presswatchers--2020-08-06--No, Americans are not hankering for more “objectivity” in journalism

A major new survey of public opinion about the news media is being misinterpreted by its sponsors to suggest that Americans don ’ t think there ’ s enough objectivity in journalism anymore .
The survey from the Knight Foundation and Gallup , Inc. , did indeed find increasing complaints about bias in the news media .
But a blog post from Knight interpreted that to mean “ that Americans ’ hope for an objective media is all but lost.
” And Sam Gill , the senior vice president of the Knight Foundation , declared on NPR on Monday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing its job as a democratic institution.
” If you look at the data just a bit more closely , though , you see that the bias concerns are primarily from Republicans , who after three years of Trump overwhelmingly and increasingly distrust the mainstream media , with a not insignificant number — 12 % — actually believing it is “ trying to ruin the country.
” That ’ s not a failure of “ objectivity ” by the mainstream media ; that ’ s a willful departure from reality by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , it suggests to me that the mainstream media “ objectivity ” hang-up has resulted in a failure to successfully champion the truth .
The survey finds that Democrats , by contrast , remain quite positive about the role the media plays .
And while 28 % of them said they consider bias a “ major problem , ” it ’ s reasonable to assume that many had outlets like Fox News in mind when they said that .
That ’ s not a failure of objectivity by the mainstream media , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expression of concern – and arguably one that the reality-based media is not adequately confronting .
The survey did not define what it meant by “ news coverage ” or “ media , ” leaving open a huge world of possibilities .
Nor did it define what it meant by “ objective ” or “ neutral ” – even while using those terms favorably in its questions .
The two key bias prompts , which respondents were asked to rate as “ a major problem , a minor problem , or not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • “ Increasing number of news sources reporting from a particular point of view ( such as conservative or liberal ) rather than being neutral ” ; and • “ Too much bias in the reporting of news stories that are supposed to be objective ” .
( my italics ) Saying that news stories are “ supposed to be objective ” is , well , a matter of opinion .
And the notion that “ objectivity ” is the only path to building trust and fulfilling journalism ’ s democratic mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of media critics , myself included , have long criticized newsroom leaders for preaching a version of “ objectivity ” that manifests itself in false equivalences that obscure , rather than expose , the truth .
And the news industry is now facing a rebellion , led by young reporters of color , who see “ objectivity ” as having failed miserably to confront overt racism and dishonesty .
As I wrote in June , these editors call it “ objectivity ” when what they ’ re really trying to do if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who doesn ’ t actually exist .
It ’ s not clear who wrote the Knight/Gallup report on the survey .
The Knight blog post was written by John Sands , a Knight staffer with no evident journalism background .
He wrote that Americans “ see an increasing partisan slant in the news , and a media eager to push an agenda.
” And he concluded that “ As a result , the media ’ s ability to hold leaders accountable is diminished in the public ’ s eye.
” But I see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the survey ’ s responses .
The only question about accountability found that views about how well the news media is “ holding leaders in politics , business , and other institutions accountable for their actions , ” remained essentially unchanged between 2017 and 2019 .
The report advertises that “ The full questionnaire , topline results , detailed cross tabulations and raw data may be obtained upon request , ” but so far my requests have been unfulfilled .
[ UPDATE : They are available at the bottom of this page .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the survey is that young Democrats are souring on the media .
From the full report : That is inevitably driven in part by how young people use the internet for news more than older people do , but I also see it as evidence that the news media needs to change — not do more of the same .
( The report , without any supporting evidence , concludes that young people ’ s “ negative perceptions are likely a function of their increased sense of bias in the news.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it is surprising , but because it is so rarely discussed – is that “ 3 in 4 Americans worry that owners of media companies are influencing coverage.
” The Knight Foundation is the largest journalism-related foundation in the country , with over $ 2 billion in assets , and it has been a powerful voice for journalism , the First Amendment , and a better understanding of how news organizations can inform their communities and create an informed electorate .
I frequently quote from the first report , in 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Media and Democracy titled “ Crisis in Democracy : Renewing Trust in America , ” which concluded : I am personally grateful to Knight for funding my life-changing journalism fellowship at the University of Michigan in 1996 .
And I would dearly love them to help fund Press Watch .
But the way Knight cast the findings of its own survey to me is symptomatic of a lack of activism from it and other major journalism philanthropies .
For instance , I ’ d like to see them make more forceful distinctions between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market themselves as news — rather than treat them like part of the same continuum .
Look through the full report , and you ’ ll see a lot of findings that support the view that the political divide ( in terms of both supply and demand ) is the overwhelming factor driving complaints of “ bias ” – not an industry-wide loss of objectivity : • “ Given the choice… .
more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting ( 69 % ) than say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biased ( 29 % ) .
” • “ Democrats and Republicans differ greatly in their ratings of the media on every aspect of performance , including providing objective news reports , holding political and business leaders accountable for their actions and helping Americans stay informed about current affairs.
” • And Republicans are apparently using the excuse of too much “ bias ” in the news to explain why they ’ ve given up on figuring out the truth .
Asked whether they felt like “ here is so much bias in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often difficult to sort out the facts ” or “ Although there is some bias in the news media , there are enough sources of news to be able to sort out the facts , ” two out of three Republicans chose the former , compared to only one in five Democrats .
It looks like the crosstabs would be fascinating .
For instance , the full report notes that “ people who name a conservative news outlet as their top news source are more likely to say news media they distrust are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lots of valuable information in the survey , if you read it with a grain of salt .
And I ’ ll end with some undeniable good news : • “ Americans are more likely today to say the media ’ s role in democracy is ’ critical , ’ up five percentage points since 2017.
” • And “ Large majorities say it is ‘ critical ’ or ‘ very important ’ for the news media to provide accurate and fair news reports ( 92 % ) , ensure Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % ) and hold leaders accountable for their actions ( 85 % ) .
”

A major new survey of public opinion about the news media is being misinterpreted by its sponsors to suggest that Americans don’t think there’s enough objectivity in journalism anymore.
The survey from the Knight Foundation and Gallup, Inc., did indeed find increasing complaints about bias in the news media.
But a blog post from Knight interpreted that to mean “that Americans’ hope for an objective media is all but lost.” And Sam Gill, the senior vice president of the Knight Foundation, declared on NPR on Monday that “People really do not think media is doing its job as a democratic institution.”
If you look at the data just a bit more closely, though, you see that the bias concerns are primarily from Republicans, who after three years of Trump overwhelmingly and increasingly distrust the mainstream media, with a not insignificant number — 12% — actually believing it is “trying to ruin the country.”
That’s not a failure of “objectivity” by the mainstream media; that’s a willful departure from reality by a large chunk or the population. If anything, it suggests to me that the mainstream media “objectivity” hang-up has resulted in a failure to successfully champion the truth.
The survey finds that Democrats, by contrast, remain quite positive about the role the media plays. And while 28% of them said they consider bias a “major problem,” it’s reasonable to assume that many had outlets like Fox News in mind when they said that.
That’s not a failure of objectivity by the mainstream media, either. That’s a reasonable expression of concern – and arguably one that the reality-based media is not adequately confronting.
The survey did not define what it meant by “news coverage” or “media,” leaving open a huge world of possibilities.
Nor did it define what it meant by “objective” or “neutral” – even while using those terms favorably in its questions. The two key bias prompts, which respondents were asked to rate as “a major problem, a minor problem, or not a problem with news coverage today” were:
“Increasing number of news sources reporting from a particular point of view (such as conservative or liberal) rather than being neutral”; and
“Too much bias in the reporting of news stories that are supposed to be objective”. (my italics)
Saying that news stories are “supposed to be objective” is, well, a matter of opinion. And the notion that “objectivity” is the only path to building trust and fulfilling journalism’s democratic mission I think is flat wrong. A lot of media critics, myself included, have long criticized newsroom leaders for preaching a version of “objectivity” that manifests itself in false equivalences that obscure, rather than expose, the truth.
And the news industry is now facing a rebellion, led by young reporters of color, who see “objectivity” as having failed miserably to confront overt racism and dishonesty. As I wrote in June, these editors call it “objectivity” when what they’re really trying to do is not offend a politically neutral white man who doesn’t actually exist.
It’s not clear who wrote the Knight/Gallup report on the survey. The Knight blog post was written by John Sands, a Knight staffer with no evident journalism background. He wrote that Americans “see an increasing partisan slant in the news, and a media eager to push an agenda.”
And he concluded that “As a result, the media’s ability to hold leaders accountable is diminished in the public’s eye.” But I see no support for that conclusion anywhere in the survey’s responses. The only question about accountability found that views about how well the news media is “holding leaders in politics, business, and other institutions accountable for their actions” remained essentially unchanged between 2017 and 2019.
The report advertises that “The full questionnaire, topline results, detailed cross tabulations and raw data may be obtained upon request,” but so far my requests have been unfulfilled. [UPDATE: They are available at the bottom of this page.]
The biggest news I took away from the survey is that young Democrats are souring on the media. From the full report:
While few Republicans in any age group view the media favorably, Democrats’ opinions depend largely on their age; nearly three-fourths of those in the oldest group have a favorable opinion, versus less than a third of those under 30…. Young people are particularly unlikely to say media is supporting democracy “well” or “very well”; 40% of Americans aged 65 and over say this, compared to 22% of those aged 18-29. One-third (33%) of Democrats under 30 respond this way, compared to 54% of Democrats 30 and older.
That is inevitably driven in part by how young people use the internet for news more than older people do, but I also see it as evidence that the news media needs to change — not do more of the same. (The report, without any supporting evidence, concludes that young people’s “negative perceptions are likely a function of their increased sense of bias in the news.”)
Another notable finding – notable not because it is surprising, but because it is so rarely discussed – is that “3 in 4 Americans worry that owners of media companies are influencing coverage.”
The Knight Foundation is the largest journalism-related foundation in the country, with over $2 billion in assets, and it has been a powerful voice for journalism, the First Amendment, and a better understanding of how news organizations can inform their communities and create an informed electorate.
I frequently quote from the first report, in 2019, from the Knight Commission on Trust, Media and Democracy titled “Crisis in Democracy: Renewing Trust in America,” which concluded:
At its best, journalism informs the public on matters of civic concern, gives citizens a common set of facts, provides context that lends greater meaning to the news, independently monitors and holds those in power accountable, and strengthens the public discourse. Good journalism helps us to understand others whose lives and challenges are very different from our own.
I am personally grateful to Knight for funding my life-changing journalism fellowship at the University of Michigan in 1996. And I would dearly love them to help fund Press Watch.
But the way Knight cast the findings of its own survey to me is symptomatic of a lack of activism from it and other major journalism philanthropies. For instance, I’d like to see them make more forceful distinctions between reality-based newsrooms and propaganda outlets that falsely market themselves as news — rather than treat them like part of the same continuum.
(I’d also like to see them invest their massive endowments where they could make the most difference: By buying newspapers.)
Look through the full report, and you’ll see a lot of findings that support the view that the political divide (in terms of both supply and demand) is the overwhelming factor driving complaints of “bias” – not an industry-wide loss of objectivity:
“Given the choice…. more Americans say they are concerned about bias in the news other people are getting (69%) than say they worry about their own news being biased (29%).”
“Democrats and Republicans differ greatly in their ratings of the media on every aspect of performance, including providing objective news reports, holding political and business leaders accountable for their actions and helping Americans stay informed about current affairs.”
And Republicans are apparently using the excuse of too much “bias” in the news to explain why they’ve given up on figuring out the truth. Asked whether they felt like “here is so much bias in the news media that it’s often difficult to sort out the facts” or “Although there is some bias in the news media, there are enough sources of news to be able to sort out the facts,” two out of three Republicans chose the former, compared to only one in five Democrats.
It looks like the crosstabs would be fascinating. For instance, the full report notes that “people who name a conservative news outlet as their top news source are more likely to say news media they distrust are ruining the country.”
Nevertheless, there’s lots of valuable information in the survey, if you read it with a grain of salt. And I’ll end with some undeniable good news:


presswatchers--2020-08-10--Trump threatens Social Security and Medicare and the press yawns

I get it .
They ’ re tired .
And it ’ s hard to summon outrage anymore .
But still , there ’ s no excuse for the lackluster reporting from major news organizations about Donald Trump ’ s announcement on Saturday evening that he wants to permanently eliminate the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare .
Decoupling Social Security ’ s funding from the payroll tax would either drain it of money or , at best , make it subject to the year-to-year political whims and gamesmanship of Congress and the president .
To defenders of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s call was clearly an act of war .
And you might think that political reporters would take notice when a president seizes with both hands what has historically been called the “ third rail of American politics.
” But to our major news organizations , it was just another day in Trumpland .
Among several other actions , Trump on Saturday released a memo ( not an executive order ) calling for the deferral of four months of payroll taxes starting in September .
He also declared : “ If I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax .
So I ’ m going to make them all permanent.
” In Monday ’ s Washington Post , Tony Romm , Erica Werner and Jeff Stein understated Trump ’ s vow , writing that his goal was only “ to make the deferred payments into a permanent tax cut.
” It wasn ’ t until the end of their article that they indicated more might be at stake : The Associated Press airily noted that Trump “ raised the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deferral ] permanent , though experts said he lacked that authority.
” And there was nothing on the New York Times ’ s front page on Sunday or Monday to suggest any cause for alarm .
You know what all the reporters covering Trump for major news organizations have in common ?
They ’ re unflappable .
Trump says something , they write it down .
Maybe in a few weeks , it will become conventional wisdom that Trump ’ s vow to cut the payroll tax was an outrage , an act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gift for his grifter friends .
But for now , the news reports won ’ t tell you what you need to know .
For that , as is so often the case these days , you have to turn elsewhere : Specifically , to the opinion writers .
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik sputtered with rage on Monday : “ Make no mistake : He ’ s talking about bankrupting Social Security.
” ’ Wiliam F. Arnone , chief executive of the National Academy of Social Insurance , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very well thought-out campaign to undermine Social Security and Medicare.
” And Hiltzik pointed out the trap Trump set when he announced that Democrats “ will have the option of raising everybody ’ s taxes and taking this away ” : Washington Post business columnist Allan Sloan wrote that Trump ’ s proposal only makes sense “ if it is to undermine Social Security and stir up class and generational warfare ” : The net effect , Sloan wrote , is “ to undermine Social Security by turning it into just another federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a dedicated payroll tax and a $ 3 trillion trust fund.
” He explained that “ having Social Security funded out of general tax revenue would make it immensely vulnerable to political and financial pressures.
” New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman hasn ’ t written a column on the topic , but he posted what may be the most memorable , salient tweet about the whole idea : Democratic leaders seized on what Trump said , with no misunderstanding .
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Security at grave risk at a time when seniors are suffering the overwhelming impact of a pandemic he has failed to get under control .
And make no mistake : Donald Trump said today that if he is re-elected , he will defund Social Security.
” Trump ’ s payroll tax proposal had gotten exactly nowhere in Congress , where neither Democrats nor Republicans expressed any support the for the idea .
Despite Trump ’ s delusional claim Saturday that “ everybody wants it , ” its only champions appear to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been trying to destroy Social Security for decades , either because they think it ’ s too expensive and will lead to higher taxes over time , or because they would rather have Wall Street get a cut , or both .
It also has nothing to do with responding to the Covid-19 crisis .
Trump has been talking about a payroll tax cut since 2017 .
He told Fox News ’ s Sean Hannity in early April of this year “ I ’ d like to have the payroll tax cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — that just arose recently.
” And as Hiltzik ( and others ) have noted time and time again , cutting the payroll tax does nothing for those out of work , because they ’ re not on the payroll .
But Trump ’ s plot is still insidious .
In the short run , it ’ s a bribe to the middle class that his Democratic successor will have to take the political hit for taking away again .
And in the longer run , even if funding were miraculously restored – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the general funds , reimburse ” Trump said breezily on Sunday — such a move would change the essential nature of the Social Security program .
The fact that workers “ pay into ” the system has always been key , giving them a sense of ownership .
At the same time , those dollars fund a program that is way more humane and progressive than I could imagine any modern Congress reliably supporting on a year to year basis .
Today , Social Security provides benefits to about 63 million Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also to the spouses and dependents of workers who die prematurely and to disabled workers and their dependents .
And it involves massive subsidies — not only from the next generation of retirees to this one , but from single workers to married couples , from two-earner couples to one-earner couples , from high-income earners to low , from the able-bodied to the disabled , and from those who die early to those who die late .
( I ’ m cribbing here from the 1999 Social Security special report that I wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a magnificent , beloved program that is central to the modern American experience .
That Trump is trying to undermine it should arouse massive indignation in even the most unflappable of us .

I get it. They’re tired. And it’s hard to summon outrage anymore.
But still, there’s no excuse for the lackluster reporting from major news organizations about Donald Trump’s announcement on Saturday evening that he wants to permanently eliminate the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.
Decoupling Social Security’s funding from the payroll tax would either drain it of money or, at best, make it subject to the year-to-year political whims and gamesmanship of Congress and the president.
To defenders of the social safety net, Trump’s call was clearly an act of war.
And you might think that political reporters would take notice when a president seizes with both hands what has historically been called the “third rail of American politics.”
But to our major news organizations, it was just another day in Trumpland.
Among several other actions, Trump on Saturday released a memo (not an executive order) calling for the deferral of four months of payroll taxes starting in September. He also declared: “If I’m victorious on November 3rd, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. So I’m going to make them all permanent.”
In Monday’s Washington Post, Tony Romm, Erica Werner and Jeff Stein understated Trump’s vow, writing that his goal was only “to make the deferred payments into a permanent tax cut.”
It wasn’t until the end of their article that they indicated more might be at stake:
Retirement benefits historically are sacrosanct in American politics, and Trump’s mere suggestion that he may seek permanent reforms to the way they are financed raised immediate concerns that it could lead to lasting changes to the monthly checks paid out to seniors.
The Associated Press airily noted that Trump “raised the possibility of making [the payroll tax deferral] permanent, though experts said he lacked that authority.”
And there was nothing on the New York Times’s front page on Sunday or Monday to suggest any cause for alarm.
Where’s the outrage?
You know what all the reporters covering Trump for major news organizations have in common? They’re unflappable.
Like that’s a good thing.
Trump says something, they write it down. Maybe in a few weeks, it will become conventional wisdom that Trump’s vow to cut the payroll tax was an outrage, an act of impetuousness and malice and lunacy, a gift for his grifter friends. But for now, the news reports won’t tell you what you need to know.
For that, as is so often the case these days, you have to turn elsewhere: Specifically, to the opinion writers.
Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik sputtered with rage on Monday: “Make no mistake: He’s talking about bankrupting Social Security.”’
Hiltzik continued:
This order, along with comments Trump made at the signing ceremony, poses a mortal threat to the 64 million Americans who currently receive Social Security benefits and the hundreds of millions more who will receive benefits in coming decades.
William J. Arnone, chief executive of the National Academy of Social Insurance, told Hiltzik: “This is all a very well thought-out campaign to undermine Social Security and Medicare.”
And Hiltzik pointed out the trap Trump set when he announced that Democrats “will have the option of raising everybody’s taxes and taking this away”:
In other words, he’s offering voters a bribe — in effect, “elect them and you’ll have to pay what you owe; elect me and you’ll get a pass.”
Washington Post business columnist Allan Sloan wrote that Trump’s proposal only makes sense “if it is to undermine Social Security and stir up class and generational warfare”:
Step back and look at the big picture — and listen to Trump say that he’ll eliminate Social Security tax next year should he be reelected — and you realize that if Trump prevails, it would likely mean the end of Social Security as we’ve known it.
The net effect, Sloan wrote, is “to undermine Social Security by turning it into just another federal spending program rather than a program funded by a dedicated payroll tax and a $3 trillion trust fund.” He explained that “having Social Security funded out of general tax revenue would make it immensely vulnerable to political and financial pressures.”
New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman hasn’t written a column on the topic, but he posted what may be the most memorable, salient tweet about the whole idea:
I don't know if anyone else has said this, but payroll tax cuts are the hydroxychloroquine of economic policy. They won't do anything to solve the employment crisis, but will have dangerous side effects. Yet Trump remains obsessed with them as a cure 1/ — Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) August 9, 2020
Democratic leaders seized on what Trump said, with no misunderstanding. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said in a statement on Saturday. “He is putting Social Security at grave risk at a time when seniors are suffering the overwhelming impact of a pandemic he has failed to get under control. And make no mistake: Donald Trump said today that if he is re-elected, he will defund Social Security.”
A one-man war
Trump’s payroll tax proposal had gotten exactly nowhere in Congress, where neither Democrats nor Republicans expressed any support the for the idea.
Despite Trump’s delusional claim Saturday that “everybody wants it,” its only champions appear to be – surprise – the same people who have been trying to destroy Social Security for decades, either because they think it’s too expensive and will lead to higher taxes over time, or because they would rather have Wall Street get a cut, or both.
It also has nothing to do with responding to the Covid-19 crisis. Trump has been talking about a payroll tax cut since 2017. He told Fox News’s Sean Hannity in early April of this year “I’d like to have the payroll tax cut regardless of this problem that we just — that just arose recently.”
And as Hiltzik (and others) have noted time and time again, cutting the payroll tax does nothing for those out of work, because they’re not on the payroll.
But Trump’s plot is still insidious. In the short run, it’s a bribe to the middle class that his Democratic successor will have to take the political hit for taking away again.
And in the longer run, even if funding were miraculously restored – “we’re going to, through the general funds, reimburse” Trump said breezily on Sunday — such a move would change the essential nature of the Social Security program.
The fact that workers “pay into” the system has always been key, giving them a sense of ownership. At the same time, those dollars fund a program that is way more humane and progressive than I could imagine any modern Congress reliably supporting on a year to year basis.
Today, Social Security provides benefits to about 63 million Americans, not only to retired workers but also to the spouses and dependents of workers who die prematurely and to disabled workers and their dependents.
And it involves massive subsidies — not only from the next generation of retirees to this one, but from single workers to married couples, from two-earner couples to one-earner couples, from high-income earners to low, from the able-bodied to the disabled, and from those who die early to those who die late. (I’m cribbing here from the 1999 Social Security special report that I wrote for the Washington Post.)
It’s a magnificent, beloved program that is central to the modern American experience. That Trump is trying to undermine it should arouse massive indignation in even the most unflappable of us.


presswatchers--2020-08-14--Parts of ‘the media’ are getting braver about calling out Trump’s racism, lies, and election sabotag

Parts of ‘the media’ are getting braver about calling out Trump’s racism, lies, and election sabotage. Parts aren’t.

The reporting in the New York Times , the Washington Post , and the Associated Press was uncompromising : Donald Trump on Thursday fueled a false and racist “ birther ” -style conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris .
The Post and the AP also reported without any hesitation that Trump admitted that he is starving the Postal Service of funds in order to block mail-in voting .
( The Times , pathetically , reported that Trump ’ s statement “ stirred new questions.
” ) But on the major network evening news shows – with their huge audience of lower-information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admission was “ bold ” and “ direct.
” ( His birther lie , which came just before showtime , didn ’ t make any of the broadcasts . )
The big print firehoses get the most attention from media critics like me .
Maybe that ’ s a mistake .
ABC ’ s “ World News Tonight ” is the most-watched show in all of television , with nearly 9 million viewers a night .
And there , namby-pamby bothsideism still rules .
On Thursday night , guest anchor Tom Llamas introduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bold admission that he wants to block new funding for the U.S. post office to help with expanded mail-in voting during the pandemic.
” ( He ’ s actually blocking more funding than that . )
Correspondent Mary Bruce then reported that Trump “ bluntly admitted he wants to block billions of dollars from the post office to try and prevent Democrats from expanding mail-in voting ” – making it sound like just another partisan squabble .
After several quotes from Trump , Bruce did note that Trump “ has claimed without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter fraud , but he ’ s also admitted he thinks expanding mail-in voting will hurt Republicans.
” But then she muddled the issue , telling Llamas that Trump , at his Thursday afternoon briefing , “ seemed to suggest to reporters just now that he would be willing to negotiate and fund the postal service but just at a lower amount.
” Trump ’ s comments were neither clear nor credible .
And there was no indication of how dangerous and unprecedented Trump ’ s assault on the Postal Service really is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anchor Lester Holt promoted the segment at the top of the show by saying : “ Post Office in crisis , and what the president just said about funding desperately needed for mail-in voting.
” White House correspondent Kristin Welker set up Trump ’ s quotes simply by saying that he had offered “ his most direct explanation yet about why he is refusing Democrats ’ demands for billions of dollars for the Postal Service and mail-in voting.
” The CBS Evening News didn ’ t cover it at all , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be the top story of the day .
What ’ s a better way to cover these stories ?
The Associated Press ’ s Deb Riechmann and Anthony Izaguirre wrote that Trump “ frankly acknowledged Thursday that he ’ s starving the U.S .
Postal Service of money in order to make it harder to process an expected surge of mail-in ballots , which he worries could cost him the election.
” Amy Gardner , Josh Dawsey and Paul Kane wrote in the Washington Post : President Trump on Thursday said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an emergency bailout for the U.S .
Postal Service because he wants to restrict how many Americans can vote by mail , putting at risk the nation ’ s ability to administer the Nov. 3 elections .
Trump has been attacking mail balloting and the integrity of the vote for months , but his latest broadside makes explicit his intent to stand in the way of urgently needed money to help state and local officials administer elections during the coronavirus pandemic .
With nearly 180 million Americans eligible to vote by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usher in widespread delays , long lines and voter disenfranchisement this fall , voting rights advocates said .
And the coverage of Trump ’ s birther lie was even blunter : Katie Rogers wrote in the New York Times that Trump “ encouraged a racist conspiracy theory that is rampant among some of his followers : that Senator Kamala Harris , the presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee born in California , was not eligible for the vice presidency or presidency because her parents were immigrants.
” She followed that with a blunt , two-sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ms. Harris is eligible to serve.
” President Donald Trump on Thursday gave credence to a false and racist conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris ’ eligibility to be vice president , fueling an online misinformation campaign that parallels the one he used to power his rise into politics .
Asked about the matter at the White House , Trump told reporters he had “ heard ” rumors that Harris , a Black woman and U.S.-born citizen whose parents were immigrants , does not meet the requirement to serve in the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rumors “ very serious.
” The conspiracy theory is false .
Harris , who was tapped this week by Joe Biden to serve as his running mate on the Democratic ticket , was born in Oakland , California , and is eligible for both the vice presidency and presidency under the constitutional requirements .
The question is not even considered complex , according to constitution lawyers .
They also included this important context : And Anne Gearan and Colby Itkowitz wrote in the Washington Post that “ Trump , in an echo of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama , said Thursday that questions about the eligibility of Sen. Kamala D. Harris to run for vice president were ‘ very serious ’ despite the fact that they are baseless.
” Honorable mention on Thursday goes to HuffPost White House correspondent S.V .
Dáte , who was on pool duty and finally asked the question he and others have long been wanting to hear : “ Mr .
President , after three and a half years , do you regret at all , all the lying you ’ ve done to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t answer , he just moved on .
I would have listed a few specific lies , for good measure .
Or , alternately , I wouldn ’ t have asked him a question at all – what ’ s the point ?
– I would have told him what public-health experts say he is failing to do , or I would have simply given him a reality check , by presenting some of the facts that evidently don ’ t penetrate his bubble .
But there was something very cathartic about hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know to his face that at least some of us are on to him .

The reporting in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press was uncompromising: Donald Trump on Thursday fueled a false and racist “birther”-style conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris.
The Post and the AP also reported without any hesitation that Trump admitted that he is starving the Postal Service of funds in order to block mail-in voting. (The Times, pathetically, reported that Trump’s statement “stirred new questions.”)
So that’s progress, right?
But on the major network evening news shows – with their huge audience of lower-information voters – Trump’s Postal Service admission was “bold” and “direct.” (His birther lie, which came just before showtime, didn’t make any of the broadcasts.)
The big print firehoses get the most attention from media critics like me. Maybe that’s a mistake.
ABC’s “World News Tonight” is the most-watched show in all of television, with nearly 9 million viewers a night. And there, namby-pamby bothsideism still rules.
On Thursday night, guest anchor Tom Llamas introduced a segment on “President Trump’s bold admission that he wants to block new funding for the U.S. post office to help with expanded mail-in voting during the pandemic.” (He’s actually blocking more funding than that.)
Correspondent Mary Bruce then reported that Trump “bluntly admitted he wants to block billions of dollars from the post office to try and prevent Democrats from expanding mail-in voting” – making it sound like just another partisan squabble.
After several quotes from Trump, Bruce did note that Trump “has claimed without evidence that mail-in voting leads to widespread voter fraud, but he’s also admitted he thinks expanding mail-in voting will hurt Republicans.”
But then she muddled the issue, telling Llamas that Trump, at his Thursday afternoon briefing, “seemed to suggest to reporters just now that he would be willing to negotiate and fund the postal service but just at a lower amount.” Trump’s comments were neither clear nor credible.
And there was no indication of how dangerous and unprecedented Trump’s assault on the Postal Service really is.
On the NBC Nightly News, anchor Lester Holt promoted the segment at the top of the show by saying: “Post Office in crisis, and what the president just said about funding desperately needed for mail-in voting.”
White House correspondent Kristin Welker set up Trump’s quotes simply by saying that he had offered “his most direct explanation yet about why he is refusing Democrats’ demands for billions of dollars for the Postal Service and mail-in voting.”
The CBS Evening News didn’t cover it at all, even though several media observers on Thursday argued that it should be the top story of the day.
What’s a better way to cover these stories?
The Associated Press’s Deb Riechmann and Anthony Izaguirre wrote that Trump “frankly acknowledged Thursday that he’s starving the U.S. Postal Service of money in order to make it harder to process an expected surge of mail-in ballots, which he worries could cost him the election.”
Amy Gardner, Josh Dawsey and Paul Kane wrote in the Washington Post:
President Trump on Thursday said he opposes both election aid for states and an emergency bailout for the U.S. Postal Service because he wants to restrict how many Americans can vote by mail, putting at risk the nation’s ability to administer the Nov. 3 elections. Trump has been attacking mail balloting and the integrity of the vote for months, but his latest broadside makes explicit his intent to stand in the way of urgently needed money to help state and local officials administer elections during the coronavirus pandemic. With nearly 180 million Americans eligible to vote by mail, the president’s actions could usher in widespread delays, long lines and voter disenfranchisement this fall, voting rights advocates said.
And the coverage of Trump’s birther lie was even blunter:
Katie Rogers wrote in the New York Times that Trump “encouraged a racist conspiracy theory that is rampant among some of his followers: that Senator Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee born in California, was not eligible for the vice presidency or presidency because her parents were immigrants.”
She followed that with a blunt, two-sentence paragraph: “That assertion is false. Ms. Harris is eligible to serve.”
The AP’s Aamer Madhani, Sara Burnett, Amanda Seitz and Jill Colvin wrote:
President Donald Trump on Thursday gave credence to a false and racist conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris’ eligibility to be vice president, fueling an online misinformation campaign that parallels the one he used to power his rise into politics. Asked about the matter at the White House, Trump told reporters he had “heard” rumors that Harris, a Black woman and U.S.-born citizen whose parents were immigrants, does not meet the requirement to serve in the White House. The president said he considered the rumors “very serious.” The conspiracy theory is false. Harris, who was tapped this week by Joe Biden to serve as his running mate on the Democratic ticket, was born in Oakland, California, and is eligible for both the vice presidency and presidency under the constitutional requirements. The question is not even considered complex, according to constitution lawyers.
They also included this important context:
Trump built his political career on questioning a political opponent’s legitimacy. He was a high-profile force behind the so-called “birther movement” — the lie that questioned whether President Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president, was eligible to serve. Only after mounting pressure during his 2016 campaign did Trump disavow the claims.
And Anne Gearan and Colby Itkowitz wrote in the Washington Post that “Trump, in an echo of his false birtherism claims against President Barack Obama, said Thursday that questions about the eligibility of Sen. Kamala D. Harris to run for vice president were ‘very serious’ despite the fact that they are baseless.”
Honorable mention on Thursday goes to HuffPost White House correspondent S.V. Dáte, who was on pool duty and finally asked the question he and others have long been wanting to hear: “Mr. President, after three and a half years, do you regret at all, all the lying you’ve done to the American people?” Trump didn’t answer, he just moved on.
I would have listed a few specific lies, for good measure. Or, alternately, I wouldn’t have asked him a question at all – what’s the point? – I would have told him what public-health experts say he is failing to do, or I would have simply given him a reality check, by presenting some of the facts that evidently don’t penetrate his bubble.
But there was something very cathartic about hearing a member of the press let him know to his face that at least some of us are on to him.


presswatchers--2020-08-19--The Democratic convention reminds us that there is a normal, and this ain’t it

The webcam-scaled Democratic National Convention is showing us something that , it now becomes very clear , has been sadly missing from the wall of noise that is modern American political coverage : ordinary Americans , miserable and desperate for change .
Half a century ago , television coverage from the front lines in Vietnam turned the American people against the war because it brought the horrors of combat directly into their living rooms .
This convention is — completely unexpectedly — bringing other people ’ s living rooms into our living rooms .
As a result , I suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viscerally aware that they are not alone in their misery and frustration ; that they are not the only ones wholly disgusted by the government ’ s failure to control the pandemic ; that they are not alone in experiencing Trump and Trumpism as aberrational , unAmerican and unacceptable .
They wouldn ’ t necessarily feel that way from reading the news .
Modern American political news coverage focuses almost exclusively on the politicians , as seen through the eyes of pundits , with an occasional glance at the polls .
The result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you hear anti-Trump voices , but you don ’ t hear the voices of actual voters , many if not most of whom are heartsick over what is happening to their country .
You don ’ t hear from what is arguably a majority of voters who share a pluralistic and democratic vision of America , and who simply want someone competent to be in charge again .
But suddenly , you ’ re hearing them this week .
It ’ s incredibly ironic when you consider what a ridiculous circus recent political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show , quite literally , with conventioneers decked in outrageous paraphernalia , mouthing empty slogans and mugging for the cameras .
As events , their journalistic value was close to nil .
But now , the intimate and personal windows this convention has provided into other people ’ s living rooms and kitchens and front porches has done something of great journalistic value : it has offered us a human-scaled alternate vision to Trump ’ s America .
Voter interviews have taken on something of a bad name in the past four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many reporters out to red-state diners to record deceptive talking points from Trump supporters , thinking that ’ s what was missing from their 2016 coverage .
But talking – and listening — to voters is essential to political journalism .
And as observers like New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie have been pointing out for some time now , anti-Trump voters are practically invisible in mainstream political coverage – even though , by all accounts , they make up a healthy majority of the public .
New York Times TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly insightful about the Trump presidency as reality TV , called the convention “ counterprogramming to the Trump-TV aesthetic of eat-or-be-eaten.
” Vulture writer Kathryn VanArendonk wrote that the webcam intimacy allowed for a “ different emotional register ” and called it “ an unbelievable relief , almost gasp-inducing , really , to see familiar and powerful voices come together on a big national platform and give everyone a moment to just talk about how bad this shit has been.
” Most of our top political reporters have covered Trump like a normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says as if it still deserves the presumption of presidential credibility .
They have created false equivalence between two political parties , even though one has departed from reality .
Now , they cover the campaign as if it involved two equally plausible choices .
But there is nothing normal about this president , or this election .
And voters – who share none of the pressures of political reporters — know it .
Hearing from them – visiting with them – is good journalism .
Hopefully , we ’ ll still see @ @ @ @ @ @

The webcam-scaled Democratic National Convention is showing us something that, it now becomes very clear, has been sadly missing from the wall of noise that is modern American political coverage: ordinary Americans, miserable and desperate for change.
Half a century ago, television coverage from the front lines in Vietnam turned the American people against the war because it brought the horrors of combat directly into their living rooms. This convention is — completely unexpectedly — bringing other people’s living rooms into our living rooms.
As a result, I suspect that many ordinary Americans are suddenly, viscerally aware that they are not alone in their misery and frustration; that they are not the only ones wholly disgusted by the government’s failure to control the pandemic; that they are not alone in experiencing Trump and Trumpism as aberrational, unAmerican and unacceptable.
They wouldn’t necessarily feel that way from reading the news. Modern American political news coverage focuses almost exclusively on the politicians, as seen through the eyes of pundits, with an occasional glance at the polls. The result is that you hear pro-Trump voices, you hear anti-Trump voices, but you don’t hear the voices of actual voters, many if not most of whom are heartsick over what is happening to their country.
You don’t hear from what is arguably a majority of voters who share a pluralistic and democratic vision of America, and who simply want someone competent to be in charge again.
But suddenly, you’re hearing them this week.
It’s incredibly ironic when you consider what a ridiculous circus recent political conventions have been — what a freak show, quite literally, with conventioneers decked in outrageous paraphernalia, mouthing empty slogans and mugging for the cameras. As events, their journalistic value was close to nil.
But now, the intimate and personal windows this convention has provided into other people’s living rooms and kitchens and front porches has done something of great journalistic value: it has offered us a human-scaled alternate vision to Trump’s America.
Voter interviews have taken on something of a bad name in the past four years, as big city editors sent way too many reporters out to red-state diners to record deceptive talking points from Trump supporters, thinking that’s what was missing from their 2016 coverage.
But talking – and listening — to voters is essential to political journalism. And as observers like New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie have been pointing out for some time now, anti-Trump voters are practically invisible in mainstream political coverage – even though, by all accounts, they make up a healthy majority of the public.
New York Times TV critic James Poniewozik, who has been particularly insightful about the Trump presidency as reality TV , called the convention “counterprogramming to the Trump-TV aesthetic of eat-or-be-eaten.”
Vulture writer Kathryn VanArendonk wrote that the webcam intimacy allowed for a “different emotional register” and called it “an unbelievable relief, almost gasp-inducing, really, to see familiar and powerful voices come together on a big national platform and give everyone a moment to just talk about how bad this shit has been.”
Most of our top political reporters have covered Trump like a normal president. They have quoted what he says as if it still deserves the presumption of presidential credibility. They have created false equivalence between two political parties, even though one has departed from reality. Now, they cover the campaign as if it involved two equally plausible choices.
But there is nothing normal about this president, or this election. And voters – who share none of the pressures of political reporters — know it.
Hearing from them – visiting with them – is good journalism. Hopefully, we’ll still see some after the convention ends.


presswatchers--2020-09-17--Stop headlining Trump’s loony disinformation about Covid-19

It is by now eminently clear that Donald Trump is willing to say absolutely anything about Covid-19 if he thinks it will make him look better .
Heck it was clear in March .
His latest obviously delusional fantasy , invoked on Wednesday afternoon , is that every person in America will be able to get a vaccine “ very soon ” .
It was highly reminiscent of his famous still-a-whopper-more-than-six-months-later that “ Anybody that wants a test can get a test.
” What ’ s pathetic is that more than six months later , these whoppers still make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Associated Press story , Trump disputes health officials , sees mass vaccinations soon .
The immediate backstory was that , earlier in the day , Trump ’ s hand-picked head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Rick Redfield — possibly chastened by the growing outrage at his willingness to cater to the whims of Trumpian know-nothings — had actually told Congress things that approximated the truth .
He warned that a vaccine will not be available to most Americans until well into next year , and he pointedly noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine in stopping transmission anyway .
That was news .
And it was also , to some extent , news that Trump then went out of his way to scold Redfield and contradict him .
But why should anyone care about the specifics of what Trump then said about a subject upon which he had no credibility at all ?
Or maybe even negative credibility .
And yet , the AP ’ s Matthew Perrone , Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Mike Stobbe still led their story with Trump ’ s lunacy : It actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boys from AP were much more interested in the drama , quoting Redfield for a bit then writing that “ Trump would have none of that from the CDC director , ” then quoting Redfield a bit more , and writing “ Unswayed , Trump said , ‘ We ’ re ready to move , and I think it will be full distribution.
’ ” Over at the New York Times , star White House reporter Peter Baker also initially focused on the drama , writing : Then , focusing on the optics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divergent messages further undercut any effort to forge a coherent response to the virus.
” Only after that did he get to what I would consider the heart of the matter : The public scolding of Dr. Redfield was only the latest but perhaps the starkest instance when the president has rejected not just the policy advice of his public health officials but the facts and information that they provided .
Public health officials are in strong agreement about the value of masks even as Mr. Trump generally refuses to wear one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice in the past two days questioned their utility based on the advice of restaurant waiters .
Likewise , health officials have said that it will be many months before a vaccine can be distributed to the population at large , allowing life to begin returning to a semblance of normal , even as Mr. Trump has promised to approve one in time for the general election on Nov. 3 .
By Mr. Trump ’ s own account , he personally called Dr. Redfield after Wednesday ’ s hearing to challenge his testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are supposed to be isolated from partisan politics .
The Washington Post ’ s treatment of the day ’ s news was , by contrast , exemplary , quite possibly because its lead writer was Amy Goldstein – a veteran health reporter , rather than a creature of the White House press corps .
( Hard to believe it was more than six months ago that I begged news organizations to pull political reporters off the pandemic beat because “ It ’ s too damned important to be covered as a two-sided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative.
” ) Goldstein and coauthor Sean Sullivan got the order of importance right in their lede : They explained that Redfield “ said the vaccine will be provided first to people most vulnerable to covid-19 , the disease caused by the virus , and supplies will increase over time , with Americans who are considered at lower risk offered the shot more gradually.
” And readers of this story weren ’ t confused about who to believe .
“ Hours later , ” the Post reporters wrote , “ Trump sought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the White House press briefing room.
” But the evidence , they showed , was in Redfield ’ s corner : And the Post reporters included a helpful reminder : That this matters .
Wednesday ’ s events were just so much more proof that every scientist who stands alongside Trump suffers for it .
Helene Branswell , the experienced and trusted infectious disease reporters for the indispensable STAT News website , had just written Wednesday morning about how Redfield has overseen a tragic reputational slide and collapse of morale at what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premier health agency in the world .
Branswell reported that many current and former CDC insiders feel that “ Redfield is not doing enough to safeguard the reputation of the CDC and the integrity of its work , and that he is failing to successfully fend off political interference that is eroding Americans ’ trust in the organization.
” She described , for instance , how he allowed officials in Washington to change a CDC guidance to say that opening schools was of paramount importance .
Similarly , guidance on who to test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing of people who had been in contact with cases but were asymptomatic ” when , in fact , “ finding people as soon as possible so they can be told to isolate is key to containing spread of the virus.
” As Branswell noted , that change led to an extraordinary op-ed in the New York Times titled “ Ignore the CDC ” from Harold Varmus , a former director of the National Institutes of Health , and Rajiv Shah , president of the Rockefeller Foundation .
Redfield stood up to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least a bit , on Wednesday morning .
And by afternoon , Trump had savaged him .
Lesson learned , I guess .
And let me add a special shout-out to the way Branswell handled Redfield ’ s “ response ” to her questions .
Too many reporters simply cut and paste into their stories the meaningless claptrap quotes they get after asking serious questions — without noting how utterly non-responsive they were .
Branswell wrote : I ’ ve written a lot about Trump ’ s response to the pandemic , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along : It ’ s an ongoing tragedy that he has no real plan to restore the country to health other than to peddle false hope , predict a quick end , adopt fake deadlines and shift the blame to others .
The most urgent need is to test , test , and test even more , but Trump has never liked testing because the results “ look bad ” .
The media has blown its coverage of the federal response by letting political reporters lead instead of health reporters .
Political reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump says , such that whatever it is makes headlines .
They let Trump set the agenda instead of letting knowledgeable people do it .
Political reporters also give Trump way too much credit for trying , which he is not .
They cover up for his incoherence , ignorance , cluelessness , gaslighting , and yes , just plain stupidity .
They generally fail to properly exploit their rare access to him by confronting him with facts and piercing his bubble .
They remain complacent in the face of a massive death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forceful action .
Please consider supporting my work , which is dependent on donations and grants .

It is by now eminently clear that Donald Trump is willing to say absolutely anything about Covid-19 if he thinks it will make him look better. Heck it was clear in March.
His latest obviously delusional fantasy, invoked on Wednesday afternoon, is that every person in America will be able to get a vaccine “very soon”. It was highly reminiscent of his famous still-a-whopper-more-than-six-months-later that “Anybody that wants a test can get a test.”
What’s pathetic is that more than six months later, these whoppers still make it into the headlines – as in this Associated Press story, Trump disputes health officials, sees mass vaccinations soon.
The immediate backstory was that, earlier in the day, Trump’s hand-picked head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rick Redfield — possibly chastened by the growing outrage at his willingness to cater to the whims of Trumpian know-nothings — had actually told Congress things that approximated the truth. He warned that a vaccine will not be available to most Americans until well into next year, and he pointedly noted that masks may be more effective than a vaccine in stopping transmission anyway.
That was news. And it was also, to some extent, news that Trump then went out of his way to scold Redfield and contradict him. But why should anyone care about the specifics of what Trump then said about a subject upon which he had no credibility at all? Or maybe even negative credibility.
And yet, the AP’s Matthew Perrone, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Mike Stobbe still led their story with Trump’s lunacy:
Openly contradicting the government’s top health experts, President Donald Trump predicted Wednesday that a safe and effective vaccine against the coronavirus could be ready as early as next month and in mass distribution soon after, undermining the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and calling him “confused” in projecting a longer time frame. Trump also disagreed with Dr. Robert Redfield about the effectiveness of protective masks — which the president recommends but almost never wears — and said he’d telephoned Redfield to tell him so.
It actually matters who was right, but the boys from AP were much more interested in the drama, quoting Redfield for a bit then writing that “Trump would have none of that from the CDC director,” then quoting Redfield a bit more, and writing “Unswayed, Trump said, ‘We’re ready to move, and I think it will be full distribution.’”
Over at the New York Times, star White House reporter Peter Baker also initially focused on the drama, writing:
In a remarkable display even for him, Mr. Trump publicly slapped down Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the president promised that a vaccine could be available in weeks and go “immediately” to the general public while diminishing the usefulness of masks despite evidence to the contrary.
Then, focusing on the optics, Baker wrote: “The sharply divergent messages further undercut any effort to forge a coherent response to the virus.”
Only after that did he get to what I would consider the heart of the matter:
The public scolding of Dr. Redfield was only the latest but perhaps the starkest instance when the president has rejected not just the policy advice of his public health officials but the facts and information that they provided. Public health officials are in strong agreement about the value of masks even as Mr. Trump generally refuses to wear one, mocks his opponent for doing so and twice in the past two days questioned their utility based on the advice of restaurant waiters. Likewise, health officials have said that it will be many months before a vaccine can be distributed to the population at large, allowing life to begin returning to a semblance of normal, even as Mr. Trump has promised to approve one in time for the general election on Nov. 3. By Mr. Trump’s own account, he personally called Dr. Redfield after Wednesday’s hearing to challenge his testimony, renewing questions about pressure on scientists who are supposed to be isolated from partisan politics.
The Washington Post’s treatment of the day’s news was, by contrast, exemplary, quite possibly because its lead writer was Amy Goldstein – a veteran health reporter, rather than a creature of the White House press corps. (Hard to believe it was more than six months ago that I begged news organizations to pull political reporters off the pandemic beat because “It’s too damned important to be covered as a two-sided battle over who’s winning the narrative.”)
Goldstein and coauthor Sean Sullivan got the order of importance right in their lede:
The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicted Wednesday that most of the American public will not have access to a vaccine against the novel coronavirus until late spring or summer of next year — prompting a public rebuke from President Trump, who declared the CDC chief was wrong.
They explained that Redfield “said the vaccine will be provided first to people most vulnerable to covid-19, the disease caused by the virus, and supplies will increase over time, with Americans who are considered at lower risk offered the shot more gradually.”
And readers of this story weren’t confused about who to believe. “Hours later,” the Post reporters wrote, “Trump sought to knock down Redfield’s predicted timeline from the White House press briefing room.” But the evidence, they showed, was in Redfield’s corner:
Redfield’s comments were the most detailed time frame outlined so far by the leader of the government’s main public health agency. They are consistent with the perspective of Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who said in a recent interview with CNN that relatively small amounts of vaccine will be available at first.
And the Post reporters included a helpful reminder: That this matters.
A vaccine also is widely regarded as a pivot point for Americans to be unfettered from the constraints the pandemic has imposed on daily life — from recreation such as concerts and movie theaters to workplaces that remain shuttered.
Wednesday’s events were just so much more proof that every scientist who stands alongside Trump suffers for it.
Helene Branswell, the experienced and trusted infectious disease reporters for the indispensable STAT News website, had just written Wednesday morning about how Redfield has overseen a tragic reputational slide and collapse of morale at what not long ago was considered possibly the premier health agency in the world.
Branswell reported that many current and former CDC insiders feel that “Redfield is not doing enough to safeguard the reputation of the CDC and the integrity of its work, and that he is failing to successfully fend off political interference that is eroding Americans’ trust in the organization.”
She described, for instance, how he allowed officials in Washington to change a CDC guidance to say that opening schools was of paramount importance. Similarly, guidance on who to test was changed “to recommend against the testing of people who had been in contact with cases but were asymptomatic” when, in fact, “finding people as soon as possible so they can be told to isolate is key to containing spread of the virus.”
As Branswell noted, that change led to an extraordinary op-ed in the New York Times titled “Ignore the CDC” from Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Rajiv Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Redfield stood up to Trump in defense of the CDC, at least a bit, on Wednesday morning. And by afternoon, Trump had savaged him. Lesson learned, I guess.
And let me add a special shout-out to the way Branswell handled Redfield’s “response” to her questions. Too many reporters simply cut and paste into their stories the meaningless claptrap quotes they get after asking serious questions — without noting how utterly non-responsive they were. Branswell wrote:
In a written response, the CDC director sidestepped all of STAT’s questions — about political influence on guidance documents, revisions of MMWR articles, and his own pledge to safeguard the agency’s reputation. Instead, he said he believes the CDC “remains the world’s premiere public health agency.”
A note from Dan Froomkin:
I’ve written a lot about Trump’s response to the pandemic, and here is what has been clear all along: It’s an ongoing tragedy that he has no real plan to restore the country to health other than to peddle false hope, predict a quick end, adopt fake deadlines and shift the blame to others. The most urgent need is to test, test, and test even more, but Trump has never liked testing because the results “look bad”. The media has blown its coverage of the federal response by letting political reporters lead instead of health reporters. Political reporters pay way too much attention to whatever Trump says, such that whatever it is makes headlines. They let Trump set the agenda instead of letting knowledgeable people do it. Political reporters also give Trump way too much credit for trying, which he is not. They cover up for his incoherence, ignorance, cluelessness, gaslighting, and yes, just plain stupidity. They generally fail to properly exploit their rare access to him by confronting him with facts and piercing his bubble. They remain complacent in the face of a massive death toll, instead of relentlessly demanding more forceful action.
Please consider supporting my work, which is dependent on donations and grants.