presswatchers--2020-09-16--Failing to clearly identify what’s at stake in 2020 is bad journalism

With the first votes in the 2020 presidential election already being cast , the nation ’ s political journalists face a moment of reckoning : Will they continue to treat this like a normal election , acting as if both sides have equally compelling claims on the American voter ?
Or will they sound the alarm , and make it clear in every story precisely what is at stake for the country ?
Our top newsroom leaders need to empower their political reporters and producers and editors to do the latter – right now — because equating the two choices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is bad journalism .
The solid , evidence-based reporting that ’ s been done over the past four years clearly establishes that Donald Trump ’ s ignorance and authoritarianism endanger our democratic institutions and core democratic values .
The federal government under Trump is failing at its basic tasks – in many cases , fatally — and during a second term would inevitably be turned against its own people .
At a historic moment that offers hope for a national coming-together on race , Trump is trying to foment hysteria and division .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all that journalism has been building toward .
But out of habit and a misbegotten sense of obligation , the mainstream media ’ s campaign coverage is still framed like it ’ s a normal contest — where reasonable voters could go either way .
And the relentless who ’ s-up-who ’ s-down narrative actively obscures just how morally and ethically asymmetrical a race it is .
Our top newsrooms need to start producing campaign coverage with a clear , relentless message : that Trump is unfit and democracy is in danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify taking this approach ; it is an affront to journalism ’ s central mission , of telling the truth .
And sly hints to the already convinced aren ’ t enough .
Campaign reporters must make the case so clearly and with so much evidence that it will persuade the unpersuaded .
Political journalists during this election cycle can not afford to simply watch and report the ups and down of the campaign from a moral remove .
They can ’ t just do stenography and call it a day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll numbers as if there weren ’ t something dangerous and malignant going on in our body politic .
They can ’ t keep repeating Trump ’ s campaign slogans as if they were a matter of opinion .
Every day there are new developments that reveal the urgency of removing Trump from office — new revelations about his willful incompetence in the face of a pandemic , his stifling of information that doesn ’ t suit him , his bigotry , his shocking lack of empathy , his endless lies .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its audiences with over-the-top disinformation and conspiracy theories intended to create hysteria , hatred , and chaos , mainstream campaign coverage still sticks to its both-sides-have-a-point framing – framing that at this point is tantamount to enabling .
And there ’ s another thing : By insisting to themselves that both sides are equally and legitimately vying for the votes of the American public , our elite news organizations are blinding themselves to the real story of this campaign , which is that Trump isn ’ t actually trying to win over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s trying to find some way to create enough chaos and uncertainty to prevent enough votes against him from being cast or counted such that he ’ ll have an excuse to retain power .
That ’ s a great story , the stuff of great journalism .
Pretending that it isn ’ t happening – that Trump is genuinely trying to win the normal way – is naïve fantasy and a journalistic failure .
To all the political reporters and editors out there , I ask you : Is your job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you feel after this election if you haven ’ t done everything you reasonably could to prevent an authoritarian takeover ?
What will you tell your children or grandchildren about what you did in these dark days ?
Will you tell them you protected your standing among your peers and your access to the powerful by reporting from a great moral distance on what was going on ?
Or will you be able to say that you became brave , and did your damnedest to inform the electorate of what was really at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 : You didn ’ t think he could possibly win .
And the dangers he posed were hypothetical .
This time around , you have no excuse at all .
Yes , it ’ s true that the discipline of political journalism in this country typically requires that journalists not take sides .
Normally , that ’ s a good rule ; partisans , in stark contrast to reporters , inflate facts that support their beliefs and ignore those that don ’ t , which is inimical to American journalistic values .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that truth has become a partisan dividing line this time around .
So if taking sides with the truth in this one election is tantamount to taking sides with a particular candidate , so be it .
What else could your job possibly be , if not speaking the truth , defending democracy , and holding the liars accountable ?
What not to do What political reporters should most assuredly not do is throw their hands up in the air when it comes to determining the truth .
Sadly , this has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top reporters , like , as I have painstakingly chronicled , Peter Baker of the New York Times .
And yet the ultimate recent example probably came from New York Times reporters Katie Glueck , Annie Karni and Alexander Burns , as they looked back at two national political conventions that couldn ’ t have been further apart in their relationship to reality .
They neutrally described the emerging “ battle lines , ” with Biden “ focusing on President Trump ’ s virus management , while the president is hammering a law-and-order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tat — even when the Times noted that Trump was lying .
So on the one hand , “ Mr .
Trump and his allies spent four nights hammering Mr. Biden with misleading and often false claims about his record on fighting crime and support of the police.
” But on the other hand , Biden “ charged Mr. Trump with a failure of leadership , particularly regarding his handling of the pandemic.
” The outcome of the election , they wrote , would depend on “ which argument feels more urgent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ granting Trump the mantle of “ law and order ” candidate , the reporters – in their 24th paragraph !
– showed Trump delighting in his lawlessness , quoting aides who said that “ he enjoyed the frustration and anger he caused by holding a political event on the South Lawn of the White House , shattering conventional norms and raising questions about ethics law violations ” and “ relished the fact that no one could do anything to stop him.
” That one goes in my Hall of Shame .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Labor Day weekend , Associated Press chief political reporter Steve Peoples ‘ s described the “ dizzyingly different versions of reality ” being espoused in the presidential election — without even hinting about which version was based in lies and which was based in truth .
In Trump ’ s view , “ the pandemic is largely over , the economy is roaring back , and murderous mobs are infiltrating America ’ s suburbs , ” Peoples wrote .
In Biden ’ s view , “ the pandemic is raging , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class , and systemic racism threatens Black lives across America.
” Peoples ’ s conclusion ?
“ All the conflicting messages carry at least a sliver of truth , some much more than others.
” That ’ s a total abandonment of journalistic responsibility – by Peoples and by every editor who signed off it .
As media critic Eric Boehlert noted , the piece “ perfectly captured everything that ’ s gone wrong with political news reporting in the age of Trump.
” Campaign reporters are prone to seeing everything as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether democracy survives .
A recent , important New York Times story by Trip Gabriel explored the real possibility that Trump would declare victory if in-person vote tallies showed him in the lead on election night , even if mail-in ballots ended up flipping races to Biden .
But it was appropriately flamed on social media for the headline , describing it as the “ Democrats ’ Doomsday Scenario for Election Night ” – rather than a doomsday scenario for electoral democracy .
Some reporters are even taking their sense of obligation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and morally depraved level by making the case for how Trump could turn things around .
I wrote in July about how Washington Post reporters Ashley Parker , Josh Dawsey and Robert Costa described Trump ’ s abject failures as president and constant grotesque lies are simply “ self-destructive behavior ” that was hurting his campaign effort and was potentially rectifiable .
More recently , New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni warned that “ with less than eight weeks left until the election , and with early voting beginning in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of days Mr. Trump can afford to burn is dwindling.
” Haberman and Karni wrote as if the “ constant churn of scandals , resignations , tell-all books and racist or sexist tweets , ” were something Trump could turn off at will – as if it weren ’ t intrinsic to his very existence .
The most chronic offender here , however , has got to be Dan Balz , the Washington Post ’ s “ chief correspondent ” – once a must-read , now a pathetic parody of his former self @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has pontificated that for Trump , “ the challenge in the weeks ahead will be to undo impressions of nearly four years of chaotic leadership , to demonstrate the kind of discipline and focus that has too often been missing.
” He has insisted that “ [ t ] he question is whether [ Trump ] has the skills to turn around his candidacy in hopes of replicating his 2016 surprise victory.
” And just this past weekend — even as Trump has been abusing the powers of his office beyond anything dreamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Balz warned that Trump “ is frittering away the advantages of incumbency ” rather than effectively using the “ levers of the federal government to benefit himself politically ” in a way that would overshadow the events that are currently distracting him “ from his ability to deliver a consistent and effective campaign message ” .
How pathetic is your favorite news organization ’ s campaign coverage ?
Here ’ s a simple test .
Are they going along with Trump ’ s attempt to create a false narrative in which he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post political blogger Greg Sargent beautifully called out his colleagues on August 31 , writing 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.
” He continued : “ Let ’ s not flinch from this : Trump is explicitly campaigning on law and order without the rule of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That makes Trump not the law-and-order candidate , but rather the candidate of arbitrary violence , lawless abuses of power and civil breakdown.
” Sargent ’ s news-side colleagues at the Post seem to have largely heeded his advice – but reporters at the New York Times and many other news organizations continue to dutifully and stenographically recount Trump ’ s rhetoric .
On the front page of Sunday ’ s New York Times , Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin repeatedly referred to Trump ’ s “ law-and-order message ” — without any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scathing law-and-order attacks on Joseph Biden.
” Their article claimed that “ Mr .
Trump ’ s law-and-order message has rallied support on the right ” in swing states .
( Although the writers , to use the Times ’ s favorite new euphemism for lying , “ provided no evidence ” to support that conclusion — quite possibly because there isn ’ t any . )
This continues at the Times even after repeated scoldings on social media , like this one from political scientist Norm Ornstein : And keep in mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and order ” isn ’ t simply inaccurate , it actually serves to amplify his racist , real message .
As emptywheel blogger Marcy Wheeler tweeted : The only way reporters should address Trump ’ s “ law and order ” rhetoric is in articles about what a dishonest campaign slogan it is , and what it really reveals .
Conveniently , the Trump campaign continuously provides news peg for that almost every day .
Trump whisperer Kellyanne Conway said the quiet part out loud on “ Fox & Friends ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns , the better it is for the very clear choice on who ’ s best on public safety and law and order.
” And on September 12 , Trump told Fox News ’ s Jeanine Pirro that the execution-style slaying by law enforcement of Michael Reinoehl , the man suspected of gunning down a Trump supporter in Portland , was “ the way it has to be .
There has to be retribution.
” The even fuller context is that every Trump campaign slogan is fundamentally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing for Crooked : How to do it right Campaign reporters should contrast Trump ’ s actions and statements not with what “ Democrats say ” but with the overwhelming consensus of experts in their field — who on almost all occasions find him profoundly and dangerously wrong .
They should start with constitutional experts and climate scientists .
When appropriate , they should aggressively relate what is going on in the world to the stakes in November .
So kudos to Evan Halper and Noah Bierman of the Los Angeles Times who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the “ wildfires raging through the West ” are forcing “ millions of voters to confront the consequences of a warming planet.
” And they should use the campaign as a news peg to revisit structural problems with Trump ’ s leadership that sometimes get lost in the day-to-day , like how he doesn ’ t really seem to understand what he ’ s talking about a lot of the time , or how there appears to be no actual decision-making process in the White House .
Rather than relegating them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical , totally factual and accurate phrases to contextualize their campaign coverage , for instance noting that Trump turns conspiracy theories into rallying cries , or often uses graphic depictions of violence to incite his supporters , or throws accelerant on the fire of the nation ’ s social unrest rather than trying to put it out , or revels in attacks and boasts , but appears to lack empathy .
Instead of headlining his latest lie , they should write about how he lies all the time , makes a mockery of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gullible idiots , spreads toxic conspiracy theories , and has destroyed the credibility of his office and the nation at a time when accurate information is the difference between life and death .
Then maybe they could mention whatever that particular , latest lie was and debunk it .
( Here ’ s a reminder of what not to do . )
Instead of headlining some outrageous prediction or threat , they should recount his long record of failed predictions and idle threats .
When he attacks someone , they should relate it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should write about his tweets – but primarily in the context of how they are almost always projections of his own failings onto others .
The shouldn ’ t write about how something Trump just said will play ; they should write about what it means , how it relates to core American values , whether it ’ s a lie .
As author Steven Beschloss tweeted : And they should actively refute the misinformation spread by far-right propaganda outlets pretending to be news , starting with Fox .
Campaign reporters also need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump voters .
These days , whenever I read an article in the traditional media quoting Trump supporters , I am struck that none of what they are quoted as saying actually explains their support .
They repeat his lies – but that doesn ’ t make them true .
So the reason they say they ’ re supporting Trump can ’ t really be that he is “ taking on China and putting ‘ America first , ” as a supporter told New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel – it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that what he ’ s doing .
In other words , they ’ re supporting him because they ’ re misinformed .
The Economist recently interviewed members of a construction worker ’ s union in Youngstown , Ohio , and gather quotes like “ He ’ s done more for our country than the past ten presidents put together , ” and “ He ’ s made—who is it , China or Japan ?
—pay our farmers billions of dollars .
He got health care done , which the Democrats could never do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those workers don ’ t support Trump because he “ got health care done.
” Trump didn ’ t do any such thing.They support him because they are the victims ( and , in turn , purveyors ) of misinformation .
Sometimes supporters complain to reporters like Time magazine ’ s Charlotte Alter that they are unfairly called racist , but that only hints at their real motivation , which is — surprise !
— that they are indeed racist .
So reporters need to go out and do better , more probing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more honest reporting about what drives them .
Like I wrote in July , that means acting more like sociologists than typical political reporters .
It means exploring not just these voters ’ political opinions , but their formative moments and their value systems .
It means exploring certain dynamics that rarely get much attention from journalists : peer pressure , cultural tribalism , news consumption , residential segregation and educational standards , among others .
It means being more empathetic to the Trump voters , to fully understand them .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are .
And reporters should contextualize their words with the work of political scientists .
For instance , as Eric Levitz wrote for New York , Vanderbilt University ’ s Larry Bartels has found that many Republican voters value “ keeping America great ” more than they value democracy — and , by “ keeping America great , ” such voters typically mean “ keeping America ’ s power structure white.
” That ’ s pretty terrifying .
And talking to voters shouldn ’ t just mean talking to Trump voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preponderance of what I see out there .
More than a year ago , New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote that “ anti-Trump voters are practically invisible in recent mainstream political coverage ” – even though they represent the majority of Americans .
It ’ s still true .
Where are the voices of the ordinary people ?
Which side are you on ?
The argument against becoming more activist about exposing the Trump menace was most recently made by New York Times media columnist Ben Smith who — even as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic institutions – decried “ the increasing temptation ” reporters face “ to posture for those most eager to oust him.
” In Smith ’ s telling , warning the public against Trump is only for soft-headed journalists succumbing to flatterers – it ’ s a surrender to the forces pushing reporters “ toward making ourselves the story and toward telling you exactly what you want to hear.
” Smith ’ s argument is very much like that made by his boss , Times executive editor Dean Baquet , who has repeatedly stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open mind and not “ take sides ” – even when one side is the stark truth and the other side is pure duplicity .
But with only weeks to go , in this race like no other , it ’ s clear to me that this time around , not taking sides is really tantamount to taking sides , just not being very honest about it .
It ’ s choosing not to ring the alarm bell when there ’ s a fire .
Are you with me ?
Note to readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission for several weeks .
I ’ ve been trying , with little success , to sort out some personal and professional challenges .
But I ’ m back now , and intend to resume writing regularly .
Please consider supporting my work — and tell your friends .

With the first votes in the 2020 presidential election already being cast, the nation’s political journalists face a moment of reckoning: Will they continue to treat this like a normal election, acting as if both sides have equally compelling claims on the American voter?
Or will they sound the alarm, and make it clear in every story precisely what is at stake for the country?
Our top newsroom leaders need to empower their political reporters and producers and editors to do the latter – right now — because equating the two choices currently before the voters in any way is bad journalism.
The solid, evidence-based reporting that’s been done over the past four years clearly establishes that Donald Trump’s ignorance and authoritarianism endanger our democratic institutions and core democratic values. The federal government under Trump is failing at its basic tasks – in many cases, fatally — and during a second term would inevitably be turned against its own people. At a historic moment that offers hope for a national coming-together on race, Trump is trying to foment hysteria and division. This election is the moment of accountability that all that journalism has been building toward.
But out of habit and a misbegotten sense of obligation, the mainstream media’s campaign coverage is still framed like it’s a normal contest — where reasonable voters could go either way. And the relentless who’s-up-who’s-down narrative actively obscures just how morally and ethically asymmetrical a race it is.
Our top newsrooms need to start producing campaign coverage with a clear, relentless message: that Trump is unfit and democracy is in danger. His constant lying alone is enough to justify taking this approach; it is an affront to journalism’s central mission, of telling the truth.
And sly hints to the already convinced aren’t enough. Campaign reporters must make the case so clearly and with so much evidence that it will persuade the unpersuaded.
Political journalists during this election cycle cannot afford to simply watch and report the ups and down of the campaign from a moral remove. They can’t just do stenography and call it a day. They can’t report on the poll numbers as if there weren’t something dangerous and malignant going on in our body politic. They can’t keep repeating Trump’s campaign slogans as if they were a matter of opinion.
Every day there are new developments that reveal the urgency of removing Trump from office — new revelations about his willful incompetence in the face of a pandemic, his stifling of information that doesn’t suit him, his bigotry, his shocking lack of empathy, his endless lies.
But even as right-wing media is constantly bombarding its audiences with over-the-top disinformation and conspiracy theories intended to create hysteria, hatred, and chaos, mainstream campaign coverage still sticks to its both-sides-have-a-point framing – framing that at this point is tantamount to enabling.
And there’s another thing: By insisting to themselves that both sides are equally and legitimately vying for the votes of the American public, our elite news organizations are blinding themselves to the real story of this campaign, which is that Trump isn’t actually trying to win over a majority of the American voters. He’s trying to find some way to create enough chaos and uncertainty to prevent enough votes against him from being cast or counted such that he’ll have an excuse to retain power.
That’s a great story, the stuff of great journalism. Pretending that it isn’t happening – that Trump is genuinely trying to win the normal way – is naïve fantasy and a journalistic failure.
To all the political reporters and editors out there, I ask you: Is your job not to protect democracy?
How will you feel after this election if you haven’t done everything you reasonably could to prevent an authoritarian takeover? What will you tell your children or grandchildren about what you did in these dark days? Will you tell them you protected your standing among your peers and your access to the powerful by reporting from a great moral distance on what was going on? Or will you be able to say that you became brave, and did your damnedest to inform the electorate of what was really at stake?
You had an excuse in 2016: You didn’t think he could possibly win. And the dangers he posed were hypothetical. This time around, you have no excuse at all.
Yes, it’s true that the discipline of political journalism in this country typically requires that journalists not take sides. Normally, that’s a good rule; partisans, in stark contrast to reporters, inflate facts that support their beliefs and ignore those that don’t, which is inimical to American journalistic values.
But it’s not your fault that truth has become a partisan dividing line this time around.
So if taking sides with the truth in this one election is tantamount to taking sides with a particular candidate, so be it. What else could your job possibly be, if not speaking the truth, defending democracy, and holding the liars accountable?
What not to do
What political reporters should most assuredly not do is throw their hands up in the air when it comes to determining the truth.
Sadly, this has become the calling card of some of our top reporters, like, as I have painstakingly chronicled, Peter Baker of the New York Times.
And yet the ultimate recent example probably came from New York Times reporters Katie Glueck, Annie Karni and Alexander Burns, as they looked back at two national political conventions that couldn’t have been further apart in their relationship to reality. They neutrally described the emerging “battle lines,” with Biden “focusing on President Trump’s virus management, while the president is hammering a law-and-order message.”
The framing was tit for tat — even when the Times noted that Trump was lying. So on the one hand, “Mr. Trump and his allies spent four nights hammering Mr. Biden with misleading and often false claims about his record on fighting crime and support of the police.” But on the other hand, Biden “charged Mr. Trump with a failure of leadership, particularly regarding his handling of the pandemic.”
The outcome of the election, they wrote, would depend on “which argument feels more urgent to the American people.”
And after repeatedly granting Trump the mantle of “law and order” candidate, the reporters – in their 24th paragraph! – showed Trump delighting in his lawlessness, quoting aides who said that “he enjoyed the frustration and anger he caused by holding a political event on the South Lawn of the White House, shattering conventional norms and raising questions about ethics law violations” and “relished the fact that no one could do anything to stop him.”
That one goes in my Hall of Shame. But the Times reporters were hardly alone.
Over the Labor Day weekend, Associated Press chief political reporter Steve Peoples‘s described the “dizzyingly different versions of reality” being espoused in the presidential election — without even hinting about which version was based in lies and which was based in truth.
In Trump’s view, “the pandemic is largely over, the economy is roaring back, and murderous mobs are infiltrating America’s suburbs,” Peoples wrote. In Biden’s view, “the pandemic is raging, the economy isn’t lifting the working class, and systemic racism threatens Black lives across America.”
Peoples’s conclusion? “All the conflicting messages carry at least a sliver of truth, some much more than others.”
That’s a total abandonment of journalistic responsibility – by Peoples and by every editor who signed off it.
As media critic Eric Boehlert noted, the piece “perfectly captured everything that’s gone wrong with political news reporting in the age of Trump.”
The symmetry is a distortion, argues NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen:
The deep grammar is still symmetrical: Biden is doing this, Trump is doing that. As if there's a chessboard between them. This is a distortion. There is one normal candidacy competing against an attempt to trigger a national emergency and crash the system.https://t.co/eaVkXW0pq7 — Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) August 30, 2020
This is why you don't lay out the Biden messaging and the Trump messaging and compare them like tactics on the football field. The same-plain-ness of the comparison is itself misinformation. https://t.co/jDIJttHG0y — Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) August 30, 2020
Campaign reporters are prone to seeing everything as a partisan issue – even the question of whether democracy survives. A recent, important New York Times story by Trip Gabriel explored the real possibility that Trump would declare victory if in-person vote tallies showed him in the lead on election night, even if mail-in ballots ended up flipping races to Biden. But it was appropriately flamed on social media for the headline, describing it as the “Democrats’ Doomsday Scenario for Election Night” – rather than a doomsday scenario for electoral democracy.
Some reporters are even taking their sense of obligation to treat both sides equally to an inane and morally depraved level by making the case for how Trump could turn things around. I wrote in July about how Washington Post reporters Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey and Robert Costa described Trump’s abject failures as president and constant grotesque lies are simply “self-destructive behavior” that was hurting his campaign effort and was potentially rectifiable.
More recently, New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni warned that “with less than eight weeks left until the election, and with early voting beginning in some states this month, the number of days Mr. Trump can afford to burn is dwindling.” Haberman and Karni wrote as if the “constant churn of scandals, resignations, tell-all books and racist or sexist tweets,” were something Trump could turn off at will – as if it weren’t intrinsic to his very existence.
The most chronic offender here, however, has got to be Dan Balz, the Washington Post’s “chief correspondent” – once a must-read, now a pathetic parody of his former self. In his weekend column, Balz has pontificated that for Trump, “the challenge in the weeks ahead will be to undo impressions of nearly four years of chaotic leadership, to demonstrate the kind of discipline and focus that has too often been missing.” He has insisted that “[t]he question is whether [Trump] has the skills to turn around his candidacy in hopes of replicating his 2016 surprise victory.”
And just this past weekend — even as Trump has been abusing the powers of his office beyond anything dreamed of by any of his predecessors — Balz warned that Trump “is frittering away the advantages of incumbency” rather than effectively using the “levers of the federal government to benefit himself politically” in a way that would overshadow the events that are currently distracting him “from his ability to deliver a consistent and effective campaign message”.
A digression on “law and order”
How pathetic is your favorite news organization’s campaign coverage? Here’s a simple test. Are they going along with Trump’s attempt to create a false narrative in which he is saving the country from lawlessness?
Washington Post political blogger Greg Sargent beautifully called out his colleagues on August 31, writing 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.”
He continued: “Let’s not flinch from this: Trump is explicitly campaigning on law and order without the rule of law, in all its terrible implications. That makes Trump not the law-and-order candidate, but rather the candidate of arbitrary violence, lawless abuses of power and civil breakdown.”
Sargent’s news-side colleagues at the Post seem to have largely heeded his advice – but reporters at the New York Times and many other news organizations continue to dutifully and stenographically recount Trump’s rhetoric.
On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin repeatedly referred to Trump’s “law-and-order message” — without any caveats. The headline referred to “scathing law-and-order attacks on Joseph Biden.” Their article claimed that “Mr. Trump’s law-and-order message has rallied support on the right” in swing states. (Although the writers, to use the Times’s favorite new euphemism for lying, “provided no evidence” to support that conclusion — quite possibly because there isn’t any.)
This continues at the Times even after repeated scoldings on social media, like this one from political scientist Norm Ornstein:
We cannot say it enough and need to shout it from the rooftops: media like the Times that accept in both headlines and stories that Trump is running on "law and order" are digging the graves of a free press. https://t.co/m2GRnceElK — Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) August 31, 2020
And keep in mind that reporting that Trump is for “law and order” isn’t simply inaccurate, it actually serves to amplify his racist, real message. As emptywheel blogger Marcy Wheeler tweeted:
Here's the deal. "Law and order," in some quarters — INCLUDING the NYT — is code for black crime. Trump is running on it, and NYT has licked it up off his boots like thirsty penitents. Take a breath. — emptywheel (@emptywheel) September 1, 2020
The only way reporters should address Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric is in articles about what a dishonest campaign slogan it is, and what it really reveals. Conveniently, the Trump campaign continuously provides news peg for that almost every day.
Trump whisperer Kellyanne Conway said the quiet part out loud on “Fox & Friends” in late August: “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order.”
And on September 12, Trump told Fox News’s Jeanine Pirro that the execution-style slaying by law enforcement of Michael Reinoehl, the man suspected of gunning down a Trump supporter in Portland, was “the way it has to be. There has to be retribution.”
As University of North Carolina criminal law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick tweeted:
The idea that law enforcement ought to execute people accused of crimes in the streets for “retribution” is absolutely terrifying.
Anyone who says they believe in “law & order” should be appalled by this. https://t.co/yPGtXcYpps — Carissa Byrne Hessick (@CBHessick) September 13, 2020
The even fuller context is that every Trump campaign slogan is fundamentally dishonest. Here’s Brian Beutler writing for Crooked:
Trump’s commitment to mass deception as a campaign tactic is exclusive and total. Not one of his central appeals to voters, or his in-progress schemes to manipulate them, is rooted in truth. Not his claims about his pre-coronavirus economic record; not his handling of the economy in the wake of the pandemic, nor of the pandemic itself; not his efforts to undo the Russia investigation, or persecute its investigators; not his absentee-voting disinformation or his feigned ignorance of sabotage at the Postal Service; not his claim to being “tough on China” or to “draining the swamp” or to protecting pre-existing conditions protections. The notion that he embodies law and order is just as topsy turvy, but news outlets have nevertheless allowed him to dictate the tenor of their coverage of civic unrest to them.
Beutler concludes:
If professional journalists respond to the challenge of a president campaigning on fiction by pretending, for the sake of argument, that it’s truth, then the media failures of 2020 will outstrip the media failures of 2016, which nearly destroyed the country.
How to do it right
Campaign reporters should contrast Trump’s actions and statements not with what “Democrats say” but with the overwhelming consensus of experts in their field — who on almost all occasions find him profoundly and dangerously wrong. They should start with constitutional experts and climate scientists.
When appropriate, they should aggressively relate what is going on in the world to the stakes in November. So kudos to Evan Halper and Noah Bierman of the Los Angeles Times who led their piece on Tuesday by observing that the “wildfires raging through the West” are forcing “millions of voters to confront the consequences of a warming planet.”
And they should use the campaign as a news peg to revisit structural problems with Trump’s leadership that sometimes get lost in the day-to-day, like how he doesn’t really seem to understand what he’s talking about a lot of the time, or how there appears to be no actual decision-making process in the White House.
Rather than relegating them to news analyses, reporters should use highly critical, totally factual and accurate phrases to contextualize their campaign coverage, for instance noting that Trump turns conspiracy theories into rallying cries, or often uses graphic depictions of violence to incite his supporters, or throws accelerant on the fire of the nation’s social unrest rather than trying to put it out, or revels in attacks and boasts, but appears to lack empathy.
Instead of headlining his latest lie, they should write about how he lies all the time, makes a mockery of the truth, treats the public like gullible idiots, spreads toxic conspiracy theories, and has destroyed the credibility of his office and the nation at a time when accurate information is the difference between life and death. Then maybe they could mention whatever that particular, latest lie was and debunk it. (Here’s a reminder of what not to do.)
Instead of headlining some outrageous prediction or threat, they should recount his long record of failed predictions and idle threats.
When he attacks someone, they should relate it to his all-consuming narcissicism. And they should write about his tweets – but primarily in the context of how they are almost always projections of his own failings onto others.
The shouldn’t write about how something Trump just said will play; they should write about what it means, how it relates to core American values, whether it’s a lie. As author Steven Beschloss tweeted:
To my media friends: If you hear Trump incite violence, see armed Trump vigilantes take to the streets, fear escalating conflict–& your reaction is to worry aloud or in print about the impact on Biden–then you're part of the problem. This is exactly the response Trump seeks. — Steven Beschloss (@StevenBeschloss) August 30, 2020
And they should actively refute the misinformation spread by far-right propaganda outlets pretending to be news, starting with Fox.
Excavating the source of Trump support
Campaign reporters also need to find a better way to interview Trump voters.
These days, whenever I read an article in the traditional media quoting Trump supporters, I am struck that none of what they are quoted as saying actually explains their support.
They repeat his lies – but that doesn’t make them true.
So the reason they say they’re supporting Trump can’t really be that he is “taking on China and putting ‘America first,” as a supporter told New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel – it’s that they believe Trump when he says that what he’s doing. In other words, they’re supporting him because they’re misinformed.
The Economist recently interviewed members of a construction worker’s union in Youngstown, Ohio, and gather quotes like “He’s done more for our country than the past ten presidents put together,” and “He’s made—who is it, China or Japan?—pay our farmers billions of dollars. He got health care done, which the Democrats could never do. He built the wall.”
But those workers don’t support Trump because he “got health care done.” Trump didn’t do any such thing.They support him because they are the victims (and, in turn, purveyors) of misinformation.
Sometimes supporters complain to reporters like Time magazine’s Charlotte Alter that they are unfairly called racist, but that only hints at their real motivation, which is — surprise! — that they are indeed racist.
So reporters need to go out and do better, more probing interviews of Trump voters, and better, more honest reporting about what drives them. Like I wrote in July, that means acting more like sociologists than typical political reporters. It means exploring not just these voters’ political opinions, but their formative moments and their value systems. It means exploring certain dynamics that rarely get much attention from journalists: peer pressure, cultural tribalism, news consumption, residential segregation and educational standards, among others.
It means being more empathetic to the Trump voters, to fully understand them.
Then it means calling them out for what they are.
And reporters should contextualize their words with the work of political scientists. For instance, as Eric Levitz wrote for New York, Vanderbilt University’s Larry Bartels has found that many Republican voters value “keeping America great” more than they value democracy — and, by “keeping America great,” such voters typically mean “keeping America’s power structure white.” That’s pretty terrifying.
And talking to voters shouldn’t just mean talking to Trump voters, although that’s by far the preponderance of what I see out there.
More than a year ago, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote that “anti-Trump voters are practically invisible in recent mainstream political coverage” – even though they represent the majority of Americans.
It’s still true. Where are the voices of the ordinary people?
Which side are you on?
The argument against becoming more activist about exposing the Trump menace was most recently made by New York Times media columnist Ben Smith who — even as he himself cited Trump’s attack on democratic institutions – decried “the increasing temptation” reporters face “to posture for those most eager to oust him.”
In Smith’s telling, warning the public against Trump is only for soft-headed journalists succumbing to flatterers – it’s a surrender to the forces pushing reporters “toward making ourselves the story and toward telling you exactly what you want to hear.”
Smith’s argument is very much like that made by his boss, Times executive editor Dean Baquet, who has repeatedly stated that he wants reporters to keep an open mind and not “take sides” – even when one side is the stark truth and the other side is pure duplicity.
But with only weeks to go, in this race like no other, it’s clear to me that this time around, not taking sides is really tantamount to taking sides, just not being very honest about it.
It’s choosing not to ring the alarm bell when there’s a fire.
And there’s a fire.
Are you with me?
—————————————————-
Note to readers: My apologies for being out of commission for several weeks. I’ve been trying, with little success, to sort out some personal and professional challenges. But I’m back now, and intend to resume writing regularly. Please consider supporting my work — and tell your friends.


presswatchers--2020-09-21--The inflection point that might have been: 5 free masks in the mail in April

There are so many ways that Donald Trump has fallen short in his response to the Covid-19 pandemic – so many things he could have done differently that would have saved countless lives .
Most of them , however , were never even remotely possible because of his appalling character flaws and the complete lack of a rational White House decisionmaking process .
That ’ s why this one really stings : The U.S .
Postal Service , it turns out , was about to send five face-masks to every household in America – in April !
— until someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They even had a draft press release ready to go .
I can ’ t think of any one act that might have changed the pandemic timeline more than that – and we were so close !
The Washington Post disclosed — but underplayed — this astonishing might-have-been on its website Thursday morning , mentioning it six paragraphs into an article that was more generally about thousands of pages of Postal Service emails and other documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the watchdog group American Oversight .
But the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page of the Post the next morning , and there ’ s been no follow-up .
A few other news organizations essentially rewrote the Post story for their own websites .
And a few journalists have listlessly inquired about it , to no avail .
The New York Times and the Associated Press seem to have ignored it completely .
Most significantly , no one has determined exactly who , and under what sort of pressure , killed the plan and along with it — I don ’ t think this is hyperbole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think there ’ s a bigger story right now than Trump ’ s ineffective , incoherent , willfully ignorant , flim-flam-filled response to this incredibly deadly crisis .
I think the mainstream press has allowed him to duck anything like real accountability for it and should be ceaselessly freaking out that he continues to do almost nothing about it .
And I can ’ t think of a more potent , visceral example of Trump ’ s failure than this .
I can ’ t think of a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would have changed the timeline so much .
I mean , imagine an alternate past in which the government reached into every household in America and helpfully handed them five face masks — five months ago !
— with the implicit message that they should use them .
I can ’ t imagine anything more effective , in retrospect ; anything that would have had as personal an impact on so many people ; anything that would have been more welcome .
Tony Romm , Jacob Bogage and Lena H. Sun broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anodyne headline “ Newly revealed USPS documents show an agency struggling to manage Trump , Amazon and the pandemic ” .
Eventually , they wrote about how : The Post reporters unskeptically accepted HHS and White House claims that most or all of the masks were instead distributed by Project America Strong “ to critical infrastructure sectors , companies , healthcare facilities , and faith-based and community organizations across the country.
” But a Yahoo News report in July disclosed that the project had run out of masks as of July 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the Post noted , there was a sketchy contemporaneous report of the plan , in early April , by Axios reporters Caitlin Owens , Jonathan Swan .
They described a possible “ partnership in which Hanes and Fruit of the Loom manufactured millions of cloth face masks and the U.S .
Postal Service would have helped deliver them.
” They reported that it was championed by Robert Kadlec , the assistant secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services , and supported by deputy national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ] everal senior officials opposed the idea , “ questioning its practicality , ” they wrote .
And they quoted a “ source familiar with the situation ” saying the plan was “ dying a slow death.
” Since the Post story came out , ABC News , CNN , People and the Daily Beast have all taken note , but failed to advance it .
Trump was asked about it during his appearance in the briefing room on Friday , but ducked and segued into a critique of the Postal Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow-up : On “ Meet the Press ” on Sunday , NBC ’ s Chuck Todd got HHS Secretary Alex Azar to essentially confirm the story – but moved on without getting him to advance it : CHUCK TODD : Mr. Secretary , I want you to see if you can clear something up for us .
As you know , there was that report this week due to a Freedom of Information Act request .
We got a copy of a press release that the United States Postal Service was going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in conjunction with your agency , HHS , there was going to be up to 650 million reusable masks sent to the hardest hit areas .
And then the implication was the White House decided against this .
You eventually — the masks were sent to various organizations , but that the White House decided to nix the idea of mailing masks essentially to the American people .
Was that a mistake ?
SEC .
ALEX AZAR : Well , Chuck , I ’ m actually glad you asked about that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ foresight of Dr. Bob Kadlec , our Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response , in the early days of the pandemic we worked with Hanes and other clothing manufacturers to retool their equipment and actually start pumping out these reusable cloth face masks .
And we distributed 650 million of those to the hardest hit areas .
At one point , we thought about shipping them to every American through the postal service , but the decision of the task force , instead , was send them where they can be used most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas .
So we got 650 million masks out .
It was just through a different mechanism , getting them where they ’ re needed most .
And we just recently got about 60 million face coverings , these cloth face coverings in a smaller size , out to kids especially in schools in under-served areas .
CHUCK TODD : Well , one of the assets of sending masks to everybody would have been it would have sent the message that masks are important at a time when the president was disputing whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SEC .
ALEX AZAR : Well , Chuck , we got 650 million masks out to where they ’ re needed most .
I think that ’ s what matters .
Get them to the hot spots and get them where they can add the absolute most value .
And you know , we ’ ve been calling for the use of face coverings since the middle of April when the president put out his guidelines for reopening America .
CNN ’ s Jake Tapper did not bring up the topic in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member Adm. Brett P. Giroir , on “ State of the Union.
” Tapper did however , give Giroir a necessary lecture : Trump ’ s defenders frequently point out that Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s leading expert on infectious diseases , initially waved off public mask use – which he did , for instance in an interview on 60 Minutes in March , in which he was evidently motivated by the legitimate concern that health care workers might face a shortage .
But by early April , the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease Control and Prevention were both formally recommending that people wear masks .
The Surgeon General even made a video showing how to make your own .
Mask use , nevertheless , remained at minimal levels for weeks longer – and has never approached full saturation .
Part of the initial problem was a lack of supply – which obviously would have been alleviated by the Postal Service plan .
Part was cultural resistance – which might have been alleviated by everyone ’ s neighbors having some , too .
And part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistance to mask-wearing– which might have been at least a bit offset by such a concrete measure as the Post Office sticking some through your mail slot .
Instead , it took three months — until July 11 –for Trump himself to wear a mask in public , for large retailers like Walmart to require masks , and for usage to really tick up .
One expert estimate is that masks reduce the risk of transmission by at least one-third .
I ’ m no epidemiologist , so I can ’ t translate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s got to be a lot .
For comparison , the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that between now and January 1 , increasing mask use to the levels seen in Singapore ( 95 percent ) “ would decrease the cumulative U.S. death toll to 298,589 , “ or 116,501 lives saved compared to the reference scenario.
” Similarly , CDC director Robert Redfield just last week told senators that the coronavirus could be controlled in six to 12 weeks if all Americans wore masks .
He called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health tool we have…more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine.
” Meanwhile , in this timeline , Trump continues to mock people who wear masks , and continues to make utterly ridiculous statements about their effectiveness .
Last week , at an ABC News town hall with George Stephanopolous , for instance , he let loose with this bizarre screed : How different would everything have been if someone at the White House hadn ’ t blocked this plan ?
We ’ ll never know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

There are so many ways that Donald Trump has fallen short in his response to the COVID-19 pandemic — so many things he could have done differently that would have saved countless lives. Most of them, however, were never even remotely possible because of his appalling character flaws and the complete lack of a rational White House decision-making process.
That’s why this one really stings: The U.S. Postal Service, it turns out, was about to send five face masks to every household in America — in April! — until someone at the White House nixed it. They even had a draft press release ready to go.
I can’t think of any one act that might have changed the pandemic timeline more than that — and we were so close!
The Washington Post disclosed — but underplayed — this astonishing might-have-been on its website last Thursday morning, mentioning it six paragraphs into an article that was more generally about thousands of pages of Postal Service emails and other documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the watchdog group American Oversight.
But the story wasn’t even on the front page of the Post the next morning, and there’s been no follow-up. A few other news organizations essentially rewrote the Post story for their own websites. And a few journalists have listlessly inquired about it, to no avail. The New York Times and the Associated Press seem to have ignored it completely.
Most significantly, no one has determined exactly who, and under what sort of pressure, killed the plan and along with it — I don’t think this is hyperbole — tens of thousands of Americans.
I don’t get it.
I don’t think there’s a bigger story right now than Trump’s ineffective, incoherent, willfully ignorant, flimflam-filled response to this deadly crisis. I think the mainstream press has allowed him to duck anything like real accountability for it and should be ceaselessly freaking out that he continues to do almost nothing about it.
And I can’t think of a more potent, visceral example of Trump’s failure than this. I can’t think of a single specific thing his administration could have done that would have changed the timeline so much.
I mean, imagine an alternate past in which the government reached into every household in America and handed them five face masks — five months ago! — with the implicit message that they should use them.
I can’t imagine anything more effective, in retrospect; anything that would have had as personal an impact on so many people; anything that would have been more welcome.
Undercovered
Tony Romm, Jacob Bogage and Lena H. Sun broke the story for the Post — under the anodyne headline “Newly revealed USPS documents show an agency struggling to manage Trump, Amazon and the pandemic.”
Eventually, they wrote about this:
At one point in April, USPS leaders drafted a news release announcing plans to distribute 650 million masks nationwide, enough to offer five face coverings to every American household. The document, which includes quotations from top USPS officials and other specifics, was never sent.
So what happened?
Before the news release was sent, however, the White House nixed the plan, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations …. “There was concern from some in the White House Domestic Policy Council and the office of the vice president that households receiving masks might create concern or panic,” one administration official said in response to the scrapped mask plan.
The Post reporters uncritically accepted Health and Human Services and White House claims that most or all of the masks were instead distributed by Project America Strong “to critical infrastructure sectors, companies, healthcare facilities, and faith-based and community organizations across the country.” But a Yahoo News report in July disclosed that the project had run out of masks as of July 1, after distributing fewer than 350 million.
As the Post noted, there was a sketchy contemporaneous report of the plan, in early April, by Axios reporters Caitlin Owens and Jonathan Swan. They described a possible “partnership in which Hanes and Fruit of the Loom manufactured millions of cloth face masks and the U.S. Postal Service would have helped deliver them.” They reported that it was championed by Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS, and supported by deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger. But “[s]everal senior officials opposed the idea, questioning its practicality,” they wrote. And they quoted a “source familiar with the situation” saying the plan was “dying a slow death.”
Since the Post story came out, ABC News, CNN, People and the Daily Beast have all taken note, but failed to advance it.
Trump was asked about it during his appearance in the briefing room on Friday, but ducked and segued into a critique of the Postal Service in general — and there was no follow-up:
Q: The Postal Service had planned on sending 650 million face masks to Americans back in April. That never happened. Why not? And was it because you were — Trump: I don’t know. I — I don’t run it, to be honest. Q: Were you running — Trump: That’s run — as you know, that’s run by a commission, and they run it. I think, frankly, if they would raise the price of packaging, you’d end up making a lot of money, or breaking even, or doing something ….
On “Meet the Press” on Sunday, NBC’s Chuck Todd got HHS Secretary Alex Azar to essentially confirm the story, but moved on without getting him to advance it:
Todd: Mr. Secretary, I want you to see if you can clear something up for us. As you know, there was that report this week due to a Freedom of Information Act request. We got a copy of a press release that the United States Postal Service was going to be sending out in April, that said in conjunction with your agency, HHS, there was going to be up to 650 million reusable masks sent to the hardest-hit areas. And then the implication was the White House decided against this. … [E]ventually the masks were sent to various organizations, but the White House decided to nix the idea of mailing masks essentially to the American people. Was that a mistake? Azar: Well, Chuck, I’m actually glad you asked about that. You know, thanks to the incredible foresight of Dr. Bob Kadlec, our assistant secretary for preparedness and response, in the early days of the pandemic we worked with Hanes and other clothing manufacturers to retool their equipment and actually start pumping out these reusable cloth face masks. And we distributed 650 million of those to the hardest hit areas. At one point, we thought about shipping them to every American through the Postal Service, but the decision of the task force, instead, was send them where they can be used most, to the hottest, most active areas. So we got 650 million masks out. It was just through a different mechanism, getting them where they’re needed most. And we just recently got about 60 million face coverings, these cloth face coverings in a smaller size, out to kids especially in schools in underserved areas. Todd: Well, one of the assets of sending masks to everybody would have been it would have sent the message that masks are important, at a time when the president was disputing whether he should be wearing a mask. Azar: Well, Chuck, we got 650 million masks out to where they’re needed most. I think that’s what matters. Get them to the hot spots and get them where they can add the absolute most value. And you know, we’ve been calling for the use of face coverings since the middle of April when the president put out his guidelines for reopening America.
CNN’s Jake Tapper did not bring up the topic in his interview with White House virus task force member Adm. Brett P. Giroir, on “State of the Union.” Tapper did however, give Giroir a necessary lecture:
The most powerful person in this country is constantly undermining your message about mask-wearing. You need to convince him to change that message, because one of the reasons spread continues is because people are not respecting the words you are saying, words that I think are very important.
An alternate timeline
Trump’s defenders frequently point out that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, initially waved off public mask use — as he did, for instance, in an interview aired on “60 Minutes” in March, evidently motivated by the legitimate concern that health care workers might face a shortage.
But by early April, the White House coronavirus task force and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were both formally recommending that people wear masks. The Surgeon General even made a video showing how to make your own.
Mask use, nevertheless, remained at minimal levels for weeks longer, and has never approached full saturation.
Part of the initial problem was a lack of supply — which obviously would have been alleviated by the Postal Service plan. Part of it was also cultural resistance, which might have been alleviated by everyone’s neighbors having masks too. And part, of course, was Trump’s continued personal resistance to mask-wearing — which might have been at least a bit offset by such a concrete measure as the neighborhood letter carrier sticking some through your mail slot.
Instead, it took three months — until July 11 — for Trump himself to wear a mask in public, for large retailers like Walmart to require masks and for usage to really tick up.
One expert estimate is that masks reduce the risk of transmission by at least one-third. I’m no epidemiologist, so I can’t translate that into number of lives lost. But it’s got to be a lot.
For comparison, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that between now and the end of this year, increasing mask use to the levels seen in Singapore (95 percent) “would decrease the cumulative U.S. death toll to 298,589, “or 116,501 lives saved compared to the reference scenario.”
Similarly, CDC director Robert Redfield just last week told senators that the coronavirus could be controlled in six to 12 weeks if all Americans wore masks. He called face coverings the most “powerful public health tool we have … more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine.”
Meanwhile, in this timeline, Trump continues to mock people who wear masks, and continues to make utterly ridiculous statements about their effectiveness. Last week, during an ABC News town hall with George Stephanopoulos, for instance, he let loose with this bizarre screed:
Trump: … [B]y the way, a lot of people don’t want to wear masks. There are a lot of people think that masks are not good. And there are a lot of people that, as an example, you have … Stephanopoulos: Who are those people? Trump: I’ll tell you who those people are — waiters. They come over and they serve you, and they have a mask. And I saw it the other day where they were serving me, and they’re playing with the mask. … I’m not blaming them. … I’m just saying what happens. They’re playing with the mask, so the mask is over, and they’re touching it, and then they’re touching the plate. That can’t be good.
How different would everything have been if someone at the White House hadn’t blocked this plan? We’ll never know, and it’s a crushing tragedy.


presswatchers--2020-09-23--Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought for equality. The media should be clear that Trump’s pick will do the opp

Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought for equality. The media should be clear that Trump’s pick will do the opposite.

The breathless horserace coverage about Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat on the Supreme Court risks normalizing as just another partisan squabble what is in fact an epic clash between two starkly different visions of America , only one of which can be accurately described by the phrase engraved above the court ’ s front entrance : “ equal justice under law.
” Based on what we know about Trump ’ s top judicial appointees thus far , his choice to replace Ginsburg will be a radical extremist , not just by Democratic standards but by the standards of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards of jurists installed by previous Republican administrations .
As a group , Trump ’ s appointees to the courts represent not just a retrograde view of women ’ s rights , gay rights , and voting rights , they also vest power in corporations over workers and consumers , and in the presidency over Congress , while drastically limiting the government ’ s ability to establish new rights and regulations .
Much like their champion , their views hearken back to a golden era of White Christian America that never really existed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are fundamentally out of step with the American people , and with the American story .
A lot has been written about Ginsburg ’ s legacy , and much of it has been wonderful , but the who ’ s-up-who ’ s-down coverage about her succession is pushing aside necessary context about what is at stake if she ’ s replaced by someone with essentially opposing views .
A recent report from the progressive group People for the American Way , for instance , collected evidence of how extreme Trump judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges .
PFAW , which also produces the must-read blog series Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears , found that : Some of the mainstream coverage is indicative of some of what ’ s at stake .
Ginsburg ’ s death “ marks the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act .
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case the week after the general election in November , ” Julie Rovner reported for NPR .
Samantha Schmidt and Sarah Pulliam Bailey wrote in the Washington Post that a conservative replacement for Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious rights while threatening years of advancements for the LGBTQ community , legal experts and activists say ” : Martha C. White wrote for NBC News that “ consumer and worker advocates are already bracing for the worst.
” She quoted Adam Winkler , a law professor at the University of California , Los Angeles , saying : “ Trump ’ s judicial nominations have typically narrowed consumer protections , restricted the rights of employees and unions , while expanding the rights of corporations and curtailing business regulation.
” But even these stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possible change .
“ They are talking about how far to the right the court has moved , but what I think is escaping people is that it ’ s not just in a few areas , ” Brennan Center senior fellow Caroline Fredrickson told me in phone interview .
“ They may think , ‘ Oh , abortion and gay rights ’ , ” she said , “ but they don ’ t understand all the doctrinal changes that have really made it extremely difficult to move forward on regulation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointees “ envision the power of the presidency , ” or how they tolerate gerrymandering , or “ their completely unbalanced views on corporate and business law.
” The New York Times on Tuesday briefly hoisted back onto its home page a major review by Rebecca R. Ruiz , Robert Gebeloff , Steve Eder and Ben Protess from March that found that “ the Trump class of appellate judges , much like the president himself , breaks significantly with the norms set by his Democratic and Republican predecessors , Barack Obama and George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whiter , younger , more ideological and more politically active , the Times found , they are also more activist — or as one law professor put it , “ they ’ re reliable policy agents.
” But even that doesn ’ t properly grasp the issue .
Coming closer was last May ’ s big Washington Post takeout on Leonard Leo , the executive vice president of the Federalist Society.and Trump judge whisperer , by Robert O ’ Harrow Jr. and Shawn Boburg .
While the Post story was mostly about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by $ 250 million in secret “ dark money , ” to achieve a radical right-wing social and economic agenda , it also provided a few amazing insights into the motives and thinking of Leo and his allies .
So for example , it ’ s not just that Federalist Society leadership is opposed to affirmative action — which , while still considered controversial , enjoys the support of a sizable majority of Americans — they actually oppose diversity itself !
Consider : One reason I believe reporters aren ’ t writing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are is that they think the public is considerably more conservative than it really is .
( Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham posted a tweet on Tuesday reminding us of a survey that actually quantified how much congressional staffers do that . )
If you think a lot of the public opposes abortion rights or gay rights or campaign finance reform — or think the public is generally center-right in its social and political views — then maybe Trump adding a sixth reliably right-wing vote to the Supreme Court doesn ’ t seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you think those things , you ’ re wrong .
Ruth Bader Ginsburg represented American values of fairness and equality .
The person Donald Trump picks will not .

The breathless horserace coverage about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court risks normalizing as just another partisan squabble what is in fact an epic clash between two starkly different visions of America, only one of which can be accurately described by the phrase engraved above the court’s front entrance: “equal justice under law.”
Based on what we know about Trump’s top judicial appointees thus far, his choice to replace Ginsburg will be a radical extremist, not just by Democratic standards but by the standards of the general public, and even by the standards of jurists installed by previous Republican administrations.
As a group, Trump’s appointees to the courts represent not just a retrograde view of women’s rights, gay rights, and voting rights, they also vest power in corporations over workers and consumers, and in the presidency over Congress, while drastically limiting the government’s ability to establish new rights and regulations. Much like their champion, their views hearken back to a golden era of White Christian America that never really existed, and bear little relationship to reality. They are fundamentally out of step with the American people, and with the American story.
A lot has been written about Ginsburg’s legacy, and much of it has been wonderful, but the who’s-up-who’s-down coverage about her succession is pushing aside necessary context about what is at stake if she’s replaced by someone with essentially opposing views.
A recent report from the progressive group People for the American Way, for instance, collected evidence of how extreme Trump judges are even compared to Reagan and Bush judges. PFAW, which also produces the must-read blog series Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears, found that:
On issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, police violence, gun safety, consumer rights against corporations, and the environment, Trump judges have consistently sided with right-wing special interests over the American people — even measured against other Republican-appointed judges.
Some of the mainstream coverage is indicative of some of what’s at stake.
Ginsburg’s death “marks the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case the week after the general election in November,” Julie Rovner reported for NPR.
Samantha Schmidt and Sarah Pulliam Bailey wrote in the Washington Post that a conservative replacement for Ginsburg “could provide a major boost to religious rights while threatening years of advancements for the LGBTQ community, legal experts and activists say”:
Ginsburg not only played a critical role in voting in favor of LGBTQ rights but also voted to keep religious exemptions within narrow boundaries, said David B. Cruz, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. Her absence, and her replacement by a conservative justice, could help tip the scale toward curtailing LGBTQ rights.
Martha C. White wrote for NBC News that “consumer and worker advocates are already bracing for the worst.” She quoted Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, saying: “Trump’s judicial nominations have typically narrowed consumer protections, restricted the rights of employees and unions, while expanding the rights of corporations and curtailing business regulation.”
But even these stories aren’t grasping the enormity of the possible change. “They are talking about how far to the right the court has moved, but what I think is escaping people is that it’s not just in a few areas,” Brennan Center senior fellow Caroline Fredrickson told me in phone interview. “They may think, ‘Oh, abortion and gay rights’,” she said, “but they don’t understand all the doctrinal changes that have really made it extremely difficult to move forward on regulation in the future,” or how Trump appointees “envision the power of the presidency,” or how they tolerate gerrymandering, or “their completely unbalanced views on corporate and business law.”
The New York Times on Tuesday briefly hoisted back onto its home page a major review by Rebecca R. Ruiz, Robert Gebeloff, Steve Eder and Ben Protess from March that found that “the Trump class of appellate judges, much like the president himself, breaks significantly with the norms set by his Democratic and Republican predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.”
Not only are they whiter, younger, more ideological and more politically active, the Times found, they are also more activist — or as one law professor put it, “they’re reliable policy agents.”
But even that doesn’t properly grasp the issue. Coming closer was last May’s big Washington Post takeout on Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society.and Trump judge whisperer, by Robert O’Harrow Jr. and Shawn Boburg.
While the Post story was mostly about how Leo is engineering an effort, fueled by $250 million in secret “dark money,” to achieve a radical right-wing social and economic agenda, it also provided a few amazing insights into the motives and thinking of Leo and his allies.
So for example, it’s not just that Federalist Society leadership is opposed to affirmative action — which, while still considered controversial, enjoys the support of a sizable majority of Americans — they actually oppose diversity itself! Consider:
In January 2003, Leo called White House officials, including [then-staffer Brett] Kavanaugh, to object to a plan by [George W.] Bush to weigh in on affirmative action. Bush was going to criticize the practice but praise racial diversity. Leo complained that praising diversity would “disgust any conservative who thinks that this is a matter of principle,” according to a previously unreported email by a White House official describing one of the calls.
One reason I believe reporters aren’t writing more about how radical Trump’s appointees are is that they think the public is considerably more conservative than it really is. (Washington Post reporter Christopher Ingraham posted a tweet on Tuesday reminding us of a survey that actually quantified how much congressional staffers do that.)
If you think a lot of the public opposes abortion rights or gay rights or campaign finance reform — or think the public is generally center-right in its social and political views — then maybe Trump adding a sixth reliably right-wing vote to the Supreme Court doesn’t seem like such a big deal.
But if you think those things, you’re wrong. Ruth Bader Ginsburg represented American values of fairness and equality. The person Donald Trump picks will not.


presswatchers--2020-09-24--The alarms are ringing everywhere but in our top newsrooms

People who know and care about elections and democracy frantically sounded the alarm on Wednesday as Donald Trump ’ s intention to steal the election became undeniable .
But the leaders of our nation ’ s top newsroom weren ’ t listening .
The New York Times put its article on Trump refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power on page A15 .
The Washington Post story was on A4 .
Other news organizations underplayed it as well .
Despite all the other news , this should have been a screamer headline everywhere .
Consider the magnitude of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Trump ’ s comments , one of the country ’ s top election law scholars , Richard Hasen , had written in Slate that “ the litigation strategy of the Trump campaign and its allies has become clear : try to block the expansion of mail-in balloting whenever possible and , in a few key states , create enough chaos in the system and legal and political uncertainty in the results that the Supreme Court , Congress , or Republican legislatures can throw the election to Trump if the outcome is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Atlantic had published Barton Gellman ’ s terrifying , detailed article describing scenarios in which Trump “ uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him.
” Gellman actually buried – deeply buried – the lede , which was that he had proof that “ the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.
” Then , during an afternoon appearance ostensibly about ending anti-conservative censorship in social media ( hah ! )
, Trump just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as day .
After engaging in his typically baseless conspiracy-theory-spreading about counterfeit mail-in ballots , he was asked if that ’ s why he ’ s in a such a hurry to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
THE PRESIDENT : Well , it ’ s a great question .
It ’ s a very fair question .
Yes , I think it ’ s very important .
I think this will end up in the Supreme Court .
And I think it ’ s very important that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s better if you go before the election because I think this — this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it ’ s a scam — this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court .
And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation , if you get that .
I don ’ t know that you ’ d get that .
I think it should be 8-nothing or 9-nothing .
But just in case it would be more political than it should be , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a ninth justice .
You can ’ t get any clearer than that .
As Atlantic writer Edward Isaac-Dovere tweeted : Trump fully intends the Supreme Court – not the voters – to make the call .
And that of course is because his campaign strategy is not to win a majority of the votes , just to win enough to be able to toss things to the lawyers .
As far as I ’ m concerned , that remains the major revelation of the day – even after Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a peaceful transition of power .
Here ’ s the full exchange with Playboy correspondent Brian Karem , at Trump ’ s early-evening press conference : Q Mr. President , real quickly : Win , lose , or draw in this election , will you commit here , today , for a peaceful transferal of power after the election ?
And there has been rioting in Louisville .
There ’ s been rioting in many cities across this country — red and — your so-called red and blue states .
Will you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a peaceful transferal of power after the election ?
THE PRESIDENT : Well , we ’ re going to have to see what happens .
You know that .
I ’ ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots .
And the ballots are a disaster .
And — and — Q I understand that , but people are rioting .
Do you commit to making sure that — THE PRESIDENT : Oh , I know .
I know .
Yeah , no , we want — THE PRESIDENT : We want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you ’ ll have a very trans- — we ’ ll have a very peaceful — there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly ; there ’ ll be a continuation .
The ballots are out of control .
You know it .
And you know who knows it better than — Q No , sir .
I don ’ t know that .
THE PRESIDENT : — anybody else ?
The Democrats know it better than anybody else .
There is only one legitimate , decent , normal answer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although I think Trump was primarily reacting the way he always does to the suggestion that he might lose — and was also continuing his attempts to delegitimize mail-in ballots — his inability to say “ of course ” was epic : the stuff of which history is made ; the stuff of banner headlines .
To the extent that Trump ’ s intention to steal the election is undeniable , well , at day ’ s end , Trump himself didn ’ t deny it .
There ’ s some evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnitude of what they had witnessed .
In the New York Times , Michael Crowley wrote a story full of important context — and stated , quite definitively : And he quoted Julian E. Zelizer , a professor of American political history at Princeton University , as saying : In a New York Times “ live update ” on Thursday , Jonathan Martin explained that “ this was no typical Trump provocation : Acceding to the will of the voters is the linchpin of American democracy.
” But as usual , to capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on , you have to go to the opinion writers – and the editorial cartoonists .
So here is the Washington Post ’ s Greg Sargent , explaining that “ what really matters here is that Trump is making an actual declaration of intent — not just to refuse to respect the outcome , but rather to try to cancel and override it , if he is able to get away with it.
” And read this incredible Twitter thread from Crooked media editor in chief Brian Beutler , prompted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Joe Biden ’ s tardiness .
It killed me .
So the big question then is : Why did senior editors decide to bury the story ?
I have some theories .
( Keep in mind that the entire work product of Press Watch is , in some ways , my attempt to answer that and related questions . )
One overarching problem is that our major newsrooms have simply gotten so corporate and even-keeled that our top editors value unflappability as a signal virtue .
( OK , I admit I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being a flappable person .
A top Washington Post editor once called me “ hysterical.
” ) Flappable people don ’ t rise through the ranks .
Corporate people do .
Journalism to me is about crusading for the truth .
But the notion that a serious , major news organization would pursue a crusade on behalf of its community is considered hippy shit by the people in charge these days .
So is consistently standing up to a lawless con man .
They ’ ve gotten used to printing lies .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ enemy of the people.
” They have their algorithms , and they won ’ t give them up no matter what .
They just continue to “ do the work.
” So yeah , their news souls are dead .
There , I said it .
The more immediate cause , however , is that these newsroom leaders made a considered , intentional decision not to panic after Trump was elected .
This was an epic , obvious mistake , and everything that has happened since was in some sense entirely predictable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war footing – and by that I don ’ t mean a partisan war against Trump , I mean a journalistic war against lies , ignorance and intolerance .
These top editors decided instead that they had made a mistake in underestimating – and not sufficiently heeding – the ( not majority of ) people who voted for Trump .
So they sent reporters out to diners to talk to Trump supporters instead of trying to educate and redeem them .
They decided their normal methods of covering a president were appropriate – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , were too important to modify for just one .
So they got used to writing stories about whatever Trump said , like this was normal .
They decided to keep a level head .
And now they can ’ t suddenly change their behavior .
Partly , it ’ s inertia .
But it ’ s also because that would be admitting that maybe they were wrong before .
And they ’ re too proud to admit they ’ re wrong .
So they don ’ t listen to the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They muffle the alarms , hand out earplugs , close the windows , and tell everyone to continue business as usual .

People who know and care about elections and democracy frantically sounded the alarm on Wednesday as Donald Trump’s intention to steal the election became undeniable.
But the leaders of our nation’s top newsroom weren’t listening. The New York Times put its article on Trump refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power on page A15. The Washington Post story was on A4. Other news organizations underplayed it as well. Despite all the other news, this should have been a screamer headline everywhere.
Consider the magnitude of what they ignored on Wednesday.
Even before Trump’s comments, one of the country’s top election law scholars, Richard Hasen, had written in Slate that “the litigation strategy of the Trump campaign and its allies has become clear: try to block the expansion of mail-in balloting whenever possible and, in a few key states, create enough chaos in the system and legal and political uncertainty in the results that the Supreme Court, Congress, or Republican legislatures can throw the election to Trump if the outcome is at all close or in doubt.”
Hasen’s stark conclusion: “This is a five-alarm fire, folks. It’s time to wake up.”
As NPR media reporter David Folkenflik tweeted:
Noted election law scholar sets off alarms, flares, fireworks, klaxons, bugles, accordions, tubas, banshees, panjandrums, stuck pigs, stuck pugs, scrimmage-line audibles, Hail Marys and more https://t.co/X9paQMh34n — David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) September 23, 2020
And the Atlantic had published Barton Gellman’s terrifying, detailed article describing scenarios in which Trump “uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him.”
Gellman actually buried – deeply buried – the lede, which was that he had proof that “the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.”
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe tweeted:
Everyone needs to understand this danger, which I’ve been explaining ever since July. We need to take Trump’s threats to destroy democracy seriously and link arms to sweep him and his Senate enablers from power. An unprecedented turnout is the key. https://t.co/e8WZLCDrUU — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) September 24, 2020
Then, during an afternoon appearance ostensibly about ending anti-conservative censorship in social media (hah!), Trump just laid out his plan just as plain as day.
After engaging in his typically baseless conspiracy-theory-spreading about counterfeit mail-in ballots, he was asked if that’s why he’s in a such a hurry to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
He replied:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s a great question. It’s a very fair question. Yes, I think it’s very important. I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices…. I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think this — this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation, if you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8-nothing or 9-nothing. But just in case it would be more political than it should be, I think it’s very important to have a ninth justice.
You can’t get any clearer than that. As Atlantic writer Edward Isaac-Dovere tweeted:
the president is saying clearly that part of why he wants to have his allies in the Senate rush confirmation for his choice for the Supreme Court is so that the new justice would potentially be able to turn around and help give him a second termhttps://t.co/337Wq8cptK — Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) September 23, 2020
Trump fully intends the Supreme Court – not the voters – to make the call. And that of course is because his campaign strategy is not to win a majority of the votes, just to win enough to be able to toss things to the lawyers.
As far as I’m concerned, that remains the major revelation of the day – even after Trump’s mind-blowing and somewhat incoherent refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power.
Here’s the full exchange with Playboy correspondent Brian Karem, at Trump’s early-evening press conference:
Q Mr. President, real quickly: Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here, today, for a peaceful transferal of power after the election? And there has been rioting in Louisville. There’s been rioting in many cities across this country — red and — your so-called red and blue states. Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election? THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster. And — and — Q I understand that, but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure that — THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I know. I know. Yeah, no, we want — Q — there’s a peaceful transferal of power? THE PRESIDENT: We want to have — get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very trans- — we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly; there’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than — Q No, sir. I don’t know that. THE PRESIDENT: — anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.
There is only one legitimate, decent, normal answer to that question: “Of course.”
Although I think Trump was primarily reacting the way he always does to the suggestion that he might lose — and was also continuing his attempts to delegitimize mail-in ballots — his inability to say “of course” was epic: the stuff of which history is made; the stuff of banner headlines.
To the extent that Trump’s intention to steal the election is undeniable, well, at day’s end, Trump himself didn’t deny it.
There’s some evidence that at least some major-newsroom reporters understood the magnitude of what they had witnessed. In the New York Times, Michael Crowley wrote a story full of important context — and stated, quite definitively:
Mr. Trump’s refusal — or inability — to endorse perhaps the most fundamental tenet of American democracy, as any president in memory surely would have, was the latest instance in which he has cast grave uncertainty around the November election and its aftermath.
And he quoted Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of American political history at Princeton University, as saying:
“He’s threatening the election process and saying out loud what everyone has assumed he’s been thinking… The more he makes these arguments, the more he normalizes the fact that this can be part of the conversation.”
In a New York Times “live update” on Thursday, Jonathan Martin explained that “this was no typical Trump provocation: Acceding to the will of the voters is the linchpin of American democracy.”
(Much more lamely, the Washington Post’s Colby Itkowitz noted Trump’s previous threats not to accept election results and concluded that “Refusing to ensure he would support a peaceful transfer of power between administrations if he loses this year’s election seems to escalate that threat amid partisan tensions.”)
But as usual, to capture the real drama of what’s going on, you have to go to the opinion writers – and the editorial cartoonists.
So here is the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, explaining that “what really matters here is that Trump is making an actual declaration of intent — not just to refuse to respect the outcome, but rather to try to cancel and override it, if he is able to get away with it.”
Here is cartoonist Ann Telnaes:
Trump intends to win by hook or by crook https://t.co/EyS1zPUZws pic.twitter.com/wLJKccs3LD — Ann Telnaes (@AnnTelnaes) September 24, 2020
And read this incredible Twitter thread from Crooked media editor in chief Brian Beutler, prompted by the extraordinary spectacle of campaign reporters complaining bitterly about Joe Biden’s tardiness. It killed me.
Campaign press always wants to show willingness to be Tough on Both Sides, but in this case, trite high-dudgeon access complaints serve a larger purpose: it's safe harbor for minds wracked with anxiety over bearing faithful witness to the authoritarian meltdown confronting us. pic.twitter.com/1Rx3b50mZp — Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) September 24, 2020
Why ignore the alarms?
So the big question then is: Why did senior editors decide to bury the story?
I have some theories. (Keep in mind that the entire work product of Press Watch is, in some ways, my attempt to answer that and related questions.)
One overarching problem is that our major newsrooms have simply gotten so corporate and even-keeled that our top editors value unflappability as a signal virtue. (OK, I admit I take this one a little personally, being a flappable person. A top Washington Post editor once called me “hysterical.”) Flappable people don’t rise through the ranks. Corporate people do.
Journalism to me is about crusading for the truth. But the notion that a serious, major news organization would pursue a crusade on behalf of its community is considered hippy shit by the people in charge these days. So is consistently standing up to a lawless con man. They’ve gotten used to printing lies. They barely squawk when Trump calls them the “enemy of the people.” They have their algorithms, and they won’t give them up no matter what. They just continue to “do the work.”
So yeah, their news souls are dead. There, I said it.
The more immediate cause, however, is that these newsroom leaders made a considered, intentional decision not to panic after Trump was elected. This was an epic, obvious mistake, and everything that has happened since was in some sense entirely predictable.
They should have gone on a war footing – and by that I don’t mean a partisan war against Trump, I mean a journalistic war against lies, ignorance and intolerance.
These top editors decided instead that they had made a mistake in underestimating – and not sufficiently heeding – the (not majority of) people who voted for Trump. So they sent reporters out to diners to talk to Trump supporters instead of trying to educate and redeem them.
They decided their normal methods of covering a president were appropriate – and, even if they weren’t, were too important to modify for just one. So they got used to writing stories about whatever Trump said, like this was normal.
They decided to keep a level head.
And now they can’t suddenly change their behavior. Partly, it’s inertia. But it’s also because that would be admitting that maybe they were wrong before. And they’re too proud to admit they’re wrong.
So they don’t listen to the people warning them of the extraordinary danger ahead. They muffle the alarms, hand out earplugs, close the windows, and tell everyone to continue business as usual.