presswatchers--2020-05-27--How to cover Joe Biden’s failures without a repeat of 2016

How should mainstream news reporters cover Joe Biden ’ s frequent flubs and considerable flaws , when Donald Trump ’ s are so much worse ?
Well , they shouldn ’ t ignore them .
But they certainly shouldn ’ t try to equate them with Trump ’ s , either .
Looking at the tenor and content of the coverage of Biden ’ s jaw-dropping quip on Friday about who is and “ ain ’ t black , ” I would say our mainstream news organizations got it about right .
When the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee does something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s news — no matter who he ’ s running against .
It raises all sorts of questions about his discernment .
It speaks to how the Democratic Party takes the African-American community ’ s votes for granted .
When Biden apologized , that was news , too , because it showed that he could admit he was wrong .
And most of the coverage by reputable news organizations prominently included some version of the crucial context , which is that , by comparison , Trump routinely says racist things , his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to African-American voters is for obvious reasons almost nonexistent .
The political media also let the story drop after a few days , instead of dogging it as if it were a major scandal , or trying to suggest some sort of equivalency with the ongoing Trump debacles .
There were still complaints from prominent Democrats , including two former presidential spokesmen : But the lesson of 2016 is not to ignore the failings of the Democrat running against Trump .
It ’ s to cover them with some sense of proportion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , news organizations engaged in a considerable amount of critical reporting about Hillary Clinton , focusing primarily on her abuse of a personal email server while secretary of state , but also on her unseemly coziness with donors to the Clinton Foundation , and on secret reassurances that she made to major banks in her highly-paid appearances .
By any reasonable journalistic standard , Trump ’ s defects as a presidential candidate were of an entirely different scale than Clinton ’ s .
While there were certainly strong indications of Clinton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when it came to Trump , there was overwhelming , constantly replenishing evidence of pervasive deceit , self-dealing and corruption throughout his career and up to the present day .
But in the most authoritative post-mortem of 2016 campaign journalism , Harvard government professor Thomas E. Patterson concluded that Clinton and Trump coverage by the major news organizations “ was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone.
” “ Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump ?
” Patterson asked .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign.
” Similarly , a team of Harvard and MIT researchers found that coverage of Clinton ’ s email scandal accounted for more sentences than all of Trump ’ s scandals combined ( about 65,000 compare to about 40,000 ) — and more than twice as many as were devoted to all of her policy positions .
This was a huge and terrible mistake .
Some if not most of the Clinton coverage was entirely legitimate .
But in retrospect , it was wildly out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s victory .
One important explanation for this is often neglected : Pretty much no one in political-media circles actually thought Trump had a chance of winning .
Since we were all assuming that Clinton would prevail , the tough , insistent coverage was less about evaluating her as a candidate and more like a head start on the coverage of her presidency .
Speaking for myself at least – as Washington editor of The Intercept , I wrote , guided and edited a fair number of stories that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her secrecy and her ties to corporate elites – my goal was not to warn voters away , it was to increase the pressure on Clinton to be more transparent and less beholden to corporate interests going forward .
By contrast , many stories about Trump ’ s corruption , ignorance , and moral shortcomings were one-and-done .
Once they were on the record , I suspect that the leaders of most news organizations thought that was enough .
How many times did you need to write the same thing ?
How many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same outrageous lie ?
He obviously wasn ’ t going to win .
The unfortunate result was that legitimate stories about Clinton were endlessly republished by the New York Times and other major news platforms , topped with minor incremental discoveries , all over the front pages , all the way up until Election Day — while Trump ’ s failings were considered old news .
There was nothing wrong with exploring Clinton ’ s weaknesses .
The big problem was the volume .
It was excessive .
This time around , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Opinion polls again show Trump behind , but the possibility that he could win — while hard to contemplate — simply can not be dismissed .
And these days , coverage of Trump ’ s flaws is , for good reason , pretty much nonstop .
He is making major news every day , in ways that make his incompetence , deceit and corruption constantly relevant and worth revisiting .
But what 2020 and 2016 do have in common is flawed Democratic candidates .
• His cognitive abilities are a legitimate subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His syntax is often tangled , his answers are sometimes vague , he can be bizarrely confrontational , and he is prone to losing his train of thought .
• He has repeatedly lied about his record , especially about his abiding support for war in Iraq and his long history as a deficit hawk open to cutting Social Security benefits .
• Although the accusation of assault by former staffer Tara Reade increasingly appears unsubstantiated , he has a lengthy history of touching women inappropriately , even creepily .
• He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , he invented an arrest in South Africa that never happened .
• And despite Trump ’ s transparently bogus attempt to gin up an investigation of Biden ’ s son , there are some legitimate concerns about corruption in his family .
All of those merit greater press coverage than they have gotten so far – with one key caveat : Even granting the most negative interpretations of Biden ’ s flaws , Trump is magnitudes worse .
For instance , Trump ’ s cognitive issues are clearly way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , confused , and incoherent — and they are exacerbated by a number of troubling psychological problems , most notably malignant narcissism and a complete lack of empathy .
Biden might be creepy , but Trump is a sexual predator .
Biden only lies about a few things , Trump ’ s lies are constant .
And Trump ’ s corruption is boundless and ongoing , beyond even the wildest pre-Trump imagination , and enriches both him and his family .
The danger is actually undercoverage Writing about Biden ’ s failings in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit comparable to Trump ’ s would be journalistic malpractice .
But in a normal election cycle , problems like the ones Biden has would fuel way more media coverage than they are currently getting .
Obviously , a big factor here is that the coronavirus pandemic has relegated every other news story – even the presidential election – to the sidelines .
But even before the pandemic became big news , the corporate political media was remarkably gentle with Biden , not even asking him the obvious , tough questions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusively been softballs .
It happened again on Tuesday , when Biden sat down with CNN ’ s Dana Bash for 15 minutes .
The one partial exception has been coverage of former staffer Tara Reade ’ s allegation of assault – and even then , it was delayed , halting , and resulted in only gentle questioning from hosts on MSNBC .
The mainstream media ’ s hesitation to focus on Biden ’ s flaws is understandable .
Responsible journalists don ’ t want to create a false impression of the relative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfitness for the job .
Heck , responsible journalists don ’ t even want to do anything they don ’ t absolutely have to that might help Trump get reelected .
Most of them , I suspect , recognize that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian and wildly unfit for office in almost every way , and that reelecting him would be an act of collective national insanity .
But news reporters should never let their political or personal views blind them to the facts .
That ’ s the difference between a journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or suppress true information that doesn ’ t help their party or candidate get elected ; journalists should never suppress important information , period .
They should never be involved in cover ups .
And although Biden is the presumptive nominee , he ’ s not the nominee yet .
This remains a period for testing .
If Biden is a weaker candidate than people think , Democrats still have the opportunity to do something about that over the next two months .
It would be better for everyone – other than Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than later .
Finally , it ’ s essential that Biden , if he does become the next president , doesn ’ t get the impression that he is immune to press scrutiny .
Presidents need to be held accountable , and the period after Trump should be all about restoring accountability and transparency .
That won ’ t happen with a supine press corps .
I think the coverage of Biden ’ s “ you ain ’ t black ” comment reflected some reasonable ground rules about how reporters should respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or flub , relative to the wildly more outrageous views/comment/actions routinely taken by Trump .
Those ground rules : • Don ’ t take Trump ’ s position into consideration when it comes to whether to cover a particular Biden ’ s failing .
Cover it .
• Do consider it when you write about that failing .
It ’ s crucial context for your story .
• Do consider it when you decide how many days to devote to your coverage .
If Trump is so much worse , it may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next few weeks , I hope to write more about how reporters can make their coverage of the 2020 election a public service going forward .
On the Trump side of the equation , I think that means yet tougher coverage of his profound unfitness for the job , more exposure of all the grifting , more focus on the divisive nature of his campaign , more analysis of his demagoguery and march toward authoritarianism , and more confrontational reporting about people spreading misinformation and disinformation on his behalf .
It also means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues on his term .
On the Biden side , I think that means writing more about how he would govern differently , starting with his transition .
That means pressing him for definitive promises to which he can be held accountable .
It also means openly acknowledging his shortcomings and demanding that he discuss how he can mitigate them – for instance , with strong-minded and decisive staff and vice presidential picks , and with vows to observe strict new ethics rules and submit to oversight from Congress , independent inspectors general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual process of voting , I think that means more aggressive coverage of Republican efforts to limit voting — and exposing them as duplicitous and as an attempt to achieve minority rule .
And when it comes to Congress , I think that means demanding a commitment to a hugely ambitious slate of post-Trump reforms – which we need to start defining right now — and most important among them being dramatic new limits on executive power .
I ’ d love to hear your thoughts , either in comments or by email @ @ @ @ @

How should mainstream news reporters cover Joe Biden’s frequent flubs and considerable flaws, when Donald Trump’s are so much worse?
Well, they shouldn’t ignore them.
But they certainly shouldn’t try to equate them with Trump’s, either.
Looking at the tenor and content of the coverage of Biden’s jaw-dropping quip on Friday about who is and “ain’t black,” I would say our mainstream news organizations got it about right.
When the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee does something that stupid and provocative, it’s news — no matter who he’s running against. It raises all sorts of questions about his discernment. It speaks to how the Democratic Party takes the African-American community’s votes for granted.
When Biden apologized, that was news, too, because it showed that he could admit he was wrong.
And most of the coverage by reputable news organizations prominently included some version of the crucial context, which is that, by comparison, Trump routinely says racist things, his campaign is racially divisive, and his appeal to African-American voters is for obvious reasons almost nonexistent.
The political media also let the story drop after a few days, instead of dogging it as if it were a major scandal, or trying to suggest some sort of equivalency with the ongoing Trump debacles.
There were still complaints from prominent Democrats, including two former presidential spokesmen:
Coverage of Biden making a gaffe and apologizing is 100x coverage of Trump making a worse gaffe and not apologizing — Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) May 22, 2020
None of those things are getting the coverage of Biden’s silly remark. Anyone else remember 2016 https://t.co/xxoowjbTM7 — Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) May 24, 2020
But the lesson of 2016 is not to ignore the failings of the Democrat running against Trump. It’s to cover them with some sense of proportion.
The lessons of 2016
In the run-up to the November 2016 election, news organizations engaged in a considerable amount of critical reporting about Hillary Clinton, focusing primarily on her abuse of a personal email server while secretary of state, but also on her unseemly coziness with donors to the Clinton Foundation, and on secret reassurances that she made to major banks in her highly-paid appearances.
By any reasonable journalistic standard, Trump’s defects as a presidential candidate were of an entirely different scale than Clinton’s. While there were certainly strong indications of Clinton’s failings in a few limited areas, when it came to Trump, there was overwhelming, constantly replenishing evidence of pervasive deceit, self-dealing and corruption throughout his career and up to the present day.
But in the most authoritative post-mortem of 2016 campaign journalism, Harvard government professor Thomas E. Patterson concluded that Clinton and Trump coverage by the major news organizations “was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone.”
“Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?” Patterson asked. “It’s a question that journalists made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign.”
Similarly, a team of Harvard and MIT researchers found that coverage of Clinton’s email scandal accounted for more sentences than all of Trump’s scandals combined (about 65,000 compare to about 40,000) — and more than twice as many as were devoted to all of her policy positions.
This was a huge and terrible mistake. Some if not most of the Clinton coverage was entirely legitimate. But in retrospect, it was wildly out of proportion. And it clearly contributed to Trump’s victory.
A forgotten explanation
One important explanation for this is often neglected: Pretty much no one in political-media circles actually thought Trump had a chance of winning.
Since we were all assuming that Clinton would prevail, the tough, insistent coverage was less about evaluating her as a candidate and more like a head start on the coverage of her presidency.
Speaking for myself at least – as Washington editor of The Intercept, I wrote, guided and edited a fair number of stories that were highly critical of Clinton, particularly of her secrecy and her ties to corporate elites – my goal was not to warn voters away, it was to increase the pressure on Clinton to be more transparent and less beholden to corporate interests going forward.
By contrast, many stories about Trump’s corruption, ignorance, and moral shortcomings were one-and-done. Once they were on the record, I suspect that the leaders of most news organizations thought that was enough. How many times did you need to write the same thing? How many times did you need to debunk the same outrageous lie? He obviously wasn’t going to win.
The unfortunate result was that legitimate stories about Clinton were endlessly republished by the New York Times and other major news platforms, topped with minor incremental discoveries, all over the front pages, all the way up until Election Day — while Trump’s failings were considered old news.
There was nothing wrong with exploring Clinton’s weaknesses. The big problem was the volume. It was excessive.
This time around
This time around, we know better than to ignore Trump. Opinion polls again show Trump behind, but the possibility that he could win — while hard to contemplate — simply cannot be dismissed.
And these days, coverage of Trump’s flaws is, for good reason, pretty much nonstop. He is making major news every day, in ways that make his incompetence, deceit and corruption constantly relevant and worth revisiting.
But what 2020 and 2016 do have in common is flawed Democratic candidates.
Biden’s flaws are considerable:
His cognitive abilities are a legitimate subject of concern. He is sometimes effectively incoherent. His syntax is often tangled, his answers are sometimes vague, he can be bizarrely confrontational, and he is prone to losing his train of thought.
He has repeatedly lied about his record, especially about his abiding support for war in Iraq and his long history as a deficit hawk open to cutting Social Security benefits.
Although the accusation of assault by former staffer Tara Reade increasingly appears unsubstantiated, he has a lengthy history of touching women inappropriately, even creepily.
He sometimes makes things up – in February, for instance, he invented an arrest in South Africa that never happened.
And despite Trump’s transparently bogus attempt to gin up an investigation of Biden’s son, there are some legitimate concerns about corruption in his family.
All of those merit greater press coverage than they have gotten so far – with one key caveat: Even granting the most negative interpretations of Biden’s flaws, Trump is magnitudes worse.
For instance, Trump’s cognitive issues are clearly way more severe – he is frequently unhinged, confused, and incoherent — and they are exacerbated by a number of troubling psychological problems, most notably malignant narcissism and a complete lack of empathy. Biden might be creepy, but Trump is a sexual predator. Biden only lies about a few things, Trump’s lies are constant. And Trump’s corruption is boundless and ongoing, beyond even the wildest pre-Trump imagination, and enriches both him and his family.
The danger is actually undercoverage
Writing about Biden’s failings in a way that makes them sound even a bit comparable to Trump’s would be journalistic malpractice.
But in a normal election cycle, problems like the ones Biden has would fuel way more media coverage than they are currently getting.
Obviously, a big factor here is that the coronavirus pandemic has relegated every other news story – even the presidential election – to the sidelines.
But even before the pandemic became big news, the corporate political media was remarkably gentle with Biden, not even asking him the obvious, tough questions. Since then, it’s almost exclusively been softballs. It happened again on Tuesday, when Biden sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for 15 minutes.
The one partial exception has been coverage of former staffer Tara Reade’s allegation of assault – and even then, it was delayed, halting, and resulted in only gentle questioning from hosts on MSNBC.
The mainstream media’s hesitation to focus on Biden’s flaws is understandable. Responsible journalists don’t want to create a false impression of the relative magnitude of Biden and Trump’s unfitness for the job.
Heck, responsible journalists don’t even want to do anything they don’t absolutely have to that might help Trump get reelected. Most of them, I suspect, recognize that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian and wildly unfit for office in almost every way, and that reelecting him would be an act of collective national insanity.
But news reporters should never let their political or personal views blind them to the facts.
That’s the difference between a journalist and a partisan: partisans will deny or suppress true information that doesn’t help their party or candidate get elected; journalists should never suppress important information, period. They should never be involved in cover ups.
And although Biden is the presumptive nominee, he’s not the nominee yet. This remains a period for testing. If Biden is a weaker candidate than people think, Democrats still have the opportunity to do something about that over the next two months. It would be better for everyone – other than Trump – if it came out now rather than later.
Finally, it’s essential that Biden, if he does become the next president, doesn’t get the impression that he is immune to press scrutiny. Presidents need to be held accountable, and the period after Trump should be all about restoring accountability and transparency. That won’t happen with a supine press corps.
I think the coverage of Biden’s “you ain’t black” comment reflected some reasonable ground rules about how reporters should respond to the newsworthiness of a particular Biden flaw or flub, relative to the wildly more outrageous views/comment/actions routinely taken by Trump. Those ground rules:
Don’t take Trump’s position into consideration when it comes to whether to cover a particular Biden’s failing. Cover it.
Do consider it when you write about that failing. It’s crucial context for your story.
Do consider it when you decide how many days to devote to your coverage. If Trump is so much worse, it may not be particularly important story.
What next?
In the next few weeks, I hope to write more about how reporters can make their coverage of the 2020 election a public service going forward.
On the Trump side of the equation, I think that means yet tougher coverage of his profound unfitness for the job, more exposure of all the grifting, more focus on the divisive nature of his campaign, more analysis of his demagoguery and march toward authoritarianism, and more confrontational reporting about people spreading misinformation and disinformation on his behalf. It also means greater resistance to letting him frame campaign issues on his term.
On the Biden side, I think that means writing more about how he would govern differently, starting with his transition. That means pressing him for definitive promises to which he can be held accountable. It also means openly acknowledging his shortcomings and demanding that he discuss how he can mitigate them – for instance, with strong-minded and decisive staff and vice presidential picks, and with vows to observe strict new ethics rules and submit to oversight from Congress, independent inspectors general, and the media.
Regarding the actual process of voting, I think that means more aggressive coverage of Republican efforts to limit voting — and exposing them as duplicitous and as an attempt to achieve minority rule.
And when it comes to Congress, I think that means demanding a commitment to a hugely ambitious slate of post-Trump reforms – which we need to start defining right now — and most important among them being dramatic new limits on executive power.
I’d love to hear your thoughts, either in comments or by email. To be continued!


presswatchers--2020-05-28--Trump’s coronavirus failure is an ongoing tragedy, not a thing of the past

The retrospectives as the United States crosses the threshold of 100,000 deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic are moving and important , but they are missing something — and it ’ s not just the recognition that many of those deaths were avoidable .
It ’ s the recognition — the alarm , the feeling of panic — that every day that goes by is another day that Donald Trump fails to lead , and that the federal government fails to take the steps that could save tens of thousands more lives in the weeks and months to come .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of about 1,000 every day , much of the Trump coverage has turned to other matters .
What reporting there is about Trump and the virus has largely become about his astonishing lack of empathy , his unseemly rush to “ reopen ” and his sadistic campaign against mask-wearing — all of which are legitimate stories .
But it ’ s almost as if the D.C. media has forgotten what Trump and the federal government urgently need to do — and could be doing — to save people ’ s lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public health are essentially unanimous that minimizing the toll of the virus depends on forceful federal action to supercharge the supply chain for testing , massively increase the daily number of tests , mobilize a nationwide contact-tracing program and get infected people to self-isolate .
But when it comes to the virus , Washington is doing basically none of the things we need it to do .
An explanation of the Trump administration ’ s testing strategy , required by Congress and released on Sunday , simply rephrased the intention to dump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the New York Times , Apoorva Mandavilli and Catie Edmondson quoted Scott Becker , executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories , explaining that only the federal government is equipped to navigate national and international supply chains : “ You can ’ t leave it up to the states to do it for themselves .
This is not the Hunger Games.
” Meanwhile , major supply chain issues continue to slow testing initiatives around the country .
A new survey of labs by the Association for Molecular Pathology found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant impact on their testing capacity ” and concluded that “ additional resources are needed to implement and/or maintain testing.
” NPR ’ s Joel Rose reported on Thursday about “ a new bottleneck emerging : A shortage of the machines that process the tests and give results.
” Rose quoted dire warnings from Ashish Jha , director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , who called the problem “ a classic market failure ” that can only be resolved by the federal government : And Erik Ortiz wrote for NBC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public health departments around the country “ are wrestling with a lack of necessary resources from the federal government , a need for more qualified workers and a growing backlash of misinformation.
” Ortiz noted “ the absence of a cohesive national plan and coherent communication from the White House about the importance of contact tracing , ” and quoted Jeremy Konyndyk , a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development , calling it “ a massive messaging failure from this administration.
” Konyndyk told Ortiz that officials should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tracing and the effort involved while most people were still isolating at home .
“ But the federal government chose not to own the issue , ” Konyndyk said .
Arguably the best overview of the continuing failure of the federal government to protect Americans I ’ ve seen recently came from William Wan and Carolyn Y. Johnson , in a Washington Post article on Wednesday that was ostensibly about how a vaccine won ’ t solve everything .
Read the whole thing .
But let me pull out some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , no master plan .
All the sacrifices we have made thus far have essentially been for nothing .
“ What ’ s concerning is that I don ’ t see any signs the federal government has learned any lessons and is doing anything differently to prepare for the next waves , ” he said .
Each of the “ hundreds of cities and counties reopening ” is like “ a mini laboratory yielding valuable data on what will work against the virus in coming years.
” But the federal government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that data .
And you don ’ t hear a word from Washington about the long-term changes that the virus may necessitate — things like doors that don ’ t require grasping a handle , traffic signals that pedestrians don ’ t have to push , robots for meatpacking plants , routine diagnostic tests , and mandatory paid sick leave .
I wish more opinion writers had done what the USA Today editorial board did this week , using the passing of a somber threshold to judge Trump .
The board wrote : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead from the coronavirus epidemic and large sectors of the economy on life support , it ’ s time to assess whether the president has lived up to his obligation and responsibility .
The inescapable conclusion is that he has not .
Some disarray is inevitable during a rapidly evolving crisis , and COVID-19 is the worst health disaster the world has faced in a century .
But Trump has compounded the damage by undermining his administration ’ s scientists , heralding a risky antimalarial drug as a potential coronavirus game changer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting magical thinking about the virus disappearing , and refusing to lead by example by wearing a mask in public… .
Nearly five months into 2020 , the president continues to claim vast authority while shuffling responsibility off to state and local officials .
Even as Trump pushes for reopening businesses , schools and churches , the nation lacks the sort of comprehensive testing , tracing and isolating framework that public health officials say is needed to suppress outbreaks until there ’ s a vaccine or cure .
Trump , himself , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold .
Ashley Parker noted in the Washington Post on Thursday that he “ has focused much of his time in recent days on matters other than the coronavirus , ” for instance by spending the Memorial Day weekend playing golf and “ attacking rivals in deeply personal and at times sexist terms.
” But that doesn ’ t mean that political reporters should follow his lead .
Mehdi Hasan of the Intercept asked a heart-breaking question on Wednesday : “ We have normalized a multiplicity of Trumpian excesses , abuses , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half years .
Will we now normalize mass deaths too ?
” The answer from news organizations should be a resounding “ No.
” 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 , test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get it or he doesn ’ t want to know the results because they “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 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 donations and grants .

The retrospectives as the United States crosses the threshold of 100,000 deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic are moving and important, but they are missing something — and it’s not just the recognition that many of those deaths were avoidable.
It’s the recognition — the alarm, the feeling of panic — that every day that goes by is another day that Donald Trump fails to lead, and that the federal government fails to take the steps that could save tens of thousands more lives in the weeks and months to come.
While we continue to lose people at the rate of about 1,000 every day, much of the Trump coverage has turned to other matters. What reporting there is about Trump and the virus has largely become about his astonishing lack of empathy, his unseemly rush to “reopen” and his sadistic campaign against mask-wearing — all of which are legitimate stories.
But it’s almost as if the D.C. media has forgotten what Trump and the federal government urgently need to do — and could be doing — to save people’s lives.
As I have written repeatedly, experts in public health are essentially unanimous that minimizing the toll of the virus depends on forceful federal action to supercharge the supply chain for testing, massively increase the daily number of tests, mobilize a nationwide contact-tracing program and get infected people to self-isolate.
But when it comes to the virus, Washington is doing basically none of the things we need it to do.
An explanation of the Trump administration’s testing strategy, required by Congress and released on Sunday, simply rephrased the intention to dump almost all the responsibility on the states.
In the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli and Catie Edmondson quoted Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories, explaining that only the federal government is equipped to navigate national and international supply chains: “You can’t leave it up to the states to do it for themselves. This is not the Hunger Games.”
Meanwhile, major supply chain issues continue to slow testing initiatives around the country. A new survey of labs by the Association for Molecular Pathology found that supply chain disruptions “have had a significant impact on their testing capacity” and concluded that “additional resources are needed to implement and/or maintain testing.”
NPR’s Joel Rose reported on Thursday about “a new bottleneck emerging: A shortage of the machines that process the tests and give results.” Rose quoted dire warnings from Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, who called the problem “a classic market failure” that can only be resolved by the federal government:
“This is a place where I think the government just needs to step in and pay companies — buy the machines for companies, or pay large amounts for these tests,” Jha said. “This is what many of us have been asking for from the federal government. … And it’s very frustrating.”
And Erik Ortiz wrote for NBC News that despite the importance of contract tracing, public health departments around the country “are wrestling with a lack of necessary resources from the federal government, a need for more qualified workers and a growing backlash of misinformation.”
Ortiz noted “the absence of a cohesive national plan and coherent communication from the White House about the importance of contact tracing,” and quoted Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development, calling it “a massive messaging failure from this administration.”
Konyndyk told Ortiz that officials should have started preparing the public for the idea of tracing and the effort involved while most people were still isolating at home. “But the federal government chose not to own the issue,” Konyndyk said.
Arguably the best overview of the continuing failure of the federal government to protect Americans I’ve seen recently came from William Wan and Carolyn Y. Johnson, in a Washington Post article on Wednesday that was ostensibly about how a vaccine won’t solve everything. Read the whole thing. But let me pull out some of the key points:
There is, of course, no master plan.
“It’s like we have attention-deficit disorder right now. Everything we’re doing is just a knee-jerk response to the short-term,” said Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “People keep asking me, ‘What’s the one thing we have to do?’ The one thing we have to do is to understand that there is not one thing. We need a comprehensive battle strategy, meticulously implemented.”
All the sacrifices we have made thus far have essentially been for nothing.
Arriving at this moment of transition required countrywide shutdowns, soaring unemployment and devastating blows to our economy and mental health. All that effort was supposed to buy us time to think, plan and prepare, said Irwin Redlener, director of Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness.
“What’s concerning is that I don’t see any signs the federal government has learned any lessons and is doing anything differently to prepare for the next waves,” he said.
Each of the “hundreds of cities and counties reopening” is like “a mini laboratory yielding valuable data on what will work against the virus in coming years.” But the federal government has done nothing to help capture or interpret that data.
And you don’t hear a word from Washington about the long-term changes that the virus may necessitate — things like doors that don’t require grasping a handle, traffic signals that pedestrians don’t have to push, robots for meatpacking plants, routine diagnostic tests, and mandatory paid sick leave.
I wish more opinion writers had done what the USA Today editorial board did this week, using the passing of a somber threshold to judge Trump. The board wrote:
Now, with more than 100,000 Americans dead from the coronavirus epidemic and large sectors of the economy on life support, it’s time to assess whether the president has lived up to his obligation and responsibility. The inescapable conclusion is that he has not. Some disarray is inevitable during a rapidly evolving crisis, and COVID-19 is the worst health disaster the world has faced in a century. But Trump has compounded the damage by undermining his administration’s scientists, heralding a risky antimalarial drug as a potential coronavirus game changer, ruminating about injecting patients with disinfectants, promoting magical thinking about the virus disappearing, and refusing to lead by example by wearing a mask in public…. Nearly five months into 2020, the president continues to claim vast authority while shuffling responsibility off to state and local officials. Even as Trump pushes for reopening businesses, schools and churches, the nation lacks the sort of comprehensive testing, tracing and isolating framework that public health officials say is needed to suppress outbreaks until there’s a vaccine or cure.
Trump, himself, has almost completely ignored the passing of the threshold. Ashley Parker noted in the Washington Post on Thursday that he “has focused much of his time in recent days on matters other than the coronavirus,” for instance by spending the Memorial Day weekend playing golf and “attacking rivals in deeply personal and at times sexist terms.”
But that doesn’t mean that political reporters should follow his lead.
Mehdi Hasan of the Intercept asked a heart-breaking question on Wednesday: “We have normalized a multiplicity of Trumpian excesses, abuses, and crimes over the past three and a half years. Will we now normalize mass deaths too?”
The answer from news organizations should be a resounding “No.”
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: 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, test, and either he doesn’t get it or he doesn’t want to know the results because they “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 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 donations and grants.


presswatchers--2020-05-29--While you weren’t looking, Donald Trump lost Hong Kong

Donald Trump on Friday outlined a series of punitive measures against the Chinese government for a recent move that essentially put an end to political freedom in Hong Kong .
But notably , he didn ’ t call on China to back off and respect the human rights of Hong Kong ’ s residents – which has traditionally been a high priority for U.S. presidents .
“ China claims it is protecting national security , ” Trump read from his prepared text .
“ But the truth is that Hong Kong was secure and prosperous as a free society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
It extends the reach of China ’ s invasive state security apparatus into what was formally a bastion of liberty.
” He treated it like it ’ s a done deal .
And it is – in part because Trump has flushed whatever credibility and leverage the U.S. might have had with China down the toilet .
With the news cycle spinning with so many other , juicier stories , the Hong Kong news has gone largely unnoticed by the Washington media .
But Trump ’ s political contortions and confabulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home , but on the seven and a half million residents of a vibrant , once-free city who will now likely find any political resistance to the Chinese Communist government severely punished .
First Trump cozied up to China ’ s autocratic president Xi Jinping during trade negotiations .
After the deal , he repeatedly lied about how China was paying huge tariffs , which are actually being paid by U.S. buyers .
Then , in recent weeks , he ratcheted up tensions with China to dramatically high levels in a politically-motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic deaths away from him and onto China instead .
As Don Lee reported for the Los Angeles Times last week , “ relations between the world ’ s largest economic and military powers seemed to have taken a dangerous new turn.
” It ’ s a turn toward an emboldened China , to be specific .
“ Xi has apparently concluded that with the United States preoccupied with the pandemic , its economic devastation and the looming presidential election , he has an opportunity for drastic steps , possibly including making a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then again , Xi might has seen the green light considerably earlier .
Trump gave up any pretense of defending Hong Kong ’ s semi-autonomous status back in June 2019 , when he reportedly told Xi in a private phone call that the U.S. would remain quiet about repression of the enormous pro-democracy protests that were raging at that time .
As CNN reported then : “ The remarkable pledge to the Chinese leader is a dramatic departure from decades of US support for human rights in China.
” Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was widely anticipated by those who were paying attention .
Alexander Görlach , a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs , declared on Wednesday that “ Hong Kong is lost , ” and worried that , barring “ serious consequences , ” China would be “ emboldened by its success ” enough to “ attempt to annex Taiwan.
” The New York Times editorial board on Wednesday raised the issue of whether Trump “ has the leverage , support or stomach for the fight ” for Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , in part because he “ has never shown much concern for Hong Kong protests against China , ” and in part because “ he and his lieutenants have made China-bashing over the coronavirus outbreak a central theme in their re-election campaign.
” Trump , the editorial concluded , “ was left with no option but to acknowledge the new reality.
” And it warned : “ How this latest showdown plays out could have major ramifications for the future of Taiwan and for China ’ s behavior in its neighborhood and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board wrote last week : “ It doesn ’ t help that President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been heaping abuse on the Xi regime in recent weeks as a way of distracting from the Trump administration ’ s abysmal response to the covid-19 pandemic ; in fact , the mounting U.S. hostility may have persuaded Mr. Xi that he had little to lose by smothering Hong Kong.
” The South China Morning Post quoted Joerg Wuttke , president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce for China in Beijing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in anything but himself and [ compared ] to slaughtering the Trans-Pacific Partnership , to dismantling the WTO or pulling out of the [ World Health Organisation ] , actually changing the state of Hong Kong is a small piece for him.
” Trump has barely mentioned Hong Kong at all in recent weeks .
Prior to Friday ’ s comments , his most recent words about Hong Kong came during a May 21 news conference , where he was asked about the national security law cracking down on Hong Kong that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I don ’ t know what it is because nobody knows yet .
If it happens , we ’ ll address that issue very strongly , ” he said .

Donald Trump on Friday outlined a series of punitive measures against the Chinese government for a recent move that essentially put an end to political freedom in Hong Kong.
But notably, he didn’t call on China to back off and respect the human rights of Hong Kong’s residents – which has traditionally been a high priority for U.S. presidents.
“China claims it is protecting national security,” Trump read from his prepared text. “But the truth is that Hong Kong was secure and prosperous as a free society. Beijing’s decision reverses all of that. It extends the reach of China’s invasive state security apparatus into what was formally a bastion of liberty.”
He treated it like it’s a done deal. And it is – in part because Trump has flushed whatever credibility and leverage the U.S. might have had with China down the toilet.
With the news cycle spinning with so many other, juicier stories, the Hong Kong news has gone largely unnoticed by the Washington media. But Trump’s political contortions and confabulations have now taken their toll not just at home, but on the seven and a half million residents of a vibrant, once-free city who will now likely find any political resistance to the Chinese Communist government severely punished.
First Trump cozied up to China’s autocratic president Xi Jinping during trade negotiations. After the deal, he repeatedly lied about how China was paying huge tariffs, which are actually being paid by U.S. buyers. Then, in recent weeks, he ratcheted up tensions with China to dramatically high levels in a politically-motivated attempt to shift the blame for U.S. pandemic deaths away from him and onto China instead.
As Don Lee reported for the Los Angeles Times last week, “relations between the world’s largest economic and military powers seemed to have taken a dangerous new turn.”
It’s a turn toward an emboldened China, to be specific. “Xi has apparently concluded that with the United States preoccupied with the pandemic, its economic devastation and the looming presidential election, he has an opportunity for drastic steps, possibly including making a move in Taiwan,” Lee wrote.
Then again, Xi might has seen the green light considerably earlier. Trump gave up any pretense of defending Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status back in June 2019, when he reportedly told Xi in a private phone call that the U.S. would remain quiet about repression of the enormous pro-democracy protests that were raging at that time.
As CNN reported then: “The remarkable pledge to the Chinese leader is a dramatic departure from decades of US support for human rights in China.”
Trump’s failure to stand up for Hong Kong was widely anticipated by those who were paying attention.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted on Thursday:
Last year as China began tightening its grip on Hong Kong, Pres. Trump told Pres. Xi he would look the other way on China's abuses. Now—Pres. Trump will forever be known as the president who lost Hong Kong to the Chinese Communist Party because of his mollycoddling of Pres. Xi. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 28, 2020
Alexander Görlach, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, declared on Wednesday that “Hong Kong is lost,” and worried that, barring “serious consequences,” China would be “emboldened by its success” enough to “attempt to annex Taiwan.”
Ron Klain, a top adviser to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, tweeted on Wednesday:
Trump makes it official: Hong Kong has been lost on his watch. Another concession by Trump to the Chinese government. https://t.co/ENtyQCZ044 — Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) May 27, 2020
The New York Times editorial board on Wednesday raised the issue of whether Trump “has the leverage, support or stomach for the fight” for Hong Kong, but then concluded that he does not, in part because he “has never shown much concern for Hong Kong protests against China,” and in part because “he and his lieutenants have made China-bashing over the coronavirus outbreak a central theme in their re-election campaign.”
Trump, the editorial concluded, “was left with no option but to acknowledge the new reality.” And it warned: “How this latest showdown plays out could have major ramifications for the future of Taiwan and for China’s behavior in its neighborhood and the world.”
The Washington Post editorial board wrote last week: “It doesn’t help that President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been heaping abuse on the Xi regime in recent weeks as a way of distracting from the Trump administration’s abysmal response to the covid-19 pandemic; in fact, the mounting U.S. hostility may have persuaded Mr. Xi that he had little to lose by smothering Hong Kong.”
The South China Morning Post quoted Joerg Wuttke, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce for China in Beijing, saying: “Trump is not interested in anything but himself and [compared] to slaughtering the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to dismantling the WTO or pulling out of the [World Health Organisation], actually changing the state of Hong Kong is a small piece for him.”
Trump has barely mentioned Hong Kong at all in recent weeks. Prior to Friday’s comments, his most recent words about Hong Kong came during a May 21 news conference, where he was asked about the national security law cracking down on Hong Kong that the Chinese parliament was about to pass.
“I don’t know what it is because nobody knows yet. If it happens, we’ll address that issue very strongly,” he said.


presswatchers--2020-06-01--An overdue shift of perspective, as journalists become the victims of police violence

The targeting , harassment , shooting and arrest of working journalists by police over the last several days is having a significant — maybe even profound — effect on the coverage of the mass demonstrations over the death of George Floyd .
It ’ s a shift from watching the protests through the eyes of the police to watching the police through the eyes of the protesters .
It ’ s a shift from seeing the police primarily as sources and protectors to seeing them as subjects and aggressors .
Exhibit A is the lead story in the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which , instead of dutifully reporting on the official version of clashes around the nation , boldly addressed the reality that police around the country have been responding to protests against their aggression with yet more of the same , and have themselves been inciting more violence .
The front-page article ran under the headline “ Videos From Protests Deepen Scrutiny of Aggressive Police Tactics , ” and was strikingly illustrated with constrasting photos : one of peaceful protesters , with their hands up ; the other of a militaristic police line , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mike Baker – neither of them , notably , from the Times ’ s access-addicted Washington bureau – immediately called attention to the “ growing concern that aggressive law enforcement tactics intended to impose order were instead inflaming tensions.
” Videos showed police officers in recent nights using batons , tear gas , pepper spray and rubber bullets on protesters , bystanders and journalists , often without warning or seemingly unprovoked .
The footage , which has been shared widely online , highlighted the very complaints over police behavior that have drawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
In Salt Lake City , officers in riot gear shoved a man with a cane to the ground .
In Brooklyn , two police S.U.V.s plowed into a crowd of protesters .
In Atlanta , police officers enforcing a curfew stopped two college students in a car , fired Tasers on them and dragged them out of the vehicle .
And in Minneapolis , where there have been six consecutive nights of protests and clashes , a video appeared to show officers yelling at people on their porches to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at them .
“ Light them up , ” one officer said .
The authors also wrote that shows of force by highly-militarized police weren ’ t bringing calm .
“ Instead , some people said , it was escalating tensions and serving as a reminder of the regular use of military equipment and tactics by local police forces.
” They didn ’ t directly address whether aggressive police tactics like charging crowds have been responsible for peaceful protests becoming violent — something many other observers , including writer Touré , have described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sea-change for the industry , and especially for the Times , which just a few nights before had been appropriately zinged on Twitter for focusing on the police-procedural aspect of the events rather than on the powerful and widespread outrage that fueled them .
Along the lines of the Times story , however , an Associated Press article by Jay Reeves and Kat Stafford critically examined police behavior : This sentence struck me as both incredibly naïve and – at the same time – nothing short of revolutionary : One the one hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , the Associated Press is suddenly listening to the people who ’ ve been saying that for decades.
” On the other hand : They are actually listening !
Consider this passage : Slate collected a number of social media clips and very effectively aggregated them under the headline : “ Police Erupt in Violence Nationwide.
” The police assaults on the press were themselves a big news story over the weekend , garnering headlines in almost every major news outlet .
CJR ’ s Jon Allsop provided a terrific summary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bellingcat , tweeted Monday afternoon that he had chronicled 100 incidents where journalists experienced violence from the police during the Floyd protests .
These attacks endanger the free press , are an outrage , and should not be tolerated .
But I ’ m even more interested in whether these attacks will embolden the free press to tell it like it is .
There are a few promising signs .

The targeting, harassment, shooting and arrest of working journalists by police over the last several days is having a significant — maybe even profound — effect on the coverage of the mass demonstrations over the death of George Floyd.
It’s a shift from watching the protests through the eyes of the police to watching the police through the eyes of the protesters.
It’s a shift from seeing the police primarily as sources and protectors to seeing them as subjects and aggressors.
Exhibit A is the lead story in the New York Times print edition on Monday morning, which, instead of dutifully reporting on the official version of clashes around the nation, boldly addressed the reality that police around the country have been responding to protests against their aggression with yet more of the same, and have themselves been inciting more violence.
The front-page article ran under the headline “Videos From Protests Deepen Scrutiny of Aggressive Police Tactics,” and was strikingly illustrated with constrasting photos: one of peaceful protesters, with their hands up; the other of a militaristic police line, swathed in smoke.
Authors Shaila Dewan and Mike Baker – neither of them, notably, from the Times’s access-addicted Washington bureau – immediately called attention to the “growing concern that aggressive law enforcement tactics intended to impose order were instead inflaming tensions.”
Consider why:
Videos showed police officers in recent nights using batons, tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets on protesters, bystanders and journalists, often without warning or seemingly unprovoked. The footage, which has been shared widely online, highlighted the very complaints over police behavior that have drawn protests in at least 75 cities across the United States. In Salt Lake City, officers in riot gear shoved a man with a cane to the ground. In Brooklyn, two police S.U.V.s plowed into a crowd of protesters. In Atlanta, police officers enforcing a curfew stopped two college students in a car, fired Tasers on them and dragged them out of the vehicle. And in Minneapolis, where there have been six consecutive nights of protests and clashes, a video appeared to show officers yelling at people on their porches to get inside and then firing paint canisters at them. “Light them up,” one officer said.
The authors also wrote that shows of force by highly-militarized police weren’t bringing calm. “Instead, some people said, it was escalating tensions and serving as a reminder of the regular use of military equipment and tactics by local police forces.”
They didn’t directly address whether aggressive police tactics like charging crowds have been responsible for peaceful protests becoming violent — something many other observers, including writer Touré, have described.
Nevertheless, it felt like a sea-change for the industry, and especially for the Times, which just a few nights before had been appropriately zinged on Twitter for focusing on the police-procedural aspect of the events rather than on the powerful and widespread outrage that fueled them.
Interesting how differently the @nytimes & the @washingtonpost are framing things this morning. "Chaos," on the one hand. "Outrage," on the other. pic.twitter.com/Nf2ARdVzgm — John Edwin Mason (@johnedwinmason) May 30, 2020
(Ironically, Monday’s Washington Post lead story, by Isaac Stanley-Becker, Felicia Sonmez and Katie Mettler, was a soulless mishmash of police reports – so, you know, two steps forward, one step back.)
Along the lines of the Times story, however, an Associated Press article by Jay Reeves and Kat Stafford critically examined police behavior:
As protests grip the nation, officers have doused crowds with pepper spray, struck protesters with batons, steered police cars into throngs, shoved demonstrators and screamed curses. Some police action has been directed against people smashing windows, breaking into stores and burning cars, but many find other instances more difficult to understand — like the elderly man knocked over by police as he walked with a cane on a Salt Lake City sidewalk.
This sentence struck me as both incredibly naïve and – at the same time – nothing short of revolutionary:
Now, some are questioning whether tough police tactics against demonstrators are actually making the violence worse rather than quelling it.
One the one hand, it’s more like “Now, the Associated Press is suddenly listening to the people who’ve been saying that for decades.” On the other hand: They are actually listening! Consider this passage:
While the protests and subsequent police interactions may be shocking to some, many African Americans aren’t surprised because they’ve endured police brutality for decades, said Chris White, director of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, “What’s happening, it’s the way American society has always been,” White said.
Slate collected a number of social media clips and very effectively aggregated them under the headline: “Police Erupt in Violence Nationwide.”
The police assaults on the press were themselves a big news story over the weekend, garnering headlines in almost every major news outlet. CJR’s Jon Allsop provided a terrific summary.
Nick Waters, of the investigative website Bellingcat, tweeted Monday afternoon that he had chronicled 100 incidents where journalists experienced violence from the police during the Floyd protests.
These attacks endanger the free press, are an outrage, and should not be tolerated.
But I’m even more interested in whether these attacks will embolden the free press to tell it like it is. There are a few promising signs.


presswatchers--2020-06-02--Storming of peaceful protesters for a photo op shakes even the most jaded journalists

The pressure inside our top news organizations to normalize this presidency has been absolutely intense , fueled by the misplaced belief by newsroom and corporate executives that the office demands respect and that acting otherwise would be tantamount to “ taking sides.
” But the brutal storming of peaceful protesters in front of the White House by military troops and police — in order to clear the way for a propaganda-like photo op for Donald Trump – has pierced the detachment of even the most jaded journalists .
You could watch the veneer crack in in real time Monday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times – the product of subservient stenography not appropriate even for normal presidents at normal times – was widely savaged by journalists on social media , leading someone at Times HQ to replace it with something a bit more reflective of the actual articles it ran above : “ Trump Threatens to Send Troops Into States ” .
Here ’ s a tweet from the chairman of the Temple University journalism school about the original front page : You could see it in the Times ’ s news alert , sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read it in one of those front-page articles .
Katie Rogers minced no words as she set the scene : People who gathered outside the White House to protest police brutality spent Monday waving signs and screaming for justice .
They watched as police officers and National Guard units flooded Lafayette Square , delivering on a threat made by President Trump .
And just before the city ’ s 7 p.m. curfew went into effect , they were hit with flash-bang explosions and doused with tear gas .
It was because the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a secure bunker as protests roiled , wanted to have his picture taken holding a Bible at a battered church just beyond the gates .
In the Washington Post , Rebecca Tan , Samantha Schmidt , Derek Hawkins , Fredrick Kunkle and Jessica Contrera referred to the attack on protesters as an “ ambush.
” Also in the Post , Philip Rucker , Robert Costa , Josh Dawsey and Seung Min Kim wrote that the attack on protesters was being “ denounced by critics as authoritarian , ” and that Trump had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis convulsing the country by calling the nationwide demonstrations ‘ acts of domestic terror , ’ declaring himself the ‘ president of law and order ’ and taking the rare step of mobilizing the military to use force to quell the unrest.
” You could watch the shift happening even at NPR , which rarely departs from bothsidesism , as an early headline reading “ President Trump Addresses The Nation And Walks To ‘ The Church Of Presidents ’ ” gave way to one proclaiming “ Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have never seen anything like it : Faced with these new , even more extraordinary circumstances , reporters don ’ t need to start editorializing more , author and Vice TV host Anand Giridharadas noted on Twitter – it ’ s enough just to call things by their true names .
One thing almost entirely missing from the initial mainstream-media coverage , or the follow-ups , is any normalizing of what happened at Lafayette Park – or any defense of it at all .
Instead , we are reading blistering critiques from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the like .
CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper abandoned false equivalency a long time ago , but his comments on Monday night seemed particularly direct : The President seems to think that dominating black people , dominating peaceful protesters is law and order .
It ’ s not .
He calls them thugs .
Who is the thug here ?
Hiding in a bunker ?
Hiding behind a suit ?
Who is the thug ?
People have waited for days for this wannabe war-time President to say something and this is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he does .
I ’ ve seen societies fall apart as a reporter .
I ’ ve seen people dying in the streets while protesting .
I ’ ve seen countries ripped apart by hate and misinformation and lies and political demagogues and racism .
We can ’ t let that happen here .
Of course , violence is no answer , but people protesting deserves answers , and they haven ’ t gotten them , no matter how many black men have been murdered , lynched , imprisoned , mistreated , redlined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know it .
People protesting in the streets , they know it and they ’ re tired of it .
And we should be , too .
There is something about the starkness of the recent imagery – starting , of course , with the video of a white cop casually snuffing the life out of a black man with a knee to his neck , and including so many scenes of journalists being targeted , harassed , sprayed , shot and arrested by police – that suggests , as I wrote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press is shifting .
One gets the sense that we are entering the final phase of something – possibly Trumpism , possibly democracy .
So it ’ s entirely appropriate for the press to stop acting as if it ’ s just business as usual .

The pressure inside our top news organizations to normalize this presidency has been absolutely intense, fueled by the misplaced belief by newsroom and corporate executives that the office demands respect and that acting otherwise would be tantamount to “taking sides.”
But the brutal storming of peaceful protesters in front of the White House by military troops and police — in order to clear the way for a propaganda-like photo op for Donald Trump – has pierced the detachment of even the most jaded journalists.
You could watch the veneer crack in in real time Monday night, as the first-edition headline of the New York Times – the product of subservient stenography not appropriate even for normal presidents at normal times – was widely savaged by journalists on social media, leading someone at Times HQ to replace it with something a bit more reflective of the actual articles it ran above: “Trump Threatens to Send Troops Into States”.
Here’s a tweet from the chairman of the Temple University journalism school about the original front page:
I’m not among those who love bashing the @nytimes, which I consider our frontline defense against tyranny. But this headline is stunningly bad, totally missing what may be the most chilling day in the Trump presidency. pic.twitter.com/p7KAxP8cvJ — David Boardman (@dlboardman) June 2, 2020
You could see it in the Times’s news alert, sent shortly after midnight:
President Trump prompted outrage after peaceful protesters outside the White House were dispersed with tear gas so that he could pose for photos at a church while holding a Bible https://t.co/rYUkJacCCZ — The New York Times (@nytimes) June 2, 2020
And you could read it in one of those front-page articles. Katie Rogers minced no words as she set the scene:
People who gathered outside the White House to protest police brutality spent Monday waving signs and screaming for justice. They watched as police officers and National Guard units flooded Lafayette Square, delivering on a threat made by President Trump. And just before the city’s 7 p.m. curfew went into effect, they were hit with flash-bang explosions and doused with tear gas. It was because the president, who spent part of the weekend in a secure bunker as protests roiled, wanted to have his picture taken holding a Bible at a battered church just beyond the gates.
In the Washington Post, Rebecca Tan, Samantha Schmidt, Derek Hawkins, Fredrick Kunkle and Jessica Contrera referred to the attack on protesters as an “ambush.”
Also in the Post, Philip Rucker, Robert Costa, Josh Dawsey and Seung Min Kim wrote that the attack on protesters was being “denounced by critics as authoritarian,” and that Trump had “forced a brazen inflammation of the crisis convulsing the country by calling the nationwide demonstrations ‘acts of domestic terror,’ declaring himself the ‘president of law and order’ and taking the rare step of mobilizing the military to use force to quell the unrest.”
You could watch the shift happening even at NPR, which rarely departs from bothsidesism, as an early headline reading “President Trump Addresses The Nation And Walks To ‘The Church Of Presidents’” gave way to one proclaiming “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.”
Reporters tweeted that they have never seen anything like it:
In five years covering Trump, I haven't seen an hour like the past one:
-Trump declares self "president of law and order"
-Trump mobilizes military
-Military police fire tear gas at peaceful protesters to clear street in front of St. John's
-Trump visits St John's for photo opp — Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) June 1, 2020
Literally, a photo op. A government-financed photo op. And here it is. https://t.co/xykGlVmeh3 — Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny) June 2, 2020
Faced with these new, even more extraordinary circumstances, reporters don’t need to start editorializing more, author and Vice TV host Anand Giridharadas noted on Twitter – it’s enough just to call things by their true names.
The journalistic instinct for sobriety and caution and toning things down is going to be wholly inadequate for the moment we are entering. We are going to need journalists to say things they have tended to avoid in the name of objectivity. — Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) June 2, 2020
One thing almost entirely missing from the initial mainstream-media coverage, or the follow-ups, is any normalizing of what happened at Lafayette Park – or any defense of it at all.
Instead, we are reading blistering critiques from religious leaders, former military officials, and the like.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper abandoned false equivalency a long time ago, but his comments on Monday night seemed particularly direct:
The President seems to think that dominating black people, dominating peaceful protesters is law and order. It’s not. He calls them thugs. Who is the thug here? Hiding in a bunker? Hiding behind a suit? Who is the thug? People have waited for days for this wannabe war-time President to say something and this is what he says, and that is what he does. I’ve seen societies fall apart as a reporter. I’ve seen people dying in the streets while protesting. I’ve seen countries ripped apart by hate and misinformation and lies and political demagogues and racism. We can’t let that happen here. Of course, violence is no answer, but people protesting deserves answers, and they haven’t gotten them, no matter how many black men have been murdered, lynched, imprisoned, mistreated, redlined, blackballed from jobs — we all know it. People protesting in the streets, they know it and they’re tired of it. And we should be, too.
There is something about the starkness of the recent imagery – starting, of course, with the video of a white cop casually snuffing the life out of a black man with a knee to his neck, and including so many scenes of journalists being targeted, harassed, sprayed, shot and arrested by police – that suggests, as I wrote on Monday, that the perspective of the press is shifting.
One gets the sense that we are entering the final phase of something – possibly Trumpism, possibly democracy. So it’s entirely appropriate for the press to stop acting as if it’s just business as usual.


presswatchers--2020-06-04--Tom Cotton op-ed exposes leadership problems at the New York Times

The New York Times ’ s decision on Wednesday to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton — in which the Arkansas Republican called for the U.S. to “ Send in the Troops ” to forcibly subdue the “ rioters ” who he claimed have “ plunged many American cities into anarchy ” — has resulted in a remarkable public denunciation from readers and even the newspaper ’ s own staff members .
Dozens of Times staffers risked the ire of Times management by tweeting the singular message : “ Running this puts black @ nytimes staff in danger.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents many Times journalists , released a statement declaring , “ This is a particularly vulnerable moment in American history .
Cotton ’ s Op-Ed pours gasoline on the fire.
” The statement explained : “ Though we understand the Op-Ed desk ’ s responsibility to publish a diverse array of opinions , we find the publication of this essay to be an irresponsible choice .
Its lack of context , inadequate vetting by editorial management , spread of misinformation , and the timing of its call to arms gravely undermine the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could inspire further use of force at protests — protests many of us and our colleagues are covering in person.
” On Thursday evening , the Times capitulated — up to a point .
Eileen Murphy , a Times spokeswoman , said in a statement that “ a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards.
” The statement said the Times would expand its fact-checking operation and publish fewer pieces .
But that didn ’ t actually resolve a lot of the issues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did it fail to meet ?
What are we to make of the two spirited defenses of the decision to publish it — from Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and editorial page editor James Bennet , no less ?
Are those no longer operative ?
What ’ s the lesson learned ?
The lesson I hope the paper ’ s editors and management learned is that when the Times publishes op-eds , it is making a conscious choice to amplify them .
It is putting the Times imprimatur on the authors and their views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequential decision .
The publisher steps in it Sulzberger , the publisher , initially defended the publication of the Cotton op-ed in a message to staff on Thursday , writing : “ I believe in the principle of openness to a range of opinions , even those we may disagree with , and this piece was published in that spirit .
” But he also wrote : “ We don ’ t publish just any argument — they need to be accurate , good faith explorations of the issues of the day.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he tripped himself up .
Because by publishing the op-ed , the Times was vouching for its accuracy and its good faith , and was validating its topic as a legitimate topic worthy of serious debate .
The op-ed , in reality , was riddled with inaccuracies , conflations and conspiracy theories .
And it was inflammatory to its core — hardly a subject of reasonable political discourse .
Times investigative reporter Jennifer Valentino-DeVries , using the Times ’ ss own ad slogan as a thematic device , posted a series of tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cotton ’ s piece : Cotton wrote of “ cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd ’ s death for their own anarchic purposes.
” Valentino-DeVries pointed out that the Times itself has reported that unsubstantiated theories about antifa are among the primary pieces of misinformation being spread about current protests and unrest .
Cotton wrote : “ Outnumbered police officers , encumbered by feckless politicians , bore the brunt of the violence.
” But as Valentino-DeVries noted , Times reporting has found the the brunt of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not against them .
Rather than a reasoned argument , Cotton ’ s op-ed was a self-serving embrace of the kind of authoritarianism that used to be unthinkable in this country .
Political analyst Jared Yates Sexton tweeted : Sewell Chan , a former deputy editor of the New York Times op-ed page ( he is now editorial page editor at the Los Angeles Times ) explained on Twitter that he wouldn ’ t have run the Cotton piece , which he noted “ isn ’ t original , or even timely.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to violence of black and brown bodies is being felt so acutely , especially by black and brown people , Cotton ’ s op-ed struck some as particularly threatening and hostile .
Karen Attiah , an opinion editor at the Washington Post , tweeted : For good measure , Andrew Marantz , a New Yorker staff writer , called attention to the ludicrous in-line links in Cotton ’ s op-ed : Bennet , the editorial page editor , also initially defended his decision on Wednesday , with a number of unctuous straw-man arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It would undermine the integrity and independence of The New York Times if we only published views that editors like me agreed with , and it would betray what I think of as our fundamental purpose — not to tell you what to think , but to help you think for yourself.
” Ick .
His response to the concern that the Times legitimated Cotton ’ s point of view was this : “ I worry we ’ d be misleading our readers if we concluded that by ignoring Cotton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Bennet even suggested that the Times performed some sort of public service by having Cotton expand his tweets into a full op-ed : “ [ H ] aving to stand up an argument in an essay is very different than making a point in a tweet , ” Bennet wrote .
“ Readers who might be inclined to oppose Cotton ’ s position need to be fully aware of it , and reckon with it , if they hope to defeat it.
” The op-ed , in reality , was cotton candy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which were widely interpreted as a call for the military invasion of cities and the summary execution of American citizens .
Did someone at the Times really look at those tweets and say : “ Hey , let ’ s hit him up for an op-ed ?
” Bennet reportedly told colleagues that he had not read the Cotton op-ed before publication .
But he still bears the responsibility .
His staff does what he wants them to do .
And he initially defended the decision , even if he has now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong time At a time when the video of a police officer snuffing out George Floyd ’ s life , the massive surge of impassioned protests and the violent suppression of so many of those protests have profoundly shaken the public — including many journalists — why would anyone even consider publishing a fanatical incitement to more pain and violence ?
I actually have an answer of sorts .
Although I ’ ve been watching Dean Baquet , the Times ’ ss top news editor , more closely than I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to have an awful lot in common ( which may be why Bennet is often considered Baquet ’ s most likely successor ) .
To be blunt , one of the things they have in common is precisely what I think makes them entirely unsuited for their jobs in this day and age : a sense of moral and emotional detachment from the news at a time when democratic values are being challenged , when the very notion of truth is under attack and , now , when the ugly , festering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again been exposed .
Their mantra is : Don ’ t take sides .
In Bennet ’ s case , that means publishing a range of often inaccurate , bad-faith arguments from the right , in an effort to counter the centrist and liberal voices that dominate his pages .
In Baquet ’ s case , that means doing terrible things to the Times ’ s political coverage : normalizing Trump , engaging in false equivalence , being overly credulous to official sources and generally preventing capable reporters from calling it like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it clear that Times political reporters will not be “ taking sides ” — even when one side is the truth and the other side is a lie — as long as he remains editor .
But what I believe critics of the decision to publish Cotton ’ s op-ed are saying – and what Times staffers themselves have said — is that , yes , sometimes you do take sides .
That doesn ’ t mean you become a partisan .
It means you recognize that a lie is a lie .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like advocating the violent suppression of what would almost inevitably be mostly black and brown people — are so abhorrent , so unhinged , so dangerous and so consequential that it is irresponsible just to put them out there without contextualizing them , explaining them and fully refuting them .

(Updated at 8:30 p.m. ET to reflect the Times’s acknowledgment of error.)
The New York Times’s decision on Wednesday to publish an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton — in which the Arkansas Republican called for the U.S. to “Send in the Troops” to forcibly subdue the “rioters” who he claimed have “plunged many American cities into anarchy” — has resulted in a remarkable public denunciation from readers and even the newspaper’s own staff members.
Dozens of Times staffers risked the ire of Times management by tweeting the singular message: “Running this puts black @nytimes staff in danger.”
The NewsGuild of New York, which represents many Times journalists, released a statement declaring, “This is a particularly vulnerable moment in American history. Cotton’s Op-Ed pours gasoline on the fire.”
The statement explained: “Though we understand the Op-Ed desk’s responsibility to publish a diverse array of opinions, we find the publication of this essay to be an irresponsible choice. Its lack of context, inadequate vetting by editorial management, spread of misinformation, and the timing of its call to arms gravely undermine the work we do every day. This rhetoric could inspire further use of force at protests — protests many of us and our colleagues are covering in person.”
On Thursday evening, the Times capitulated — up to a point. Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman, said in a statement that “a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards.” The statement said the Times would expand its fact-checking operation and publish fewer pieces.
But that didn’t actually resolve a lot of the issues that the Cotton op-ed raised. What standards did it fail to meet? What are we to make of the two spirited defenses of the decision to publish it — from Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and editorial page editor James Bennet, no less? Are those no longer operative? What’s the lesson learned?
The lesson I hope the paper’s editors and management learned is that when the Times publishes op-eds, it is making a conscious choice to amplify them. It is putting the Times imprimatur on the authors and their views. And that can be a hugely consequential decision.
The publisher steps in it
Sulzberger, the publisher, initially defended the publication of the Cotton op-ed in a message to staff on Thursday, writing: “I believe in the principle of openness to a range of opinions, even those we may disagree with, and this piece was published in that spirit. ”
But he also wrote: “We don’t publish just any argument — they need to be accurate, good faith explorations of the issues of the day.”
And that’s where I think he tripped himself up. Because by publishing the op-ed, the Times was vouching for its accuracy and its good faith, and was validating its topic as a legitimate topic worthy of serious debate.
The op-ed, in reality, was riddled with inaccuracies, conflations and conspiracy theories. And it was inflammatory to its core — hardly a subject of reasonable political discourse.
Times investigative reporter Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, using the Times’s own ad slogan as a thematic device, posted a series of tweets that amounted to a devastating fact-check on Cotton’s piece:
For example, the truth is that Senator Tom Cotton, in an opinion piece, misquoted Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which never says the federal government has a duty to the states to "protect each of them from domestic violence" but refers to state requests for aid. pic.twitter.com/dzPdI0TBcQ — Jennifer Valentino-DeVries (@jenvalentino) June 4, 2020
Cotton wrote of “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.” Valentino-DeVries pointed out that the Times itself has reported that unsubstantiated theories about antifa are among the primary pieces of misinformation being spread about current protests and unrest.
Cotton wrote: “Outnumbered police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of the violence.” But as Valentino-DeVries noted, Times reporting has found the the brunt of the violence has been inflicted by police, not against them.
Rather than a reasoned argument, Cotton’s op-ed was a self-serving embrace of the kind of authoritarianism that used to be unthinkable in this country. Political analyst Jared Yates Sexton tweeted:
Tom Cotton is campaigning for future office by positioning himself as the most fascistic fascist. — Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) June 3, 2020
Sewell Chan, a former deputy editor of the New York Times op-ed page (he is now editorial page editor at the Los Angeles Times) explained on Twitter that he wouldn’t have run the Cotton piece, which he noted “isn’t original, or even timely.”
It calls for “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers” but offers no evidence that existing law enforcement efforts—by National Guard troops, county sheriffs, city police departments—is failing. — Sewell Chan (@sewellchan) June 3, 2020
Coming at a time when the vulnerability to violence of black and brown bodies is being felt so acutely, especially by black and brown people, Cotton’s op-ed struck some as particularly threatening and hostile. Karen Attiah, an opinion editor at the Washington Post, tweeted:
That there are no comments allowed on that NYT Tom Cotton op-ed is telling. This wasn't about public debate. This was about unleashing a violent threat against black people/protesters and then pulling the "both sides" rationale. Do you get pleasure from our bloodshed? — Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) June 4, 2020
Nozlee Samadzadeh, a programmer at the Times, tweeted:
This week my inbox was full of all-staff messages from Times leadership professing support and empathy. I will end by saying that I'm personally struggling with how to trust leaders who pledge support to underrepresented employees while publishing work that actively harms them. — Nozlee Samadzadeh (@nzle) June 4, 2020
For good measure, Andrew Marantz, a New Yorker staff writer, called attention to the ludicrous in-line links in Cotton’s op-ed:
-a link to the full text of Wolfe's "Radical Chic" (which still holds up, but also…why?)
-a link to an entire 500-page book by a military historian …I could keep going. the links are not always like this, right? — Andrew Marantz (@andrewmarantz) June 4, 2020
The editor’s defense
Bennet, the editorial page editor, also initially defended his decision on Wednesday, with a number of unctuous straw-man arguments. For instance, he wrote: “It would undermine the integrity and independence of The New York Times if we only published views that editors like me agreed with, and it would betray what I think of as our fundamental purpose — not to tell you what to think, but to help you think for yourself.” Ick.
His response to the concern that the Times legitimated Cotton’s point of view was this: “I worry we’d be misleading our readers if we concluded that by ignoring Cotton’s argument we would diminish it.” Huh?
Bennet even suggested that the Times performed some sort of public service by having Cotton expand his tweets into a full op-ed: “[H]aving to stand up an argument in an essay is very different than making a point in a tweet,” Bennet wrote. “Readers who might be inclined to oppose Cotton’s position need to be fully aware of it, and reckon with it, if they hope to defeat it.”
The op-ed, in reality, was cotton candy compared to Cotton’s original tweets, which were widely interpreted as a call for the military invasion of cities and the summary execution of American citizens.
And, if necessary, the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, 1st Cav, 3rd Infantry—whatever it takes to restore order. No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters. https://t.co/OnNJmnDrYM — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) June 1, 2020
Did someone at the Times really look at those tweets and say: “Hey, let’s hit him up for an op-ed?”
Bennet reportedly told colleagues that he had not read the Cotton op-ed before publication. But he still bears the responsibility. His staff does what he wants them to do. And he initially defended the decision, even if he has now backed down.
The wrong men at the wrong time
At a time when the video of a police officer snuffing out George Floyd’s life, the massive surge of impassioned protests and the violent suppression of so many of those protests have profoundly shaken the public — including many journalists — why would anyone even consider publishing a fanatical incitement to more pain and violence?
I actually have an answer of sorts. Although I’ve been watching Dean Baquet, the Times’s top news editor, more closely than I’ve been watching Bennet, the two men seem to have an awful lot in common (which may be why Bennet is often considered Baquet’s most likely successor).
To be blunt, one of the things they have in common is precisely what I think makes them entirely unsuited for their jobs in this day and age: a sense of moral and emotional detachment from the news at a time when democratic values are being challenged, when the very notion of truth is under attack and, now, when the ugly, festering wound of racism and police violence has once again been exposed.
Their mantra is: Don’t take sides. In Bennet’s case, that means publishing a range of often inaccurate, bad-faith arguments from the right, in an effort to counter the centrist and liberal voices that dominate his pages.
In Baquet’s case, that means doing terrible things to the Times’s political coverage: normalizing Trump, engaging in false equivalence, being overly credulous to official sources and generally preventing capable reporters from calling it like they see it.
He has made it clear that Times political reporters will not be “taking sides” — even when one side is the truth and the other side is a lie — as long as he remains editor.
But what I believe critics of the decision to publish Cotton’s op-ed are saying – and what Times staffers themselves have said — is that, yes, sometimes you do take sides. That doesn’t mean you become a partisan. It means you recognize that a lie is a lie. And you recognize that some ideas – like advocating the violent suppression of what would almost inevitably be mostly black and brown people — are so abhorrent, so unhinged, so dangerous and so consequential that it is irresponsible just to put them out there without contextualizing them, explaining them and fully refuting them.