presswatchers--2020-10-15--In the final stretch, political journalists should flood the zone with the truth

With the signs growing ever clearer that the American people are in the process of rejecting Donald Trump from the body politic , journalists should seize the moment to pivot to a more honest assessment of the urgent need to stop the extraordinary damage he has done to the country .
Step one is to clearly convey in every report about the campaign , or about Trump , how re-electing him would be incredibly dangerous .
It would be literally dangerous : His willful ineptitude in the face of a pandemic has killed more Americans than died in World War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dangerous to core American freedoms like the freedom of the press ; to core democratic principles like the apolitical administration of justice ; and to core American values like pluralism .
It would also be re-electing someone who is clearly not rational – whose words simply do not comport to reality , in a way vastly more alarming than any other major political figure in American history .
Every report that even vaguely relates to the campaign should be firmly set in the context that this is not just a normal election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a referendum on competence and democracy and unity and sanity .
Every half-decent political journalist in America knows this .
So do most Americans .
( Many of them are wondering why the press won ’ t say so , and are sorely disappointed . )
But clearly not all Americans grasp the severity of the danger .
And that ’ s why news organizations need to drop the moral distancing and the euphemisms and make it crystal clear , while it still makes a difference .
Normalizing the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framing the campaign coverage as if there were a rational choice each way – enables the ignorant and weak-willed to cast their votes for Trump .
And yeah , I know they don ’ t read the New York Times and the Washington Post .
But maybe they read their local newspaper , which carries Times and Post wire stories , along with the Associated Press .
Maybe they listen to the evening news .
Maybe they ’ ll read a news story posted by a friend .
I ’ m not suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is based on ignorance .
Some is legitimate .
Aggrieved racist white Christian men who long for a return to supremacy have found a kindred spirit .
Authoritarian submissives have found their man – and fully 29 percent of Americans , according to the Voter Study Group , believe that a “ strong leader who doesn ’ t have to bother with Congress and elections ” is a good way to govern a country .
Far-right ideologues who care more about the Supreme Court than anything else are understandably pleased with Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not paying taxes .
Some Republicans obviously believe that Republican control is worth it no matter the cost .
But the seemingly endless interviews with Trump fans in the heartland have exposed the reality that , for many ordinary people , support for Trump is based on misinformation and vague social pressure .
And those could , potentially , be offset by a mainstream media as aggressive about fighting misinformation as Fox News is in spreading it – and by consistent messaging that re-electing Trump would have profound negative consequences well beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most noble goal of the Fourth Estate .
The challenge , in these next few weeks , couldn ’ t be clearer .
But instead of educating the ignorant and properly framing the contest , what we still get far too often is irresponsible , breathless sport-style coverage , as if this were just a big game .
We get attempts to find symmetry and a suspenseful contest even where none exists .
That was perhaps best illustrated Thursday morning on NBC ’ s “ Today ” show , with news staffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that network brass shamelessly and irresponsibly scheduled against a Biden event on ABC .
Host Savannah Guthrie introduced the segment by saying that “ With high stakes and just 19 days to go , our newest poll , just out this morning , shows a race that is tightening.
” ( The actual poll shows Biden maintaining his double-digit lead . )
Then she turned it over to White House correspondent Hallie Jackson , who said that “ Tonight really represents one of the last opportunities that he has to try to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The calculations major newsroom executives made after Trump was elected aren ’ t hard to fathom .
Despite the obvious state of emergency , they made a conscious decision to give him the benefit of the doubt and treat him like a normal president .
The alternative was to have to explain , every day , how irrational and racist and authoritarian he was , and they didn ’ t want to do that because he was going to be around for a while and that sounded exhausting , plus they really didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or hysterical .
But now the clock is running down .
And it ’ s not just how close we are to the election .
It ’ s also that Trump has gotten even more erratic and dangerous .
His flame-out in Cleveland and the spectacle of his self-inflicted infection with the coronavirus and ensuing ( and continuing ) cover-up emboldened many political reporters to take a somewhat less tranquilized tone in their reporting of those events .
But meanwhile , Trump has also been ramping up his defiance of legal , precedential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the integrity of the election , calling for the indictment of his political opponents – in a way that should be sending reporters into full red-alert mode .
As the legendary newsman Hedrick Smith wrote on his blog on Monday : In a powerful news analysis , New York Times senior writer David Sanger wrote on Oct. 10 that Trump ’ s statements had become “ so blatant that one had to look to authoritarian nations to make comparisons.
” But as New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen asked : “ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage break with precedent , as well ?
” Times executive editor Dean Baquet thinks his newsroom has already made the necessary adjustments .
“ I think early on we probably tried to attach our traditional rules of coverage , our traditional norms , to Donald Trump—and he defied them , ” he told Tom Kludt of Vanity Fair .
“ The American press covers extensively when the president of the United States briefs and makes comments about issues , but you have to cover it very differently when the president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sometimes lies.
” And I ’ ll grant him that news analyses – at the Times and elsewhere – have gotten considerably bolder about calling out Trump ’ s failings .
But that hasn ’ t translated to the daily news stories that , I suspect , get more readership , especially when picked up in local newspapers .
The aversion to “ taking sides ” in political journalism comes out of a legitimate desire to avoid being partisan .
Partisans don ’ t like facts that don ’ t support their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts no matter what position they support .
“ Taking sides ” against Trump , however , isn ’ t actually partisan .
I mean , of course it is , to the extent that the message is anti-Republican , because almost every elected Republican leader has been coopted by Trumpism .
But you can also think of it as tough love – an intervention by people who care – for a party that has lost touch with reality .
When it comes to Trump , the aversion to “ taking sides ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things that are radically unequal – and that ’ s just bad journalism .
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial endorsing Biden addressed that lack of equivalence directly : There ’ s a reason why virtually no newspaper in the country – even those that are highly conservative , and have typically endorsed Republicans – has or will endorse Trump .
People who care about news also value the truth , and freedom of the press , and a number of other core values under attack by Trump .
Trump ’ s former guru , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Michael Lewis in 2018 : “ The Democrats don ’ t matter .
The real opposition is the media .
And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.
” The way to fight back is to flood the zone with truth .
Yes , I ’ ve made many of these points point before .
My inaugural piece for this website , nearly a year ago , was headlined : It would be insane for America to re-elect Trump .
Why can ’ t journalists say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right storyline isn ’ t even that a widely hated and failing president is running for re-election and has little to no chance of winning — although that ’ s all true .
The right storyline is that this is a crisis , caused by a terrible error , and it has to be fixed.
” More recently I wrote about how Trump ’ s intention to steal the election is undeniable , and that The alarms are ringing everywhere but in our top newsrooms .
I wrote that Failing to clearly identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is bad journalism and asked political reporters : “ How will you feel after this election if you haven ’ t done everything you reasonably could to prevent an authoritarian takeover ?
” I wrote that The media is covering this election all wrong , because “ Covering this campaign with the hoary campaign-reporting algorithms made for typical elections would be a terrible mistake.
” I feel the need to repeat myself .
Please help by making a donation to Press Watch .

With the signs growing ever clearer that the American people are in the process of rejecting Donald Trump from the body politic, journalists should seize the moment to pivot to a more honest assessment of the urgent need to stop the extraordinary damage he has done to the country.
Step one is to clearly convey in every report about the campaign, or about Trump, how re-electing him would be incredibly dangerous.
It would be literally dangerous: His willful ineptitude in the face of a pandemic has killed more Americans than died in World War I, and counting.
It would be dangerous to core American freedoms like the freedom of the press; to core democratic principles like the apolitical administration of justice; and to core American values like pluralism.
It would also be re-electing someone who is clearly not rational – whose words simply do not comport to reality, in a way vastly more alarming than any other major political figure in American history.
Every report that even vaguely relates to the campaign should be firmly set in the context that this is not just a normal election between two people with opposing views; it’s a referendum on competence and democracy and unity and sanity.
Every half-decent political journalist in America knows this.
So do most Americans. (Many of them are wondering why the press won’t say so, and are sorely disappointed.)
But clearly not all Americans grasp the severity of the danger. And that’s why news organizations need to drop the moral distancing and the euphemisms and make it crystal clear, while it still makes a difference.
Normalizing the election – treating it like a game, framing the campaign coverage as if there were a rational choice each way – enables the ignorant and weak-willed to cast their votes for Trump.
And yeah, I know they don’t read the New York Times and the Washington Post. But maybe they read their local newspaper, which carries Times and Post wire stories, along with the Associated Press. Maybe they listen to the evening news. Maybe they’ll read a news story posted by a friend.
I’m not suggesting that all of Trump’s support is based on ignorance. Some is legitimate. Aggrieved racist white Christian men who long for a return to supremacy have found a kindred spirit. Authoritarian submissives have found their man – and fully 29 percent of Americans, according to the Voter Study Group, believe that a “strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress and elections” is a good way to govern a country. Far-right ideologues who care more about the Supreme Court than anything else are understandably pleased with Trump, as are plutocrats who care only about not paying taxes. Some Republicans obviously believe that Republican control is worth it no matter the cost.
But the seemingly endless interviews with Trump fans in the heartland have exposed the reality that, for many ordinary people, support for Trump is based on misinformation and vague social pressure. And those could, potentially, be offset by a mainstream media as aggressive about fighting misinformation as Fox News is in spreading it – and by consistent messaging that re-electing Trump would have profound negative consequences well beyond the normal.
Creating an informed electorate is the most noble goal of the Fourth Estate. The challenge, in these next few weeks, couldn’t be clearer.
But instead of educating the ignorant and properly framing the contest, what we still get far too often is irresponsible, breathless sport-style coverage, as if this were just a big game. We get attempts to find symmetry and a suspenseful contest even where none exists.
That was perhaps best illustrated Thursday morning on NBC’s “Today” show, with news staffers shilling for a Trump town hall event that network brass shamelessly and irresponsibly scheduled against a Biden event on ABC.
Host Savannah Guthrie introduced the segment by saying that “With high stakes and just 19 days to go, our newest poll, just out this morning, shows a race that is tightening.” (The actual poll shows Biden maintaining his double-digit lead.)
Then she turned it over to White House correspondent Hallie Jackson, who said that “Tonight really represents one of the last opportunities that he has to try to make his case and turn the tide.”
The inertia of complacency
The calculations major newsroom executives made after Trump was elected aren’t hard to fathom. Despite the obvious state of emergency, they made a conscious decision to give him the benefit of the doubt and treat him like a normal president. The alternative was to have to explain, every day, how irrational and racist and authoritarian he was, and they didn’t want to do that because he was going to be around for a while and that sounded exhausting, plus they really didn’t want to be called partisan or hysterical.
But now the clock is running down. And it’s not just how close we are to the election. It’s also that Trump has gotten even more erratic and dangerous.
His flame-out in Cleveland and the spectacle of his self-inflicted infection with the coronavirus and ensuing (and continuing) cover-up emboldened many political reporters to take a somewhat less tranquilized tone in their reporting of those events.
(And what happened? Was there an outcry from centrist readers demanding more objectivity? Hardly!)
But meanwhile, Trump has also been ramping up his defiance of legal, precedential and constitutional limits to authoritarianism – challenging the integrity of the election, calling for the indictment of his political opponents – in a way that should be sending reporters into full red-alert mode.
As the legendary newsman Hedrick Smith wrote on his blog on Monday:
We have all become so inured to Donald Trump’s erratic, volcanic, beyond-the-bounds behavior that we may not have absorbed the alarming reality that in the past two weeks, the President of the United States has posed what some would term a “clear and present danger” to our nation’s bedrock institutions, what could potentially become the most serious danger since the Civil War.
In a powerful news analysis, New York Times senior writer David Sanger wrote on Oct. 10 that Trump’s statements had become “so blatant that one had to look to authoritarian nations to make comparisons.”
But as New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen asked: “If his actions were without precedent should your coverage break with precedent, as well?”
Times executive editor Dean Baquet thinks his newsroom has already made the necessary adjustments. “I think early on we probably tried to attach our traditional rules of coverage, our traditional norms, to Donald Trump—and he defied them,” he told Tom Kludt of Vanity Fair. “The American press covers extensively when the president of the United States briefs and makes comments about issues, but you have to cover it very differently when the president of the United States obfuscates and often misleads people and sometimes lies.”
And I’ll grant him that news analyses – at the Times and elsewhere – have gotten considerably bolder about calling out Trump’s failings.
But that hasn’t translated to the daily news stories that, I suspect, get more readership, especially when picked up in local newspapers.
(Consider, for instance, the stark contrast between this AP analysis by Hope Yen, Calvin Woodward and Ellen Knickmeyer, definitively stating that “Trump demonstrated anew this past week he can’t be relied on to give a straight account of the disease that has afflicted millions, now including him,” with this credulous day-of stenography by Zeke Miller, Jill Colvin and Jonathan Lemire.)
The aversion to “taking sides” in political journalism comes out of a legitimate desire to avoid being partisan. Partisans don’t like facts that don’t support their political positions. Journalists need to acknowledge facts no matter what position they support.
“Taking sides” against Trump, however, isn’t actually partisan. I mean, of course it is, to the extent that the message is anti-Republican, because almost every elected Republican leader has been coopted by Trumpism. But you can also think of it as tough love – an intervention by people who care – for a party that has lost touch with reality.
When it comes to Trump, the aversion to “taking sides” leads to creating false equivalences between two things that are radically unequal – and that’s just bad journalism.
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial endorsing Biden addressed that lack of equivalence directly:
For decades, Editorial Board endorsements — including presidential endorsements — have followed a time-honored and standard format, carefully laying out the merits and flaws of two candidates, comparing, contrasting, and arguing for the board’s choice of candidate…. But …there is no common ground shared by Trump and Biden. Trump’s lack of respect for the office he holds, his disregard for the country who looks for sound, informed, and unifying leadership, and his contempt for the democratic principles this country was founded on, make such comparisons both futile and absurd. To contrast Trump with a candidate like Biden, who has spent his life in public service, who has gravitas as well as experience in domestic and foreign affairs, and who, frankly, has a healthy relationship with reality, would do a disservice to Biden.
There’s a reason why virtually no newspaper in the country – even those that are highly conservative, and have typically endorsed Republicans – has or will endorse Trump. People who care about news also value the truth, and freedom of the press, and a number of other core values under attack by Trump.
Trump’s former guru, the white nationalist Steve Bannon, famously told Michael Lewis in 2018: “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”
The way to fight back is to flood the zone with truth.
__________________________________________________________
A note from Dan Froomkin:
Yes, I’ve made many of these points point before. My inaugural piece for this website, nearly a year ago, was headlined: It would be insane for America to re-elect Trump. Why can’t journalists say that? I wrote that “The right storyline isn’t even that a widely hated and failing president is running for re-election and has little to no chance of winning — although that’s all true. The right storyline is that this is a crisis, caused by a terrible error, and it has to be fixed.” More recently I wrote about how Trump’s intention to steal the election is undeniable, and that The alarms are ringing everywhere but in our top newsrooms. I wrote that Failing to clearly identify what’s at stake in 2020 is bad journalism and asked political reporters: “How will you feel after this election if you haven’t done everything you reasonably could to prevent an authoritarian takeover?” I wrote that The media is covering this election all wrong, because “Covering this campaign with the hoary campaign-reporting algorithms made for typical elections would be a terrible mistake.” I feel the need to repeat myself. Please help by making a donation to Press Watch.


presswatchers--2020-10-16--Dueling town halls finally lead some reporters to address the extreme disequilibrium between Trump a

Dueling town halls finally lead some reporters to address the extreme disequilibrium between Trump and Biden

NBC did a terrible disservice to the public by ceding to Donald Trump ’ s demand to counterprogram Joe Biden ’ s town hall on ABC on Thursday night – but the net effect on political journalism turned out to be quite positive .
The dueling town halls actually forced several top journalists to directly address the extraordinary imbalance between the two candidates and what they represent , rather than get distracted by the spectacle .
Just as I was despairing over how so many campaign stories understate the cataclysmic consequences of a second Trump term – normalizing the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framing the coverage as if there were a rational choice each way – a small step forward : Our top political reporters were faced on deadline with the obvious , extreme contrast between a deranged , blustery , power-hungry liar with no sense of decency and no plans , on the one hand , and a relatively normal human being with relatively mainstream goals , on the other .
And to a greater extent than I expected , that came across in the coverage .
In fact , I consider the main news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck , a signal moment for the Times , which has traditionally been way too stenographic in its spot-news coverage , leaving crucial context to euphemism-filled sidebar “ news analyses ” and fact-checks .
The Times ’ main story made it clear that Trump and Biden are operating in different worlds , only one of which is real .
Right from the top : And they had evidence : It may not be a complete coincidence that these reporters and their editors felt emboldened to be so straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the folks on the Times ’ opinion side were dropping their amazing ( if horribly over-designed ) closing argument in the 2020 election , with the says-it-all URL : “ donald-trump-worst-president.html.
” The editorial board wrote that “ Donald Trump ’ s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II.
” The editorial included this very poignant and appropriate appeal : Times reporters were not alone in directly addressing the gaping contrast between the two candidates evidenced on Thursday night .
Evan Halper , Eli Stokols , Melanie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story in the Los Angeles Times with admirable boldness : At the Dallas Morning News , Todd J. Gillman and Gromer Jeffers Jr. wrote : Jonathan Tamari and Sean Collins Walsh wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Trump “ had a combative exchange with NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie , refused to denounce the QAnon conspiracy theory , misrepresented a study about the effectiveness of face masks , and wouldn ’ t say if he had been tested for the coronavirus before his debate with Biden in late September.
” The Associated Press story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darlene Superville backed into it a bit , but eventually described “ crystalizing contrasts “ in “ dueling televised town halls that showcased striking differences in temperament , views on racial justice and approaches to a pandemic that has reshaped the nation.
” And they noted what I thought was perhaps Biden ’ s most defining moment : The Washington Post blew it , unfortunately .
Michael Scherer , Jenna Johnson and Josh Dawsey offered up a much less informative take on the night ’ s events – maintaining a safe moral distance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They described “ a jarring contrast of… opposing political styles and approaches to major issues like the coronavirus pandemic ” and noted that the events “ appeared to be broadcast from entirely different dimensions.
” But their focus was on the optics , not the difference in the candidates ’ approach to governing or relationship to reality : And the article was full of stenography lacking in sufficient pushback : In a Washington Post fact-checking sidebar that should have been reflected in the mainbar , Salvador Rizzo , Glenn Kessler and Meg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ web of falsehoods like a whirling dervish , while Biden talked in depth and at length on a range of policy issues , leaving us with a handful of claims to check.
” Their first fact-check was a particularly crucial one , that Guthrie failed to sufficiently address .
Trump outrageously lied — for the third time that day — that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that “ 85 percent of people who wear masks catch ” Covid .
The report from the CDC of course said no such thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some very bad takes as well .
In a limp USA Today article , Jeanine Santucci Rebecca Morin reported that the town halls “ had plenty of tense moments , ” then launched into an insipid rehash .
The Reuters headline – “ In split-screen town halls , Trump and Biden squabble over coronavirus response ” — should encourage everyone associated with it to look for another line of work .
Steve Holland and Michael Martina contributed a truly subpar lede avoiding any kind of useful information : It was all process over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t all roses at the New York Times , I should note .
Media writers Michael M. Grynbaum and John Koblin concluded way too glibly that “ The election may hinge on which type of programming Americans want to spend the next four years watching.
” World-weary Times veteran Adam Nagourney wrote that the clash of town halls “ was not much of an improvement ” over the insane mockery Trump made of the Cleveland debate .
And Nagourney focused almost exclusively on the optics , declaring it “ an open question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to push Mr. Biden off the stage worked to his advantage.
” To Nagourney , Trump ’ s outrageous elevation of QAnon was a problem because he “ stomped on his own message.
” Trump ’ s calumny about masks was an issue because he “ clung to an unpopular posture on masks and the pandemic.
” And so on .
Trump ’ s comments on QAnon very much deserved the special attention they got from the Washington Post ’ s Philip Bump .
Even CNN ’ s Chris Cillizza called them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Finally , however , the worst take came – not surprisingly – from the Washington Post ’ s washed-up elder statesman Dan Balz , who wrote , pretty much like he always does , that Trump missed a golden opportunity to turn everything around : Balz wrote , wistfully , that “ It was not the kind of performance likely to attract support from the voters Trump needs to win.
” None of the news articles achieved what the American people need and deserve the most from campaign coverage : constant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to stop the extraordinary damage Trump has done to the country .
But NBC brass ’ s shameful decision to give in to Trump may have , ironically , emboldened the press corps to draw the contrasts a bit more vividly .
These two men are not comparable .

NBC did a terrible disservice to the public by ceding to Donald Trump’s demand to counterprogram Joe Biden’s town hall on ABC on Thursday night – but the net effect on political journalism turned out to be quite positive.
The dueling town halls actually forced several top journalists to directly address the extraordinary imbalance between the two candidates and what they represent, rather than get distracted by the spectacle.
Just as I was despairing over how so many campaign stories understate the cataclysmic consequences of a second Trump term – normalizing the election, treating it like a game, framing the coverage as if there were a rational choice each way – a small step forward: Our top political reporters were faced on deadline with the obvious, extreme contrast between a deranged, blustery, power-hungry liar with no sense of decency and no plans, on the one hand, and a relatively normal human being with relatively mainstream goals, on the other.
And to a greater extent than I expected, that came across in the coverage.
In fact, I consider the main news story in the New York Times, by Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck, a signal moment for the Times, which has traditionally been way too stenographic in its spot-news coverage, leaving crucial context to euphemism-filled sidebar “news analyses” and fact-checks.
The Times’ main story made it clear that Trump and Biden are operating in different worlds, only one of which is real. Right from the top:
President Trump spoke positively about an extremist conspiracy-theory group, expressed skepticism about mask-wearing, rebuked his own F.B.I. director and attacked the legitimacy of the 2020 election in a televised town hall forum on Thursday, veering far away from a focused campaign appeal. Instead, he further stoked the country’s political rifts as his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., pushed a deliberate message anchored in concerns over public health and promises to restore political norms.
Burns and Glueck explained:
On the central issue of the election, the coronavirus pandemic, the two candidates appeared to inhabit not just different television sets but different universes. Mr. Biden has made the full embrace of strict public health guidelines the centerpiece of his candidacy, while Mr. Trump has continued to defy even the recommendations of his own government on matters as basic as the use of masks — a pattern that persisted in their opposing events on Thursday.
And they had evidence:
At the moment that Mr. Trump was effectively defending a fringe corner of the internet, Mr. Biden, the former vice president, was speaking about corporate tax rates and citing the business-analysis service Moody’s, underscoring the extraordinary gulf separating the two candidates in their worldviews, policies and connections to factual reality.
It may not be a complete coincidence that these reporters and their editors felt emboldened to be so straight with readers around the same time that the folks on the Times’ opinion side were dropping their amazing (if horribly over-designed) closing argument in the 2020 election, with the says-it-all URL: “donald-trump-worst-president.html.”
The editorial board wrote that “Donald Trump’s re-election campaign poses the greatest threat to American democracy since World War II.”
The editorial included this very poignant and appropriate appeal:
The enormity and variety of Mr. Trump’s misdeeds can feel overwhelming. Repetition has dulled the sense of outrage, and the accumulation of new outrages leaves little time to dwell on the particulars. This is the moment when Americans must recover that sense of outrage.
Times reporters were not alone in directly addressing the gaping contrast between the two candidates evidenced on Thursday night.
Evan Halper, Eli Stokols, Melanie Mason and Brittny Mejia led off their story in the Los Angeles Times with admirable boldness:
As President Trump angrily refused to disavow the QAnon conspiracy theory or accept responsibility for the surge of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., Joe Biden laid out his policy plans in a more muted style on a separate stage.
They explained:
Trump was defiant and loose with the facts; Biden, deep in the policy weeds and soft-spoken. Biden emphasized that he would try to unify the nation and work to build consensus with Republicans. Trump focused on attacking Democrats in Congress and blaming liberal mayors and governors for urban unrest and the spread of the coronavirus.
At the Dallas Morning News, Todd J. Gillman and Gromer Jeffers Jr. wrote:
In tone and content, these were less competing events than parallel universes. As Biden sedately clarified his views on fracking and expounded on the wisdom of green infrastructure investment, Trump was defending QAnon, the shadowy conspiracy cult that holds that he will save the nation from a secret cabal of child molesters.
They explained:
It was not exactly a debate, but if you took the time to watch both, or at least the highlights, it did the job in some ways — perhaps even better, since they couldn’t bicker or drown each other out, and the incentive to rehearse zingers was lacking.
Jonathan Tamari and Sean Collins Walsh wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Trump “had a combative exchange with NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie, refused to denounce the QAnon conspiracy theory, misrepresented a study about the effectiveness of face masks, and wouldn’t say if he had been tested for the coronavirus before his debate with Biden in late September.”
By contrast:
Biden, in the event hosted by ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, answered policy questions the way a typical candidate does: answering some directly, skirting others, citing data that backed up his point while steering away from details that might hurt it.
The Associated Press story by Jonathan Lemire, Will Weissert and Darlene Superville backed into it a bit, but eventually described “crystalizing contrasts“ in “dueling televised town halls that showcased striking differences in temperament, views on racial justice and approaches to a pandemic that has reshaped the nation.”
And they noted what I thought was perhaps Biden’s most defining moment:
He turned introspective when asked what it would say if he lost. “It could say that I’m a lousy candidate, that I didn’t do a good job,” Biden said. “But I think, I hope that it doesn’t say that we’re as racially, ethnically and religiously at odds as it appears the president wants us to be.”
The Washington Post blew it, unfortunately. Michael Scherer, Jenna Johnson and Josh Dawsey offered up a much less informative take on the night’s events – maintaining a safe moral distance rather than confidently showing readers the truth.
They described “a jarring contrast of… opposing political styles and approaches to major issues like the coronavirus pandemic” and noted that the events “appeared to be broadcast from entirely different dimensions.” But their focus was on the optics, not the difference in the candidates’ approach to governing or relationship to reality:
The soft-spoken Biden leaned back in a white chair, relaxed and conversational as he hit upon notes of optimism and uplift. Trump’s appearance was heated and at times abrasive, with the candidate leaning forward as he defended his record and challenged the motivations of moderator Savannah Guthrie.
And the article was full of stenography lacking in sufficient pushback:
In one of the most notable exchanges, he said he did not know about QAnon, a loose-knit online community that was recently banned from Facebook. Supporters of the group, which shares false stories, including ones about Democrats abusing children, regularly appear with signs and apparel at Trump’s rallies. “They are very strongly against pedophilia, and I agree with that,” he said about the group before attempting to pivot the conversation to talk about left-wing radicals like self-described anti-fascist protesters.
In a Washington Post fact-checking sidebar that should have been reflected in the mainbar, Salvador Rizzo, Glenn Kessler and Meg Kelly reported that “Trump spun a web of falsehoods like a whirling dervish, while Biden talked in depth and at length on a range of policy issues, leaving us with a handful of claims to check.”
Their first fact-check was a particularly crucial one, that Guthrie failed to sufficiently address. Trump outrageously lied — for the third time that day — that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that “85 percent of people who wear masks catch” Covid. The report from the CDC of course said no such thing.
Bad Takes
There were, not surprisingly, some very bad takes as well.
In a limp USA Today article, Jeanine Santucci Rebecca Morin reported that the town halls “had plenty of tense moments,” then launched into an insipid rehash.
The Reuters headline – “In split-screen town halls, Trump and Biden squabble over coronavirus response” — should encourage everyone associated with it to look for another line of work. Steve Holland and Michael Martina contributed a truly subpar lede avoiding any kind of useful information:
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Thursday criticized what he called President Donald Trump’s “panicked” response to the coronavirus pandemic, while Trump defended his handling of a crisis that has killed more than 216,000 Americans.
It was all process over substance for Reuters:
The split-screen showdown offered a stark reminder of the many ways the campaign season has been changed by a pandemic that has prompted more than 18 million people to cast ballots more than two weeks before Election Day on Nov. 3.
And it wasn’t all roses at the New York Times, I should note.
Media writers Michael M. Grynbaum and John Koblin concluded way too glibly that “The election may hinge on which type of programming Americans want to spend the next four years watching.”
(More people, it turned out, watched Biden.)
World-weary Times veteran Adam Nagourney wrote that the clash of town halls “was not much of an improvement” over the insane mockery Trump made of the Cleveland debate. And Nagourney focused almost exclusively on the optics, declaring it “an open question whether Mr. Trump’s gambit of trying to push Mr. Biden off the stage worked to his advantage.”
To Nagourney, Trump’s outrageous elevation of QAnon was a problem because he “stomped on his own message.” Trump’s calumny about masks was an issue because he “clung to an unpopular posture on masks and the pandemic.” And so on.
(I noticed that Shane Goldmacher’s co-byline vanished sometime Friday morning. I’m going to venture that he didn’t want to be associated with such garbage takes.)
Trump’s comments on QAnon very much deserved the special attention they got from the Washington Post’s Philip Bump. Even CNN’s Chris Cillizza called them “really, really, really bad.”
Finally, however, the worst take came – not surprisingly – from the Washington Post’s washed-up elder statesman Dan Balz, who wrote, pretty much like he always does, that Trump missed a golden opportunity to turn everything around:
President Trump had an opportunity at a town hall forum Thursday night in Miami to begin to turn around his struggling candidacy. Instead, under pointed questioning from the moderator, he reverted to the confrontational style that delights his most loyal supporters but that has left him in a deficit position in his campaign against former vice president Joe Biden.
Balz wrote, wistfully, that “It was not the kind of performance likely to attract support from the voters Trump needs to win.”
None of the news articles achieved what the American people need and deserve the most from campaign coverage: constant, clear and unambiguous context about the urgent need to stop the extraordinary damage Trump has done to the country.
But NBC brass’s shameful decision to give in to Trump may have, ironically, emboldened the press corps to draw the contrasts a bit more vividly. These two men are not comparable.


presswatchers--2020-10-21--If Biden wins, political journalists have a lot of catching up to do

There ’ s a lot we don ’ t know about what kind of leader Joe Biden will be if he wins .
None of it matters very much before the election , because this is not a normal election .
There is nothing we could possibly learn about Biden that would make him a worse candidate than Donald Trump .
We know Biden is a fundamentally decent man , with flaws .
Trump is a disaster and an existential threat to core American values .
But the political press corps has never pressed Biden hard on , well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against strong competitors .
The fact that reporters failed to aggressively question him during the primaries is something I still don ’ t understand .
Once it was clear Biden would become the nominee , everything suddenly became relative – to Trump .
So the press corps ’ docile stance was largely appropriate .
I was initially more worried that reporters might repeat the journalistic failure of 2016 : blowing Democratic mini-scandals out of proportion , while underplaying Trump ’ s unbound corruption and tragic incapacities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Trump ’ s clueless and disastrous response to a deadly pandemic – on top of his unhinged lies and some excellent investigative reporting on his finances — made that kind of false equivalence implausible even for the most jaded political journalists .
The few attempted Biden gotchas fell terribly flat .
It was not Biden that the Washington press corps needed to hold accountable .
Biden simply was not the story .
But all that changes if and when he becomes the president-elect .
The second he is declared victor – or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps even once all the votes are cast – political journalists should be holding him to the highest possible standards of transparency , logic , and clarity .
They should be demanding detailed statements about policy and personnel so we can hold him accountable going forward .
And yes , with Trump no longer a distraction , it would also be worth relitigating the past to get a better sense of where Biden ’ s weaknesses are – to determine where he needs to be held to account most aggressively .
Barring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead is that , once the election is finally over , political reporters will all just breath a huge sigh of relief , kick back and see how things turn out .
That eerily parallels what happened when Barack Obama won – and wildly underperformed compared to expectations .
American presidencies require the utmost scrutiny , always .
Trump ’ s legacy also needs to be emphatically addressed .
He has so profoundly demolished reasonable expectations for the presidency that they need to be aggressively and intentionally revisited and rebuilt , stronger than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation move forward by engaging in reporting that helps establish model public codes of conduct for each agency and leadership position ; lists of norms Biden should publicly commit to restoring ; common-sense limits to executive power ; expectations about submitting to oversight ; and so on .
There is a huge legislative post-Trump reform agenda to be covered , as well .
The first order of business , of course , is beginning to turn around the national response to the pandemic .
The government ’ s gears may take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree that a huge part of Trump ’ s failure has been in messaging , journalists must stop listening to him ( so overdue ! )
and instead turn to the Biden team and require clear , detailed guidance and plans .
The political press corps must demand unprecedented transparency .
That ’ s the ultimate antidote to Trumpist authoritarianism .
It starts with clarity over how policy is set , and by who .
Biden , Harris , and Biden team members need to become a lot more available and a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why they think it .
The switch to transition coverage needs to be quick and aggressive : • Who is advising Biden , and who is he tapping for key posts in the transition and the administration ?
• How much of a commitment to diversity is he prepared to make ?
• What will his ethics rules be ?
• Will he ban corporate executives and corporate lobbyists from top positions , as a group of progressive House members have demanded ?
• Will he reward his big donors and his bundlers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to even identify his bundlers . )
• What role will the progressive wing of the party – specifically Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — have ?
There are also questions that should have been asked during the primaries that are highly relevant again .
Among them : • Is he really , firmly , turning his back on his long history as a deficit hawk ?
• Without buying into the conspiracy theories about his son , Hunter , how will he protect against conflicts of interest , including from his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he prepared to bend to win Republican support ?
What policies is he willing to sacrifice in order to put a Republican in his cabinet ?
At what point does he say forget it ?
There are new questions , rising from recent comments .
During his ABC town hall on Oct. 15 , for instance , he distanced himself from his own website ’ s embrace of the Green New Deal as a “ crucial framework ” for addressing climate change .
So how will conflicts between things he blurts out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unity task force report — be resolved ?
And how will journalists report about his rambling , sometimes incoherent statements ?
The fact is that sometimes it ’ s not clear what he ’ s thinking .
News organizations have too often covered up Trump ’ s vastly greater incoherence ; they should be bolder about calling it out whenever a leader isn ’ t making sense .
Remember : The barrage of critical , questioning coverage of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election was not the result of a journalistic conspiracy against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the result of an almost universally-shared presumption that she would win .
The coverage was not in the context of whether she was a better candidate than Trump , it was in the context of how she would govern .
Although some stories were terribly overplayed , they were written with the intention of holding the future president accountable .
The danger now is that Biden is insufficiently held accountable .
I suspect that many reporters already feel too comfortable with him because he seems to share their own centrist , non-threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let him off the hook by comparing him to Trump , rather than by holding him to reasonable , vastly tougher standards .
It would be really bad for democracy – and , I would hazard , the Biden administration itself – if he and his top people get used to not facing tough questions and not being held accountable .
That ’ s ultimately Biden ’ s promise : A return to an accountable government .
When and if he wins , the press needs to step up and play its essential @ @

There’s a lot we don’t know about what kind of leader Joe Biden will be if he wins.
None of it matters very much before the election, because this is not a normal election. There is nothing we could possibly learn about Biden that would make him a worse candidate than Donald Trump. We know Biden is a fundamentally decent man, with flaws. Trump is a disaster and an existential threat to core American values.
But the political press corps has never pressed Biden hard on, well, anything – not even when he was competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against strong competitors. The fact that reporters failed to aggressively question him during the primaries is something I still don’t understand.
(And no, I don’t mean bogus questions about planted conspiracy theories, I mean tough questions about his history, his policies, and his campaign.)
Once it was clear Biden would become the nominee, everything suddenly became relative – to Trump. So the press corps’ docile stance was largely appropriate. I was initially more worried that reporters might repeat the journalistic failure of 2016: blowing Democratic mini-scandals out of proportion, while underplaying Trump’s unbound corruption and tragic incapacities, to create the appearance of balance.
But Trump’s clueless and disastrous response to a deadly pandemic – on top of his unhinged lies and some excellent investigative reporting on his finances — made that kind of false equivalence implausible even for the most jaded political journalists. The few attempted Biden gotchas fell terribly flat.
It was not Biden that the Washington press corps needed to hold accountable. Biden simply was not the story.
But all that changes if and when he becomes the president-elect.
The second he is declared victor – or, given how long that could take, perhaps even once all the votes are cast – political journalists should be holding him to the highest possible standards of transparency, logic, and clarity.
They should be demanding detailed statements about policy and personnel so we can hold him accountable going forward.
And yes, with Trump no longer a distraction, it would also be worth relitigating the past to get a better sense of where Biden’s weaknesses are – to determine where he needs to be held to account most aggressively.
Barring a Trump victory, the biggest danger ahead is that, once the election is finally over, political reporters will all just breath a huge sigh of relief, kick back and see how things turn out. That eerily parallels what happened when Barack Obama won – and wildly underperformed compared to expectations. American presidencies require the utmost scrutiny, always.
Trump’s legacy also needs to be emphatically addressed. He has so profoundly demolished reasonable expectations for the presidency that they need to be aggressively and intentionally revisited and rebuilt, stronger than before. The political press could help the nation move forward by engaging in reporting that helps establish model public codes of conduct for each agency and leadership position; lists of norms Biden should publicly commit to restoring; common-sense limits to executive power; expectations about submitting to oversight; and so on. There is a huge legislative post-Trump reform agenda to be covered, as well.
The first order of business, of course, is beginning to turn around the national response to the pandemic. The government’s gears may take a while to shift, but to the degree that a huge part of Trump’s failure has been in messaging, journalists must stop listening to him (so overdue!) and instead turn to the Biden team and require clear, detailed guidance and plans.
The political press corps must demand unprecedented transparency. That’s the ultimate antidote to Trumpist authoritarianism. It starts with clarity over how policy is set, and by who. Biden, Harris, and Biden team members need to become a lot more available and a lot more forthcoming about what they think and why they think it.
The switch to transition coverage needs to be quick and aggressive:
Who is advising Biden, and who is he tapping for key posts in the transition and the administration?
How much of a commitment to diversity is he prepared to make?
What will his ethics rules be?
Will he ban corporate executives and corporate lobbyists from top positions, as a group of progressive House members have demanded?
Will he reward his big donors and his bundlers? (He has thus far refused to even identify his bundlers.)
What role will the progressive wing of the party – specifically Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — have?
There are also questions that should have been asked during the primaries that are highly relevant again. Among them:
Is he really, firmly, turning his back on his long history as a deficit hawk?
Without buying into the conspiracy theories about his son, Hunter, how will he protect against conflicts of interest, including from his own family members?
How far is he prepared to bend to win Republican support? What policies is he willing to sacrifice in order to put a Republican in his cabinet? At what point does he say forget it?
There are new questions, rising from recent comments. During his ABC town hall on Oct. 15, for instance, he distanced himself from his own website’s embrace of the Green New Deal as a “crucial framework” for addressing climate change.
So how will conflicts between things he blurts out and his stated positions – including the Biden-Sanders unity task force report — be resolved?
And how will journalists report about his rambling, sometimes incoherent statements? The fact is that sometimes it’s not clear what he’s thinking. News organizations have too often covered up Trump’s vastly greater incoherence; they should be bolder about calling it out whenever a leader isn’t making sense.
Remember: The barrage of critical, questioning coverage of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election was not the result of a journalistic conspiracy against her – far from it. It was the result of an almost universally-shared presumption that she would win.
The coverage was not in the context of whether she was a better candidate than Trump, it was in the context of how she would govern. Although some stories were terribly overplayed, they were written with the intention of holding the future president accountable.
The danger now is that Biden is insufficiently held accountable. I suspect that many reporters already feel too comfortable with him because he seems to share their own centrist, non-threatening Washington cocktail-party ideology. They could also let him off the hook by comparing him to Trump, rather than by holding him to reasonable, vastly tougher standards.
It would be really bad for democracy – and, I would hazard, the Biden administration itself – if he and his top people get used to not facing tough questions and not being held accountable.
That’s ultimately Biden’s promise: A return to an accountable government. When and if he wins, the press needs to step up and play its essential role.


presswatchers--2020-10-23--How the New York Times suckers itself into publishing Republican propaganda

The New York Times has been caught , once again , passing off Republican operatives as “ regular ” Republican voters in an article intended to show how effectively Trump is maintaining his support .
It raises serious questions about whether Times editor and reporters , rather than actually trying to determine how voters feel , are setting out to find people to mouth the words they need for predetermined story lines that , not coincidentally , echo the Trump campaign ’ s propaganda .
In the latest case , an article posted on Wednesday headlined “ Around Atlanta , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” by Times national reporter Elaina Plott initially misidentified two of the four allegedly run-of-the-mill voters who supported the article ’ s thesis : That Trump ’ s unfounded fear-mongering along the lines that “ ANTIFA THUGS WILL RUIN THE SUBURBS !
” is working .
The lead anecdote came courtesy of Natalie Pontius , who was simply identified as “ an interior decorator , married with two children and a University of Georgia alumna.
” “ The riots , the push to defund the police — that ’ s not the direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plott quoted Pontius as saying .
“ I feel like the Democratic Party is continually trying to come up with ways to divide us.
” Pontius , it turns out , was a paid political consultant for a Republican candidate for Georgia ’ s House of Representatives in 2018 .
Plott also quoted Jake Evans , initially identified simply as “ an attorney in Atlanta.
” Evans insisted that the polls showing Biden and Trump in a dead heat in Georgia are deceptive , because “ you ’ ll go to dinner with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say in their workplace that they ’ re voting for Trump , but when you ’ re in private , it ’ s all day , every day.
” Evans , it turns out , chairs the state ’ s branch of the Republican National Lawyers Association , is the immediate past president of the Atlanta Young Republicans , is a member of Republican Gov .
Brian Kemp ’ s election-security task force — and he ’ s the son of Randy Evans , a Republican heavy-hitter rewarded by Trump with a cushy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this isn ’ t the first Times story like this to feature ringers .
In a notorious June 2018 story by political reporter Jeremy Peters – headlined “ As Critics Assail Trump , His Supporters Dig In Deeper , ” the supposedly ordinary Republican woman in the lead anecdote turned out to be a board member of an ultra-conservative PAC .
Among a legion of questions raised by this latest incident , my first has to be : Who assigned this story ?
What were they thinking ?
Because the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support its thesis suggests that she was assigned to produce precisely the story she did .
( So does the URL , which I suspect reflects the editor ’ s original “ slug ” for the story : “ atlanta-trump-voters-women.
” ) Who looked at the latest poll data showing that a solid majority of white college-educated folks in Georgia are still backing Donald Trump and concluded that Trump ’ s inflammatory post-George Floyd rhetoric was working ?
Because , guess what ?
Given how the polls also show that support has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months and longer , I ’ m pretty sure that isn ’ t the real reason .
And why is the Times continuing to buy into the framing of Trump ’ s racist language and lawbreaking actions as a “ law-and-order ” message ?
The article used the term three times – including once in its subhead – without any caveats .
As I ’ ve noted before , the Times is making a mistake in failing to heed Washington Post opinion columnist Greg Sargent ‘ s warning that “ any news organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection campaign as premised on ‘ law and order ’ appeals , without placing his concerted efforts to destroy the rule of law in America front and center alongside them , is helping to drain those words of all meaning.
” Who at the Times requested a story that doesn ’ t seem to be supported by the facts , that essentially provides cover for Trump ’ s overt appeals to racism and lawbreaking , and that suggests it was good politics ?
This , I ’ m afraid , is Dean Baquet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the anachronistic notion of “ objectivity ” is horribly misapplied to produce both-sides stenography instead of calling out liars and racists .
There are specific questions about how this article was produced .
Did Plott know the people she quoted weren ’ t ordinary voters ?
Did she want to know ?
Did she ask ?
Did she hide it from her editors as well as her readers ?
How did she get their contact information ?
To be clear : Reporters should take great care to find actually “ average ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should carefully question those voters to make sure they aren ’ t ringers ; they should verify that by checking around ; and their editors should do likewise .
And there ’ s the broader question of how the Times and other national news organizations find “ regular people ” to interview – especially in the age of Covid .
At this point , I think news organizations need to get a lot more transparent about how they go about this , at the risk of losing the readers ’ trust entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know exactly how the reporters found their way to the “ average ” people they quote , to judge for themselves how typical or atypical they may be .
How many people did the reporters talk to before they found the person they needed for their story ?
What questions did they ask ?
And finally , I need to bring up a point I ’ ve made repeatedly before : Simply quoting Trump supporters who mouth crazy talking points ( whether they ’ re ringers or not ) is a terrible disservice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying these things ?
How can they possibly believe they are true ?
Consider Pontius ’ s quote : “ I feel like the Democratic Party is continually trying to come up with ways to divide us.
” What does she even mean by that ?
What leads her to that conclusion ?
I think voter interviews are important .
I ’ d like to see more interview with Biden voters , for instance .
But when it comes to Trump supporters , simply quoting them without trying to actually understand where they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good journalism .
The key is for reporters to explore not just voters ’ political opinions , but their core values — especially those related to pluralism and authoritarianism – and their news sources .
The hero in this story is Charles Bethea , a New Yorker staff writer — and Twitter .
That ’ s because Bethea had actually written a short profile of Evans for the New Yorker in 2018 , when Evans was president of the Atlanta Young Republicans .
Eventually , after sleuthing by Zach Kopplin , an investigator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia attorney Eric Teusink , Bethea also announced : Evans would have been pretty easy to spot .
New Yorker staff writer Isaac Chotiner recapped the mess , leading University of Michigan law professor Sam Bagenstos to cry foul : The tweets eventually resulted in corrections being appended to the original story on Friday : The Times for some inscrutable reason also published a second , vastly truncated version of Plott ’ s story on the web on Thursday .
Evans is gone from this version entirely .
Pontius is moved from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not identified as an operative .
Who ordered up the second version ?
Why ?
And who failed to edit that ?
This is a New York Times management failure , more than a reporting failure , though it is that , too .
The reporter on the story , Elaina Plott , and the Times ’ s political editor , Patrick Healy , have now tweeted explanations .
Plott wrote that she simply failed to do her “ due diligence.
” Healy , in a five-tweet thread , wrote that the premise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors ” leading white college-educated white voters to back Trump .
“ We believe the premise and the story are sound , ” he wrote .
He wrote that the shorter version was simply a “ Live Briefing ” item .
He did not explain why that item still misidentifies Pontius .
“ The omission of information was an honest mistake ; we were not trying to hide details , ” he wrote .
But Plott ’ s excuse is almost too stupid to be believed .
Did she not ask about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A simple Google search would have turned up Evans ’ s obvious conflict .
Did she not want to know ?
Healy did not address how Plott came to contact the people she quoted , what her orders or preconceptions were , where those orders originated , who edited the story , or how .
All in all , an entirely unsatisfactory explanation .

The New York Times has been caught, once again, passing off Republican operatives as “regular” Republican voters in an article intended to show how effectively Trump is maintaining his support.
It raises serious questions about whether Times editor and reporters, rather than actually trying to determine how voters feel, are setting out to find people to mouth the words they need for predetermined story lines that, not coincidentally, echo the Trump campaign’s propaganda.
In the latest case, an article posted on Wednesday headlined “Around Atlanta, Many White Suburbanites Are Sticking With Trump” by Times national reporter Elaina Plott initially misidentified two of the four allegedly run-of-the-mill voters who supported the article’s thesis: That Trump’s unfounded fear-mongering along the lines that “ANTIFA THUGS WILL RUIN THE SUBURBS!” is working.
The lead anecdote came courtesy of Natalie Pontius, who was simply identified as “an interior decorator, married with two children and a University of Georgia alumna.”
“The riots, the push to defund the police — that’s not the direction our country needs to go,” Plott quoted Pontius as saying. “I feel like the Democratic Party is continually trying to come up with ways to divide us.”
Pontius, it turns out, was a paid political consultant for a Republican candidate for Georgia’s House of Representatives in 2018.
Plott also quoted Jake Evans, initially identified simply as “an attorney in Atlanta.”
Evans insisted that the polls showing Biden and Trump in a dead heat in Georgia are deceptive, because “you’ll go to dinner with moderate or right-leaning voters who would never say in their workplace that they’re voting for Trump, but when you’re in private, it’s all day, every day.”
Evans, it turns out, chairs the state’s branch of the Republican National Lawyers Association, is the immediate past president of the Atlanta Young Republicans, is a member of Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s election-security task force — and he’s the son of Randy Evans, a Republican heavy-hitter rewarded by Trump with a cushy gig as ambassador to Luxembourg.
And this isn’t the first Times story like this to feature ringers. In a notorious June 2018 story by political reporter Jeremy Peters – headlined “As Critics Assail Trump, His Supporters Dig In Deeper,” the supposedly ordinary Republican woman in the lead anecdote turned out to be a board member of an ultra-conservative PAC.
A Whole Host of Questions
Among a legion of questions raised by this latest incident, my first has to be: Who assigned this story? What were they thinking?
Because the fact that the reporter couldn’t find real people to support its thesis suggests that she was assigned to produce precisely the story she did. (So does the URL, which I suspect reflects the editor’s original “slug” for the story: “atlanta-trump-voters-women.”)
Who looked at the latest poll data showing that a solid majority of white college-educated folks in Georgia are still backing Donald Trump and concluded that Trump’s inflammatory post-George Floyd rhetoric was working?
Because, guess what? Given how the polls also show that support has been pretty steady over the last six months and longer, I’m pretty sure that isn’t the real reason.
(Or to the extent that Trump’s transparently dishonest “law and order” rhetoric is essentially one big dog-whistle for racism, maybe it actually is.)
And why is the Times continuing to buy into the framing of Trump’s racist language and lawbreaking actions as a “law-and-order” message? The article used the term three times – including once in its subhead – without any caveats. As I’ve noted before, the Times is making a mistake in failing to heed Washington Post opinion columnist Greg Sargent‘s warning that “any news organization that uncritically describes President Trump’s reelection campaign as premised on ‘law and order’ appeals, without placing his concerted efforts to destroy the rule of law in America front and center alongside them, is helping to drain those words of all meaning.”
Who at the Times requested a story that doesn’t seem to be supported by the facts, that essentially provides cover for Trump’s overt appeals to racism and lawbreaking, and that suggests it was good politics?
This, I’m afraid, is Dean Baquet’s newsroom in a nutshell, where the anachronistic notion of “objectivity” is horribly misapplied to produce both-sides stenography instead of calling out liars and racists.
There are specific questions about how this article was produced.
Did Plott know the people she quoted weren’t ordinary voters? Did she want to know? Did she ask? Did she hide it from her editors as well as her readers? How did she get their contact information?
To be clear: Reporters should take great care to find actually “average” voters before identifying them as such; they should carefully question those voters to make sure they aren’t ringers; they should verify that by checking around; and their editors should do likewise.
And there’s the broader question of how the Times and other national news organizations find “regular people” to interview – especially in the age of Covid.
At this point, I think news organizations need to get a lot more transparent about how they go about this, at the risk of losing the readers’ trust entirely.
(As a counterpoint to the Times’ story, consider this one by Time magazine’s Charlotte Alter, the result of a three-week road trip through the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, in which she describes finding a powerful strain of “unlogic”: “reason distorted by suspicion and misinformation.”)
Going forward, readers deserve to know exactly how the reporters found their way to the “average” people they quote, to judge for themselves how typical or atypical they may be. How many people did the reporters talk to before they found the person they needed for their story? What questions did they ask?
And finally, I need to bring up a point I’ve made repeatedly before: Simply quoting Trump supporters who mouth crazy talking points (whether they’re ringers or not) is a terrible disservice to the reader.
Why are they saying these things? How can they possibly believe they are true? Consider Pontius’s quote: “I feel like the Democratic Party is continually trying to come up with ways to divide us.” What does she even mean by that? What leads her to that conclusion?
I think voter interviews are important. I’d like to see more interview with Biden voters, for instance. But when it comes to Trump supporters, simply quoting them without trying to actually understand where they’re coming from isn’t good journalism. The key is for reporters to explore not just voters’ political opinions, but their core values — especially those related to pluralism and authoritarianism – and their news sources.
The Sleuth
The hero in this story is Charles Bethea, a New Yorker staff writer — and Twitter.
Bethea quickly recognized Jake Evans:
This @nytimes story on how Georgia may vote has some issues. Among them: it quotes a man named Jake Evans, ID'd as "an attorney in Atlanta." In fact, Evans is the president of Atlanta's Young Republicans chapter. Yet he's quoted here as an Everyman… https://t.co/ogF8r4Cgyl pic.twitter.com/mxqD7DI64z — Charles.Bethea (@charlesbethea) October 21, 2020
That’s because Bethea had actually written a short profile of Evans for the New Yorker in 2018, when Evans was president of the Atlanta Young Republicans.
Eventually, after sleuthing by Zach Kopplin, an investigator for the Government Accountability Project, and Georgia attorney Eric Teusink, Bethea also announced:
Wow: Natalie Pontius was a paid political consultant for a Republican candidate for GA House of Reps in 2018.
Yet she remains in the shortened but still misleading @nytimes story about voting in GA, described only as "an interior decorator" & UGA alumna. https://t.co/aBYhvmgJ0G https://t.co/c5UbZS8L4y pic.twitter.com/0leSKTCUeI — Charles.Bethea (@charlesbethea) October 23, 2020
As Vice writer Laura Wagner pointed out, archly:
Every time the Times does one of these value-subtracting stories about how Trump supporters support Trump, I google the people named just to see what their deal is. This is the funniest possible scenario for multiple reasons. https://t.co/91CgBp9f9x — Laura Wagner (@laurawags) October 21, 2020
Evans would have been pretty easy to spot.
New Yorker staff writer Isaac Chotiner recapped the mess, leading University of Michigan law professor Sam Bagenstos to cry foul:
This is worse than journalistic malpractice. This is the NYT aiding and abetting misinformation. https://t.co/pfHvllRTdo — Sam Bagenstos (@sbagen) October 23, 2020
The tweets eventually resulted in corrections being appended to the original story on Friday:
An earlier version of this article referred incompletely to Jake Evans, an attorney and voter in Atlanta. Mr. Evans chairs the state’s branch of the Republican National Lawyers Association and has been appointed to Gov. Brian Kemp’s election-security task force. The article also misstated Mr. Evans’s age. He is 33, not 31. An earlier version of this article referred incompletely to Natalie Pontius, an interior decorator near Atlanta. In 2018 she served as a consultant for a Republican candidate for a seat in the Georgia House of Representatives.
The Times for some inscrutable reason also published a second, vastly truncated version of Plott’s story on the web on Thursday. Evans is gone from this version entirely. Pontius is moved from the lede to the kicker – but still not identified as an operative.
Who ordered up the second version? Why? And who failed to edit that?
This is a New York Times management failure, more than a reporting failure, though it is that, too.
UPDATE AT 5:30 p.m. ET
The reporter on the story, Elaina Plott, and the Times’s political editor, Patrick Healy, have now tweeted explanations.
Plott wrote that she simply failed to do her “due diligence.”
Hi, all. I did not do my due diligence in looking into the backgrounds of two people I interviewed for this story. Making mistakes is agonizing. We fixed the errors as soon as we learned about them. https://t.co/2E9FfLIUEh — Elaina Plott (@elainaplott) October 23, 2020
Healy, in a five-tweet thread, wrote that the premise of the story was to “understand factors” leading white college-educated white voters to back Trump. “We believe the premise and the story are sound,” he wrote.
We have corrected a Times story about white college-educated voters in the Atlanta suburbs who are supporting President Trump. Here’s an explanation of what happened. https://t.co/fT8egFG8uu — Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) October 23, 2020
He wrote that the shorter version was simply a “Live Briefing” item. He did not explain why that item still misidentifies Pontius.
“The omission of information was an honest mistake; we were not trying to hide details,” he wrote.
But Plott’s excuse is almost too stupid to be believed. Did she not ask about their background? Did they mislead her? A simple Google search would have turned up Evans’s obvious conflict. Did she not want to know?
Healy did not address how Plott came to contact the people she quoted, what her orders or preconceptions were, where those orders originated, who edited the story, or how. All in all, an entirely unsatisfactory explanation.


presswatchers--2020-10-29--Journalists need to be ready with prebuttals to Trump’s election-stealing mayhem

As it becomes blindingly obvious that Donald Trump is going to fight to throw out any ballot counted after midnight Nov. 3 , it is ever more urgent that journalists be prepared to explain to the public why there ’ s no practical , legal or moral rationale for his demand .
An important first step in this prebuttal will be to get Republican and Democratic election officials – particularly in swing states — on the record that there is nothing risky or dangerous about counting every legally submitted ballot , even if it takes a few days .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be massively fraudulent , that votes not counted by Nov. 3 are somehow wildly more susceptible to cheating — are actually beyond even the Republican norms .
They simply don ’ t make sense .
And state election officials will tell reporters that , if they ask .
Credit for this idea belongs to Paul Bernstein , a former editor in the Washington Post ’ s Metro section .
He wrote in an email : Trump , meanwhile , continues to say what were traditionally the quiet parts out loud : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ballots all over the USA .
Must have final total on November 3rd , ” he tweeted on Oct. 26 .
( Twitter flagged it as possibly misleading . )
And in Nevada on Wednesday , he made it clear he expects the courts to stop the counts early .
“ I think on Tuesday we ’ re gon na over-perform , and we ’ ll see what happens at the end of the day , ” he said .
“ Hopefully , it won ’ t go longer that .
Hopefully , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a lot of time after Nov. 3 to count ballots — that won ’ t be allowed by the various courts , because as you know , we ’ re in courts on that.
” Whether the Supreme Court would help Trump shut down the vote-count isn ’ t clear – although the elevation of Amy Coney Barrett certainly makes it more likely .
Even without her , the five right-wingers on the court this week barred Wisconsin from receiving and counting absentee ballots after Election Day , even if they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round the world , Justice Bret Kavanaugh expressed the perverse view that states announce winners on election night ( they don ’ t ) and that any votes counted afterwards would only destabilize the country .
Justice Elana Kagan , agog , responded in a footnote that will go down in history : Kavanaugh ’ s outrageous assertion suggests that if such a case gets to the high court , which may be unlikely , the stage is set for a decision that will make Bush v. Gore look benign .
Then again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined the three liberal justices in allowing Pennsylvania and North Carolina to count absentee ballots for three and nine days after Election Day , respectively , as long as they were mailed in time .
In the Pennsylvania case , however , the three dissenting right-wingers noted the late ballots would be segregated , leaving open the possibility of a later challenge .
Pennsylvania is one of two key battleground states – the other being Wisconsin – where state laws don ’ t allow election officials to even begin processing absentee ballots until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For This is only one of the many things journalists should be doing prophylactically , to be pro-active rather than reactive when things go wrong , which they almost inevitably will .
Jennifer Brandel , the CEO of a company called Hearken , which gives brilliant advice to news organizations about how to better engage their communities , sounded the alarm this week in a post on Medium .
“ In speaking to newsrooms recently , ” she wrote , “ we ’ ve been alarmed by , well , how unalarmed they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the threats.
” • Hundreds of decisions tied up in lawsuits • No clear winner for weeks / months for multiple races • Extreme anxiety and emotional trauma inflicted on the American people • Widespread confusion and mistrust among the public • Executive orders signed that weaken the foundation of civil service and government • Plus … new threats that have not even entered the public radar yet Among the other useful advice for journalists : A Reporters guide to covering the 2020 election from Pen America , which urges them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand the scale of any given issue being reported.
” A group of communications scholars published a number of Recommendations for Media Covering the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election , among them that “ centering voters and election administrators , highlighting everyday acts of civic duty , focusing on process and timelines , covering the polling places and workers that are doing it right , and revealing issues where people agree elevates the everyday citizen while demystifying institutions.
” And 13 tips for covering likely election scenarios from the American Press Institute includes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in unusual places , explain that such cases are rare and that safeguards exist to protect votes.
” The overarching reality to keep in mind , however , is that this is not a normal election .
As I ’ ve been writing for some time now , Trump is not even trying to win – at least not the normal way , i.e .
by getting the most votes .
His goal seems to be either to sow enough chaos to steal the election – or to lose while having created such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base sticks with him , giving him a lasting power center and source of personal revenue .
Either way , there will be any number of attempts to suppress , intimidate , leave uncounted , or throw out potentially hundreds of thousands of lawfully submitted votes .
Reporters need to be ready to respond thoughtfully and effectively when the shit hits the fan – and that means as many prebuttals as possible .

As it becomes blindingly obvious that Donald Trump is going to fight to throw out any ballot counted after midnight Nov. 3, it is ever more urgent that journalists be prepared to explain to the public why there’s no practical, legal or moral rationale for his demand.
An important first step in this prebuttal will be to get Republican and Democratic election officials – particularly in swing states — on the record that there is nothing risky or dangerous about counting every legally submitted ballot, even if it takes a few days.
Trump’s claims – that mail-in voting will be massively fraudulent, that votes not counted by Nov. 3 are somehow wildly more susceptible to cheating — are actually beyond even the Republican norms. They simply don’t make sense. And state election officials will tell reporters that, if they ask.
Credit for this idea belongs to Paul Bernstein, a former editor in the Washington Post’s Metro section. He wrote in an email:
It’s unavoidable that many Trump supporters will see a conspiracy if key states shift from red to blue once the mail ballots have been counted. But this paranoia may be less widespread if state election officials (especially Republican ones) make statements NOW, before any votes have been counted, vouching for the integrity of the vote-counting process. And they won’t issue such statements unless journalists press them on this point.
Trump, meanwhile, continues to say what were traditionally the quiet parts out loud: “Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA. Must have final total on November 3rd,” he tweeted on Oct. 26. (Twitter flagged it as possibly misleading.)
And in Nevada on Wednesday, he made it clear he expects the courts to stop the counts early. “I think on Tuesday we’re gonna over-perform, and we’ll see what happens at the end of the day,” he said. “Hopefully, it won’t go longer that. Hopefully, the few states remaining that want to take a lot of time after Nov. 3 to count ballots — that won’t be allowed by the various courts, because as you know, we’re in courts on that.”
Whether the Supreme Court would help Trump shut down the vote-count isn’t clear – although the elevation of Amy Coney Barrett certainly makes it more likely.
Even without her, the five right-wingers on the court this week barred Wisconsin from receiving and counting absentee ballots after Election Day, even if they were mailed before.
In an audible heard round the world, Justice Bret Kavanaugh expressed the perverse view that states announce winners on election night (they don’t) and that any votes counted afterwards would only destabilize the country.
Justice Elana Kagan, agog, responded in a footnote that will go down in history:
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH alleges that “suspicions of impropriety” will result if “absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” But there are no results to “flip” until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more “suspicio[us]” or “improp[er]” than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process.
Kavanaugh’s outrageous assertion suggests that if such a case gets to the high court, which may be unlikely, the stage is set for a decision that will make Bush v. Gore look benign.
Then again, on Wednesday, Kavanaugh and Roberts joined the three liberal justices in allowing Pennsylvania and North Carolina to count absentee ballots for three and nine days after Election Day, respectively, as long as they were mailed in time. In the Pennsylvania case, however, the three dissenting right-wingers noted the late ballots would be segregated, leaving open the possibility of a later challenge.
Pennsylvania is one of two key battleground states – the other being Wisconsin – where state laws don’t allow election officials to even begin processing absentee ballots until Election Day.
So Much to Prepare For
This is only one of the many things journalists should be doing prophylactically, to be pro-active rather than reactive when things go wrong, which they almost inevitably will.
Jennifer Brandel, the CEO of a company called Hearken, which gives brilliant advice to news organizations about how to better engage their communities, sounded the alarm this week in a post on Medium. “In speaking to newsrooms recently,” she wrote, “we’ve been alarmed by, well, how unalarmed they are, and how uninformed they are about the threats.”
Brandel summarized the threats thusly:
Extended and widespread misinformation campaigns
Hundreds of decisions tied up in lawsuits
No clear winner for weeks / months for multiple races
Widespread political violence & unlawful militia activity
Extreme anxiety and emotional trauma inflicted on the American people
COVID super-spreading and hospital overwhelm
Election system hacking and subterfuge
Widespread confusion and mistrust among the public
Executive orders signed that weaken the foundation of civil service and government
Stock market tumbles
The Supreme Court ultimately deciding the president
Plus … new threats that have not even entered the public radar yet
Among the other useful advice for journalists: A Reporters guide to covering the 2020 election from Pen America, which urges them to “repeatedly use denominators for readers to understand the scale of any given issue being reported.”
A group of communications scholars published a number of Recommendations for Media Covering the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, among them that “centering voters and election administrators, highlighting everyday acts of civic duty, focusing on process and timelines, covering the polling places and workers that are doing it right, and revealing issues where people agree elevates the everyday citizen while demystifying institutions.”
And 13 tips for covering likely election scenarios from the American Press Institute includes the advice: “When ballots are found in unusual places, explain that such cases are rare and that safeguards exist to protect votes.”
The overarching reality to keep in mind, however, is that this is not a normal election.
As I’ve been writing for some time now, Trump is not even trying to win – at least not the normal way, i.e. by getting the most votes.
His goal seems to be either to sow enough chaos to steal the election – or to lose while having created such a powerful perception of victimization that his base sticks with him, giving him a lasting power center and source of personal revenue.
Either way, there will be any number of attempts to suppress, intimidate, leave uncounted, or throw out potentially hundreds of thousands of lawfully submitted votes.
Reporters need to be ready to respond thoughtfully and effectively when the shit hits the fan – and that means as many prebuttals as possible.


presswatchers--2020-11-04--The biggest story of our time requires an army of journalists to tell

I was so wrong .
I was so naïve .
I thought that if mainstream journalists were simply more courageous about calling out Donald Trump for who he really is — and more assertive about confronting disinformation — then the American public would overwhelmingly reject him .
The journalism disappointed .
Reporters too often normalized Trump ’ s conduct and covered the campaign more or less like any other — rather than one in which the choice was between a return to norms and a failed state .
Their passive truth-telling was no match for the aggressive lies of Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that doesn ’ t explain the fact that nearly half of the American public affirmatively voted for Donald Trump – way more voters , in fact , than in 2016 — and did it during the middle of a pandemic that he is disastrously mismanaging , for good measure .
Whether Joe Biden can eek out a win or not doesn ’ t change the fact that an extremely large subsection of our fellow Americans is that deluded , racist , and/or eager to submit to a strongman .
So it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply do a better job .
We ’ ve got to take on some new jobs .
It ’ s no longer enough to passively and politely chronicle what ’ s happening .
We need to delve deeply into the pathology of this huge chunk of American voters .
Pluralism is a legitimate journalistic value , and it is under attack .
So we need to actively fight racism – starting by reporting much more vigorously about systemic oppression and white nationalism .
The role of the free press in the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by and watch as authoritarianism takes root .
We need to actively promote democratic values , remind people of the importance of constitutional checks and balances , support human rights , and advocate for a government that is responsive to the people ’ s needs .
The appropriate role of a journalist is not to sit by as the very notion of truth is undermined .
We need to crusade for reality .
While Washington Post editor Marty Baron famously said “ we ’ re not at war , we ’ re at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to war – against disinformation .
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies .
It ’ s us or them .
As Janine Zacharia , who teaches journalism at Stanford , tweeted on Wednesday : “ We ’ re never ending polarization in this country or support for Trumpism unless we restore respect for credible , fact-based news and ensure every American gets quality information.
” The most important and urgent journalistic task – one that no one else can accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem .
What upsets me most as a journalist is that even after a seemingly endless , four-year parade of articles about how Trump supporters still support Trump , we continue to lack anything like an accurate , widely agreed-upon consensus about what motivates them .
Those articles almost exclusively entail credulous stenography , passing along quotes from Trump supporters that – if you stop to think about them – don ’ t really explain their support at all .
Much of the time , these supporters say things that simply aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Michigan voter who told the New York Times that over the past four years , Trump had been “ straightening out ” government corruption .
Or like the Ohio construction worker who told the Economist that Trump “ got health care done , which the Democrats could never do .
He built the wall.
” ( More examples here . )
Profiling Trump supporters like this Nebraska farmer , reporters at the Times engage in euphemisms : writing about a “ sense of Trumpian kinship , ” for instance , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victimization .
Journalists need to stop buying transparently bogus explanations for why people support Trump and figure out what ’ s really going on .
As I ’ ve written before , this requires a different – actually , more empathetic , and certainly more time-consuming – kind of interviewing style .
It means taking a more sociological approach , asking about formative moments , about cultural background and value systems , about education , and , perhaps most importantly , about media diets .
It means diving deep into the “ comforting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post ’ s Margaret Sullivan put it .
And in addition to exploring – and countering – disinformation at the macro level , we need reporters to examine how disinformation infects individuals and groups , leading to what I call fact rejection .
How does fact-rejection manifest within our communities ?
How widespread is it really ?
How is it transmitted ?
Who is susceptible and why ?
How persistent is it ?
What effect does it have ?
And perhaps most importantly : Is there any way for people to recover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to fix it .
I believe these are essential tasks for journalists in the coming years .
I call on existing newsrooms and philanthropically-supported initiatives to field an army of reporters – god knows , enough of them are unemployed right now – and have them fan out to communities all over the country and truly figure out what is happening to our country .

I was so wrong. I was so naïve.
I thought that if mainstream journalists were simply more courageous about calling out Donald Trump for who he really is — and more assertive about confronting disinformation — then the American public would overwhelmingly reject him.
The journalism disappointed. Reporters too often normalized Trump’s conduct and covered the campaign more or less like any other — rather than one in which the choice was between a return to norms and a failed state. Their passive truth-telling was no match for the aggressive lies of Fox News and the right-wing media ecosystem.
But that doesn’t explain the fact that nearly half of the American public affirmatively voted for Donald Trump – way more voters, in fact, than in 2016 — and did it during the middle of a pandemic that he is disastrously mismanaging, for good measure.
A Joe Biden victory won’t change the fact that an extremely large subsection of our fellow Americans is that deluded, racist, and/or eager to submit to a strongman.
So it’s no longer enough for journalists to simply do a better job.
We’ve got to take on some new jobs.
It’s no longer enough to passively and politely chronicle what’s happening.
We need to delve deeply into the pathology of this huge chunk of American voters.
Pluralism is a legitimate journalistic value, and it is under attack.
So we need to actively fight racism – starting by reporting much more vigorously about systemic oppression and white nationalism.
The role of the free press in the world’s leading democracy is not to sit by and watch as authoritarianism takes root.
We need to actively promote democratic values, remind people of the importance of constitutional checks and balances, support human rights, and advocate for a government that is responsive to the people’s needs.
The appropriate role of a journalist is not to sit by as the very notion of truth is undermined.
We need to crusade for reality. While Washington Post editor Marty Baron famously said “we’re not at war, we’re at work,” we need to go to war – against disinformation.
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies.
It’s us or them.
As Janine Zacharia, who teaches journalism at Stanford, tweeted on Wednesday: “We’re never ending polarization in this country or support for Trumpism unless we restore respect for credible, fact-based news and ensure every American gets quality information.”
The Diagnosis
The most important and urgent journalistic task – one that no one else can accomplish — is for us to properly diagnose the problem.
What upsets me most as a journalist is that even after a seemingly endless, four-year parade of articles about how Trump supporters still support Trump, we continue to lack anything like an accurate, widely agreed-upon consensus about what motivates them.
Those articles almost exclusively entail credulous stenography, passing along quotes from Trump supporters that – if you stop to think about them – don’t really explain their support at all.
Much of the time, these supporters say things that simply aren’t true – like Kathleen Skeins, the Michigan voter who told the New York Times that over the past four years, Trump had been “straightening out” government corruption. Or like the Ohio construction worker who told the Economist that Trump “got health care done, which the Democrats could never do. He built the wall.” (More examples here.)
Profiling Trump supporters like this Nebraska farmer, reporters at the Times engage in euphemisms: writing about a “sense of Trumpian kinship,” for instance, rather than openly addressing white nationalist feelings of victimization.
Journalists need to stop buying transparently bogus explanations for why people support Trump and figure out what’s really going on.
As I’ve written before, this requires a different – actually, more empathetic, and certainly more time-consuming – kind of interviewing style. It means taking a more sociological approach, asking about formative moments, about cultural background and value systems, about education, and, perhaps most importantly, about media diets. It means diving deep into the “comforting simplicity of tribe,” as the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan put it.
And in addition to exploring – and countering – disinformation at the macro level, we need reporters to examine how disinformation infects individuals and groups, leading to what I call fact rejection. How does fact-rejection manifest within our communities? How widespread is it really? How is it transmitted? Who is susceptible and why? How persistent is it? What effect does it have? And perhaps most importantly: Is there any way for people to recover? We need to understand this in order to fix it.
I believe these are essential tasks for journalists in the coming years. I call on existing newsrooms and philanthropically-supported initiatives to field an army of reporters – god knows, enough of them are unemployed right now – and have them fan out to communities all over the country and truly figure out what is happening to our country.