as compelling as the false ones that Fox and OAN and others are selling — rather than throwing their hands up in the air and saying “you decide”?
The only thing hard about this would be overcoming decades of self-censorship.
Reality-based reporters know the truth: Economic stories exist within a narrative of grotesque inequality sustained by the people who benefit from it; the earth is in grave danger from climate change but fossil-fuel interests have blocked necessary action; law enforcement is only one of many institutions that devalue Black lives; and Donald Trump doesn’t fix problems, he exploits them.
People hunger for compelling and explanatory narratives – that’s why they respond so strongly to people like George Conway and books like those by Mary Trump and Michael Wolff.
My view is that journalism as it is currently practiced by our most elite organizations simply isn’t persuasive. It frustrates the liars enough that they’ll still try to delegitimize it – and succeed, in scary proportions.
But printing the truth and the lies and letting the people decide just isn’t working. You have to shout the truth from the rooftops, and fight the lies in the streets.
And although Trump and Trumpism have brought these issues to a head, the failure of objectivity is not just a Trump-era phenomenon.
Most notably and fatally, the failure of the press to assertively call out the flaws in the case against Saddam Hussein – out of fear of appearing biased — quite arguably led to a devastating war. When a poll in late 2003 showed that a shocking 69 percent of Americans falsely believed Hussein had a role in the 9/11 terror attacks, newsroom leaders across the country should have launched a major reassessment of their approach to fighting misinformation.
Today, with Trump openly challenging the basic mechanics of democracy, the question is upon us: When it comes down to a choice between authoritarianism and democracy, will the elite media “take sides”? Or will they be afraid of appearing biased?
The alternative: “moral clarity”
In a seminal tweet early this summer, during the battle over a particularly abhorrent op-ed, journalist Wesley Lowery set down a marker:
American view-from-nowhere, "objectivity"-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity — Wesley (@WesleyLowery) June 4, 2020
Some have depicted this view as radical, demanding some sort of uniform view on all issues. But what Lowery and others (including myself) are arguing for is not moral conformity, just clarity.
Government “by the people” depends on voters being exposed to different points of view — but it also requires the media to fight misinformation. So that means journalists should strive to present a variety of political arguments to their audiences. But they need to be based in reality and presented honestly. Alternately, political arguments that gain currency but are made in bad faith – particularly those that are racist, or sexist, inhumane, or anti-democratic — should be clearly identified as such.
Moral clarity in news journalism isn’t partisan or polemic.
Journalists shouldn’t pretend they know the answers. We should just stop pretending we don’t know what the problems are.
Heck, maybe “moral clarity” just means having an occasional open discussion in diverse newsrooms about how to do the work, rather than just doing it the way it’s always been done.
“What I argue for is a more deliberate process that acknowledges that there are morals and ethics at all,” Lowery told newsletter journalist Luke O’Neil in early July. “All these folks get off on saying ‘We don’t make any decisions ever. This is what it’s always been’ as a way of shielding the fact that they are constantly making decisions, and those decisions are subject to their biases.”
Lowery noted: “I’ll be honest, in my experience there is far less discussion than there should be. Everything operates on autopilot.
Losing trust not gaining it
Objectivity is supposed to create a bond of trust between journalists and their audience. But I’ve often argued that an honest, transparent journalistic application of moral clarity would enhance trust a lot more than the transparently bogus application of strained euphemisms, flagrant false equivalence, amnesia and credulousness.
As I wrote last month, editors like Baquet are pursuing a form of objectivity that encompasses a whole range of anachronistic attitudes and habits that actually reduce the accuracy and authenticity of news coverage, rather than enhance it – and the readers notice.
Intelligent readers cringe when they read star New York Times reporter Peter Baker join the he’s-changing-his-tone chorus by pronouncing that “denial no longer appears to be a viable strategy for Mr. Trump”. (The Times itself published an unsigned and oddly short-lived item in its live news updates a few days later, headlined: “Trump Returns to Where He’s Mostly Been on Coronavirus: Denying Reality”. It started off: “Trump’s supposed shift on the virus didn’t last long.”)
Focusing on tactics rather than substance leads to horrors like this recent Washington Post article examining who will benefit politically from Republicans letting unemployment benefits run out for desperate Americans. It literally featured headers saying “Democrats say” and “Republicans say”.
The worst thing, however, is the hypocrisy. Reporters confidently describe Trump’s thinking when they’re making absurdly generous and incorrect assumptions (as when he recently restarted his daily briefings because he missed the ratings, but the Times called it “a tacit acknowledgment that the public health crisis he had hoped to put behind him was still ravaging much of the country”). But they can’t bring themselves to write that he’s lying, or crazy, or stupid.
Consider how at the New York Times sometimes it’s important not to tell people what they should think about a news story, but other times it is – and a key factor seems to be whether it will annoy the left.
Don’t want to take my word for it? In his interview on the Times’s own Daily podcast in January, Baquet defended the paper’s both-sides coverage of Trump by saying: “I think of the reader who just wants to pick up his paper in the morning and know what the hell happened. I’m beholden to that reader, and I feel obligated to tell that reader what happened.”
But defending an article about Bernie Sanders’s entrance into the 2016 Democratic presidential primary that framed Sanders as a longshot who at best might shift Hillary Clinton a bit to the left, Baquet said: “I think we got to tell the readers, in the moment, how should we think about this.” He added: “I think the reader picks up The New York Times and says, Bernie Sanders, I’ve never heard of him. How should I think about him?”
There’s no consistency. “Objectivity” seems to be based on an oversensitivity to the imagined views of a mythical center-right white male who doesn’t exist — and it pisses off readers who do.
Taking the public’s side
Local journalism is dying, and to some extent I blame that on “objectivity,” too.
Here’s the core argument I made in 2009, when I wrote that “Playing it Safe’ Is Killing the American Newspaper”:
But we’re hiding much of our newsrooms’ value behind a terribly anachronistic format: voiceless, incremental news stories that neither get much traffic nor make our sites compelling destinations. While the dispassionate, what-happened-yesterday, inverted-pyramid daily news story still has some marginal utility, it is mostly a throwback at this point — a relic of a daily product delivered on paper to a geographically limited community. (For instance, it’s the daily delivery cycle of our print product that led us to focus on yesterday’s news. And it’s the focus on maximizing newspaper circulation that drove us to create the notion of “objectivity” – thereby removing opinion and voice from news stories — for fear of alienating any segment of potential subscribers.)… While we legitimately want to keep partisanship and polemics out of our news coverage, we need to stop banishing our humanity and the passions that made us become journalists in the first place. When we find a great story, why shouldn’t we shout it from the rooftops?
Maybe if local papers were pluckier and more assertive about advocating for the people in their communities those people would be more willing to pay.
If they want to take the public’s side, local, regional and national newspapers should consider creating beats based not on how officialdom organizes itself, but on major areas where people are getting screwed. So maybe there should be a beat about struggles with poverty, and another on the effects of criminal justice.
National news organizations are suddenly, finally, devoting resources to race issues. But what about creating beats for inequality, misogyny, and official secrecy?
There are signs of progress here and there. In regards to Trump’s attempts to delegitimize the Nov. 3 election, the mainstream media has, effectively, taken sides (with some notable exceptions.)
Some news organizations are recognizing that taking sides is just fine sometimes. Here’s the vice president of new at McClatchy:
Expressing that Black lives matter is not a political statement. It is a fundamental truth. It is not a violation of social media policy to tell the world that Black lives matter. — Kristin Roberts (@KLR_Editor) July 29, 2020
Am I hopeful that the industry can change? Not so much in the short run, no.
That’s because there’s actually a third reason so many journalistic leaders cling to “objectivity”: Abandoning it would require them to admit they were wrong – and that “liberals” like me were right. It would mean surrendering the moral high ground they treasure more than anything. That’s why I don’t expect much to change until there’s a new generation of leadership in our newsrooms.