presswatchers--2020-11-09--Hey political reporters – get lost!

Hey political reporters – get lost!

Our top political reporters must be exhausted .
I suggest they take some time off .
Like , a year or two .
Because they are the worst people in the world to be setting the tone for a new presidency at a time of unparalleled challenges .
What the country needs now is a clean-slate , expertise-respecting , evidence-based , thorough-going examination of the policies required to address the pandemic , the crashed economy , climate change , systemic racism , crippling health-care costs and collapsing infrastructure – just for starters .
But political reporters hate writing about policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subject matter .
They also think it ’ s boring , that readers don ’ t care about it , and that it can come dangerously close to the dreaded “ taking of sides “ .
Our top newsrooms should be focused on questions like : What are Biden ’ s plans ?
Will they work ?
If they seem likely to work , what and who is standing in their way ?
Instead , the nation ’ s top political reporters — addicted to conflict and gamesmanship — find comfort only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they can roughly equate .
So during the Trump years , they normalized a highly abnormal presidency – covering him as if he were not wildly incoherent , irrational , racist , thuggish and incompetent .
Recognizing the truth would have been tantamount to taking sides against him and the party he so successfully coopted .
In order to even the playing field between two parties that have wildly asymmetrical relationships with reality , political reporters hold Republicans to essentially no standards whatsoever .
By contrast , some of the standards they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now their storyline is that if Joe Biden doesn ’ t unify the nation , he will have failed .
Case in point : The latest installment of Washington Post chief correspondent Dan Balz ’ s master class in the failed school of modern political reporting ( more examples here ) headlined Biden promises to unite the country .
After this election , is it even possible ?
Balz ’ s article started off with lip service to the actual policy challenges Biden faces : But that ’ s not what really interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcome almost exactly what he will now inherit — both deep division among the people and toxicity in the body politic , ” Balz wrote .
“ If he fails in this overriding objective , his presidency could end up in disappointment and stasis.
” Again , later : “ Biden faces a series of obstacles that threaten his ability to unite the country and therefore govern successfully.
” Balz grudgingly noted that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might have a bit of a role here : “ The posture McConnell adopts toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the president-elect can begin to make good on his pledge to repair a broken government and show a way out of the rancorous politics of the day.
” But Balz also warned gravely of the threat from the progressive left , and how Biden will have to “ referee an internecine battle at a moment when the president-elect will need as much unity and harmony within the party as possible.
” Similarly , Associated Press Washington bureau chief Julie Pace set a tone for her stable of reporters with her analysis : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly be tested.
” And over at McClatchy , under the headline Biden delivered on defeating Trump .
But the honeymoon will be short , reporters David Catanese and Alex Roarty focused on conflict and optics and process , empty of substance .
They wrote : NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen called out some of the problems with the “ healing divisions ” narrative : And author Rick Perlstein gave CNN anchor Jake Tapper props for not buying into it : Indeed , here is Tapper ’ s whole quote from Saturday evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the cable-news pundit class here , but I think that his critique fully extends to political reporters ( some of whom , of course , are also cable-news pundits ) .
By “ not taking sides , ” they too often are essentially siding with inertia .
And this is no time for inertia .
The people we need to hear from are the beat reporters who know what they ’ re writing about .
The most urgent challenge , of course , is the pandemic .
Biden ’ s appointment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headlines everywhere , but health writers like Lev Facher at STAT News have been digging into Biden ’ s plans and writing about them evocatively : Instantly , he will shoulder several herculean tasks , including a massive testing scale-up , restoring the credibility of government scientists , and overseeing the eventual distribution of hundreds of millions of vaccine doses .
Perhaps most daunting , in a country plagued by apathy and misinformation : Biden will need to earn the buy-in of the American public .
Much of the work has already begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden health advisers described a forthcoming effort to court skeptical mayors and governors , select and vet leaders for key public health agencies , and set a new tone for the nation ’ s pandemic response , even in the 10 weeks before he takes office… .
“ There are some things he ’ s going to do right off the bat , ” said Nicole Lurie , a Biden campaign adviser who served as the Obama administration ’ s top pandemic-preparedness official .
“ He will reach out to Tony Fauci .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an active participant in the WHO and in the world .
And I believe that in very short order , he ’ ll be in touch with governors and mayors around the country , listening to what it is that they ’ ll need to pivot this response.
” Here is AP economics writer Josh Boak laying out the problem on his beat : And the possible outcome : New York Times economic policy reporters Alan Rappeport , Jeanna Smialek , Ana Swanson and Jim Tankersley explored a number of steps Biden could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have three Washington Post environmental reporters — Juliet Eilperin , Dino Grandoni and Darryl Fears – writing about Biden ’ s climate change plans : Obviously , there are some political loose ends here and there that still need to be tied up , so maybe we can keep a few political reporters on call .
But it ’ s time to stop obsessing over the stupid questions Trump has been raising for the last four years , and start addressing the real ones .

Our top political reporters must be exhausted. I suggest they take some time off.
Like, a year or two.
Because they are the worst people in the world to be setting the tone for a new presidency at a time of unparalleled challenges.
What the country needs now is a clean-slate, expertise-respecting, evidence-based, thorough-going examination of the policies required to address the pandemic, the crashed economy, climate change, systemic racism, crippling health-care costs and collapsing infrastructure – just for starters.
But political reporters hate writing about policy, because it takes actual knowledge of the subject matter. They also think it’s boring, that readers don’t care about it, and that it can come dangerously close to the dreaded “taking of sides“.
Our top newsrooms should be focused on questions like: What are Biden’s plans? Will they work? If they seem likely to work, what and who is standing in their way?
Instead, the nation’s top political reporters — addicted to conflict and gamesmanship — find comfort only in storylines where there are two sides that they can roughly equate.
So during the Trump years, they normalized a highly abnormal presidency – covering him as if he were not wildly incoherent, irrational, racist, thuggish and incompetent. Recognizing the truth would have been tantamount to taking sides against him and the party he so successfully coopted.
In order to even the playing field between two parties that have wildly asymmetrical relationships with reality, political reporters hold Republicans to essentially no standards whatsoever. By contrast, some of the standards they set for Democrats are impossible.
So now their storyline is that if Joe Biden doesn’t unify the nation, he will have failed.
Case in point: The latest installment of Washington Post chief correspondent Dan Balz’s master class in the failed school of modern political reporting (more examples here) headlined Biden promises to unite the country. After this election, is it even possible?
Balz’s article started off with lip service to the actual policy challenges Biden faces:
The issue agenda alone is crushing, from the coronavirus pandemic to a weakened and unequal economy, to the threats posed by climate change, to cries for an overdue reckoning on race and justice. Those are just the top layer of the president-elect’s inbox and together they could consume most of his initial term in office.
But that’s not what really interested him. Biden “ran promising to overcome almost exactly what he will now inherit — both deep division among the people and toxicity in the body politic,” Balz wrote.
“If he fails in this overriding objective, his presidency could end up in disappointment and stasis.”
Again, later: “Biden faces a series of obstacles that threaten his ability to unite the country and therefore govern successfully.”
Balz grudgingly noted that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might have a bit of a role here: “The posture McConnell adopts toward Biden will go some ways in determining whether the president-elect can begin to make good on his pledge to repair a broken government and show a way out of the rancorous politics of the day.”
But Balz also warned gravely of the threat from the progressive left, and how Biden will have to “referee an internecine battle at a moment when the president-elect will need as much unity and harmony within the party as possible.”
Similarly, Associated Press Washington bureau chief Julie Pace set a tone for her stable of reporters with her analysis: “Biden claims a mandate that will quickly be tested.”
And over at McClatchy, under the headline Biden delivered on defeating Trump. But the honeymoon will be short, reporters David Catanese and Alex Roarty focused on conflict and optics and process, empty of substance. They wrote:
Following Joe Biden’s drawn-out and hard-fought victory over President Donald Trump, he will immediately face pressure from the left and right about his proposed agenda and the roster of personnel he’ll surround himself with as he prepares to govern a bitterly divided country.
NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen called out some of the problems with the “healing divisions” narrative:
This is why I don't see "healing divisions" as job one. First task is gaining control of the virus so we can have our lives back. Second: halting and reversing the unbuilding of the government. Third: learning to limit the damage of a counter-majoritarian "remained defiant" GOP. https://t.co/XYYfuNfeD9 — Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) November 7, 2020
And author Rick Perlstein gave CNN anchor Jake Tapper props for not buying into it:
Change I can believe in: heads like Jake tapper are talking like this: "I don't think we need to bend over backwards and pretend that the country moving on and MAGA nation moving on depends upon what Joe Biden does"! — Rick Perlstein (@rickperlstein) November 8, 2020
Indeed, here is Tapper’s whole quote from Saturday evening:
I don’t think we need to bend over backwards and pretend that the country moving on and MAGA nation moving on depends upon what Joe Biden does. Like Joe Biden is going to do what he can. And if a chunk of the leaders of the Republican Party want to drag the nation down with them, that’s up to them…. But he’s going to be governing and they can either join him or get out of the way.
Author Anand Giridharadas was presumably tweeting about the cable-news pundit class here, but I think that his critique fully extends to political reporters (some of whom, of course, are also cable-news pundits). By “not taking sides,” they too often are essentially siding with inertia. And this is no time for inertia.
The people least interested in real change should not be the principal pundits interpreting this moment of potential transformation. Those who got us into this mess will not guide us out. — Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) November 8, 2020
Beat reporting please
The people we need to hear from are the beat reporters who know what they’re writing about.
The most urgent challenge, of course, is the pandemic. Biden’s appointment of a heavy-hitting task force on Monday made headlines everywhere, but health writers like Lev Facher at STAT News have been digging into Biden’s plans and writing about them evocatively:
Instantly, he will shoulder several herculean tasks, including a massive testing scale-up, restoring the credibility of government scientists, and overseeing the eventual distribution of hundreds of millions of vaccine doses. Perhaps most daunting, in a country plagued by apathy and misinformation: Biden will need to earn the buy-in of the American public. Much of the work has already begun. In interviews with STAT, several Biden health advisers described a forthcoming effort to court skeptical mayors and governors, select and vet leaders for key public health agencies, and set a new tone for the nation’s pandemic response, even in the 10 weeks before he takes office…. “There are some things he’s going to do right off the bat,” said Nicole Lurie, a Biden campaign adviser who served as the Obama administration’s top pandemic-preparedness official. “He will reach out to Tony Fauci. He will declare his intent to be an active participant in the WHO and in the world. And I believe that in very short order, he’ll be in touch with governors and mayors around the country, listening to what it is that they’ll need to pivot this response.”
(I should point out that fully eight months ago, I called for political reporters and editors to cede pandemic coverage to journalists who cover health and science, to better serve the public’s need to understand what needs to be done rather than who’s winning the narrative.)
Here is AP economics writer Josh Boak laying out the problem on his beat:
The once robust recovery has shown signs of gasping after federal aid lapsed. Ten million remain jobless and more layoffs are becoming permanent. The Federal Reserve says factory output dropped. Parents cannot return to work as childcare centers have shuttered. Restaurants and local retailers are draining whatever cash reserves are left–with many owners wondering if the next week might be their last. One in six restaurants was already closed in September, according to an industry survey.
The difficulty Biden faces:
He is expected to somehow inject enough aid to sustain workers, businesses and state and local governments, without necessarily having enough congressional partners who share his concerns.
And the possible outcome:
“The risk is that the recovery goes into reverse,” said Gregory Daco, an economist for the consultancy Oxford Economics.
New York Times economic policy reporters Alan Rappeport, Jeanna Smialek, Ana Swanson and Jim Tankersley explored a number of steps Biden could take without congressional support:
That includes providing student debt relief, which Ms. Wong said would work as a sort of stimulus by removing the burden of those payments. Mr. Biden could direct the Education secretary to forgive student loans up to a certain amount…. The administration could also use executive authority to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 an hour, she said, providing a pay boost for many thousands of workers.
And here you have three Washington Post environmental reporters — Juliet Eilperin, Dino Grandoni and Darryl Fears – writing about Biden’s climate change plans:
While some of Biden’s most sweeping programs will encounter stiff resistance from Senate Republicans and conservative attorneys general, the United States is poised to make a 180-degree turn on climate change and conservation policy. Biden’s team already has plans on how it will restrict oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters; ratchet up federal mileage standards for cars and SUVs; block pipelines that transport fossil fuels across the country; provide federal incentives to develop renewable power; and mobilize other nations to make deeper cuts in their own carbon emissions.… The new administration may be able to broker compromises with key industries that have experienced regulatory whiplash in the past decade, including the auto industry and power sector, while offering tax breaks for renewable energy that remain popular with both parties. And Biden can rebuild diplomatic alliances that will spur foreign countries to pursue more-ambitious carbon reductions.
Obviously, there are some political loose ends here and there that still need to be tied up, so maybe we can keep a few political reporters on call. But it’s time to stop obsessing over the stupid questions Trump has been raising for the last four years, and start addressing the real ones.
As Mother Jones writer Ari Berman tweeted:


presswatchers--2020-11-17--Namby-pamby political journalism isn’t going to reach the truth-deniers

The conventional wisdom among the leaders of our major newsrooms is that the best way to reach people who believe crazy , awful things is to remain neutral .
They maintain that taking sides would actually make news organizations even less credible with that particular population .
“ We face an enormous burden of people who think that , if we ’ re from one side or the other , they ’ re just going to tune out and not pay attention to the world ’ s best journalism , ” Associated Press executive editor Sally Buzbee said in September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baquet has repeatedly embraced what he calls “ sophisticated true objectivity ” as a defense against those who would have the Times counter falsehoods more assertively .
You don ’ t call it a lie , he has said .
“ Let somebody else call it a lie.
” ( See New York Times editor Dean Baquet wants his reporters to keep an open — and empty — mind and Dean Baquet interview demonstrates why bothsidesism is alive and well at his New York Times . )
Countering the reformers ’ view that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American politics , National Public Radio public editor Kelly McBride recently described the dominant newsroom view as believing “ that our current experience is particular to the Trump presidency , that American politics will eventually regain equilibrium , and that journalism ’ s attachment to neutrality should remain consistent in order to remain effective over the long run.
” But more than 73 million people voted for Trump in the presidential election , suggesting that the strain of overt fact-rejection nurtured by the right wing is still very much with us — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to more journalistic business-as-usual .
Several journalism professors – among 151 academics contributing to a new , wide-ranging collection of essays on the election titled U.S. Election Analysis 2020 : Media , Voters and the Campaign – argue that if journalism is to rise to the challenge of the moment , it has to change .
Seth C. Lewis from the University of Oregon , Matt Carlson from the University of Minnesota and Sue Robinson from the University of Wisconsin-Madison write that “ traditional journalistic practices remain more-or-less intact ” even as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” with the advent of a powerful right-wing media machine that massively spreads disinformation .
That ’ s not going to work , they write .
Journalists “ will never rebuild trust among people who feel marginalized by news by simply offering more of the same—more helpings of ‘ just good , accurate news.
” And they pose ( rather than answer ) a crucial question : Nikki Usher , who teaches at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign , argues that the election results make it clear that the institutional news media needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fully embrace anti-racism as a core value of journalism .
“ This 71 million turnout of people endorsing racism is a reminder that the U.S. has not interrogated its past and the institutional news media has largely avoided doing so , ” she writes .
The “ reluctance to see racial equity as a basic news value rather than as a political orientation , ” she writes , “ is objectivity gone wrong.
” Usher closes with a powerful quote from an important journalist disrupter : Wendi Thomas , award-winning investigative journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MLK50 wrote to me after I asked for ways to make this very argument to my other colleagues , “ Newsrooms have always operated under some foundational truths : It ’ s good for people to have enough food to eat .
Shelter is important .
Quality education matters…..That expanding those truths – in the face of undeniable and incontrovertible quantitative and qualitative evidence that Black life is devalued and endangered in every way that can be measured – strikes the old guard as a violation of objectivity shows that the facts don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior colleagues as much as they might argue.
” Usher has more to say in a post on Medium this week about the overall need for reporters to take a firmer stand on core issues .
She argues that “ information on its own can not win the battle against slick misinformation that comes from trusted GOP news sources ” .
In short , reality-based journalists need to fight back on behalf of truth as hard as the right-wing media fights on behalf of disinformation .
( See my essay on The failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
She calls on reporters to put a “ moral valence ” around their reporting .
Euphemistically calling lies “ falsehoods , ” for instance , is “ a far weaker form of journalism than journalism emboldened by a willingness to use the strength of morality to make a claim.
” Lastly , Victor Pickard , a professor at the University of Pennsylvania , sees the corporate media embracing a pre-Trump status quo as an excuse to continue its “ abiding reliance on official sources and deference to power.
” But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s disastrous conduct during the Trump era : And it means failing to serve the actual needs of the American people at a moment of multiple crises : I suspect that the leaders of major corporate newsrooms are breathing a sigh of relief not just because the election is over but because they hope reformers will stop pushing them to become more aggressive about fighting racism and disinformation and other urgent challenges to our democracy and our nation .
But I think the pushing has just begun .

The conventional wisdom among the leaders of our major newsrooms is that the best way to reach people who believe crazy, awful things is to remain neutral.
They maintain that taking sides would actually make news organizations even less credible with that particular population.
“We face an enormous burden of people who think that, if we’re from one side or the other, they’re just going to tune out and not pay attention to the world’s best journalism,” Associated Press executive editor Sally Buzbee said in September.
New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet has repeatedly embraced what he calls “sophisticated true objectivity” as a defense against those who would have the Times counter falsehoods more assertively. You don’t call it a lie, he has said. “Let somebody else call it a lie.” (See New York Times editor Dean Baquet wants his reporters to keep an open — and empty — mind and Dean Baquet interview demonstrates why bothsidesism is alive and well at his New York Times.)
Countering the reformers’ view that balanced criticism is naïve at this stage in American politics, National Public Radio public editor Kelly McBride recently described the dominant newsroom view as believing “that our current experience is particular to the Trump presidency, that American politics will eventually regain equilibrium, and that journalism’s attachment to neutrality should remain consistent in order to remain effective over the long run.”
But more than 73 million people voted for Trump in the presidential election, suggesting that the strain of overt fact-rejection nurtured by the right wing is still very much with us — and unlikely to succumb any time soon to more journalistic business-as-usual.
Several journalism professors – among 151 academics contributing to a new, wide-ranging collection of essays on the election titled U.S. Election Analysis 2020: Media, Voters and the Campaign – argue that if journalism is to rise to the challenge of the moment, it has to change.
Seth C. Lewis from the University of Oregon, Matt Carlson from the University of Minnesota and Sue Robinson from the University of Wisconsin-Madison write that “traditional journalistic practices remain more-or-less intact” even as “the overall media environment has changed radically” with the advent of a powerful right-wing media machine that massively spreads disinformation.
That’s not going to work, they write. Journalists “will never rebuild trust among people who feel marginalized by news by simply offering more of the same—more helpings of ‘just good, accurate news.”
And they pose (rather than answer) a crucial question:
Doubling down on high-quality information is not without merit, but it misses the essence of the challenge ahead: How does one do journalism in a way that appeals to people’s core identities, particularly as those identities fracture and diverge and confound traditional universals?
Nikki Usher, who teaches at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, argues that the election results make it clear that the institutional news media needs to stop ducking issues of race — and fully embrace anti-racism as a core value of journalism.
“This 71 million turnout of people endorsing racism is a reminder that the U.S. has not interrogated its past and the institutional news media has largely avoided doing so,” she writes.
The “reluctance to see racial equity as a basic news value rather than as a political orientation,” she writes, “is objectivity gone wrong.”
Usher closes with a powerful quote from an important journalist disrupter:
Wendi Thomas, award-winning investigative journalist and editor of social justice news outlet MLK50 wrote to me after I asked for ways to make this very argument to my other colleagues, “Newsrooms have always operated under some foundational truths: It’s good for people to have enough food to eat. Shelter is important. Quality education matters…..That expanding those truths – in the face of undeniable and incontrovertible quantitative and qualitative evidence that Black life is devalued and endangered in every way that can be measured – strikes the old guard as a violation of objectivity shows that the facts don’t matter as much to your senior colleagues as much as they might argue.”
Usher has more to say in a post on Medium this week about the overall need for reporters to take a firmer stand on core issues. She argues that “information on its own cannot win the battle against slick misinformation that comes from trusted GOP news sources”.
In short, reality-based journalists need to fight back on behalf of truth as hard as the right-wing media fights on behalf of disinformation. (See my essay on The failed promise of “objective” political reporting.)
She calls on reporters to put a “moral valence” around their reporting. Euphemistically calling lies “falsehoods,” for instance, is “a far weaker form of journalism than journalism emboldened by a willingness to use the strength of morality to make a claim.”
(The reformer journalist Wesley Lowery famously describes this desired state as “moral clarity.” And as I wrote in support of Lowery’s argument: “Journalists shouldn’t pretend they know the answers. We should just stop pretending we don’t know what the problems are.”)
Lastly, Victor Pickard, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, sees the corporate media embracing a pre-Trump status quo as an excuse to continue its “abiding reliance on official sources and deference to power.”
But that means failing to confront the media’s disastrous conduct during the Trump era:
While it’s refreshing that many media organizations have finally stopped deferring to Trump, we must look seriously at the role they have played in normalizing fascistic politics—as well as the structural factors that cause these institutions to predictably fail in advancing democratic aims.
And it means failing to serve the actual needs of the American people at a moment of multiple crises:
[I]f the U.S. is to tackle the daunting problems it faces—climate change, deep structural inequalities, monopoly power, mass incarceration and other forms of systemic racism—the status quo should not be preserved; it should be radically changed.
I suspect that the leaders of major corporate newsrooms are breathing a sigh of relief not just because the election is over but because they hope reformers will stop pushing them to become more aggressive about fighting racism and disinformation and other urgent challenges to our democracy and our nation.
But I think the pushing has just begun.


presswatchers--2020-11-19--Biden’s press secretary needs to throw open the windows of the White House

After four years of con games , cover-ups , conspiracy theories and contradictions , the next president of the United States needs to restore the nation ’ s trust in his office – and the only way to do that is with radical transparency .
That starts – but doesn ’ t end – with decisions being made right now about how the Biden White House will interact with the press .
Simply returning to pre-Trump standards isn ’ t nearly enough .
Even before Trump ’ s parade of propagandists turned the briefing room into a cesspool of disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under both Bush and Obama – had devolved into deflecting press inquiries rather than genuinely responding to them .
I still remember my incredible disappointment during the first briefing of the Obama administration , when press secretary Robert Gibbs made it clear he would be as defensive and uninformative as his predecessors in the notoriously opaque Bush administration .
And despite Obama ’ s promises of transparency , he ended up operating amid unprecedented secrecy— while attacking journalists trying to tell the public what they need to know .
What we need now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trumpist skullduggery is a metaphorical opening wide of all the windows in the White House .
( Trump ’ s confusion about what works inside the human body aside , sunlight is indeed the best of disinfectants . )
That means offering the public – sometimes through the press , sometimes directly – as much direct access to the internal operations as possible .
Sure , that increases the risk of political opponents seizing onto details and blowing them out of proportion .
But it also carries with it an enormous political upside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders say these days is so unmoored from reality that simply bringing actual facts to light can serve as a hugely effective political rebuttal – and is more likely to get amplified by the reality-based press than obligatory talking points and stale spin .
Simply showing that the government is functioning again will go a long way .
Most people by now have a pretty good idea of what Trump did to the country , but they probably don ’ t understand just how badly he gutted the White House policy apparatus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ no policy apparatus at all .
There was , as NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has put it , “ no White House.
” It was just Trump .
And even Trump varies dramatically from day to day .
It ’ s not enough for Biden to restore the policy apparatus and process – he needs to let the public see it at work .
He needs to let us see who is helping him govern , and why , and how .
And to make the case that duplicity and bad faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let White House staffers openly describe their motives , and honestly discuss competing views .
Biden has already said he ’ ll restore the daily press briefing , and that ’ s a great start .
But the press should also get him to commit to regular press conferences and to a minimum number of sit-down interviews — and not just with friendly journalists .
Press conferences are overrated ; it ’ s the sit-down interviews where reporters have a chance to really explore the issues and , if necessary , pierce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litmus tests for genuine transparency will be the number of White House aides who are authorized to speak to reporters on the record .
There should be dozens of people willing and able to actually explain to reporters what ’ s going on inside the White House – with attribution and accountability .
In fact , the daily press briefing should regularly feature senior White House and administration officials – always on the record .
And rather than serving as a roadblock , the press secretary would ideally be an advocate for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House .
Finally , let ’ s not forget what an extraordinary communications tool the Internet can be .
Although Trump ’ s use of social media to constantly lie , project , and blow off steam has been hugely counter-productive , it would be a blow to transparency if Biden only used Twitter for heavily vetted talking points instead of insights into his thinking .
As for the White House web site , well , it ’ s been a constant disappointment .
The highlight of Bush ’ s listless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website was an improvement , adding an earnestly written blog and a petitions page along with essential information such as financial disclosure statements , staff salary lists , and visitors logs ( which Trump refuses to make public . )
But considering what it could have been , it underperformed .
And Trump ’ s White House website , like everything else he builds , is not much more than a brassy façade over shoddy construction .
I ’ d love to see Biden take the advice I gave Obama 12 years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wiki White House : My favorite idea , when I was writing that piece , came from Steven Aftergood , the head of the Federation of American Scientists ’ Project on Government Secrecy .
It was intended to make sure the site didn ’ t simply turn into a propaganda vehicle .
Aftergood wondered : That last part may be a bit too much to ask for – although I volunteer !
– but given how much Trump ’ s conduct has led to a loss of faith in the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing short of extreme openness is likely to win back America ’ s trust and confidence .

After four years of con games, cover-ups, conspiracy theories and contradictions, the next president of the United States needs to restore the nation’s trust in his office – and the only way to do that is with radical transparency.
That starts – but doesn’t end – with decisions being made right now about how the Biden White House will interact with the press.
Simply returning to pre-Trump standards isn’t nearly enough.
Even before Trump’s parade of propagandists turned the briefing room into a cesspool of disinformation, the job of press secretary – under both Bush and Obama – had devolved into deflecting press inquiries rather than genuinely responding to them.
I still remember my incredible disappointment during the first briefing of the Obama administration, when press secretary Robert Gibbs made it clear he would be as defensive and uninformative as his predecessors in the notoriously opaque Bush administration.
And despite Obama’s promises of transparency, he ended up operating amid unprecedented secrecy— while attacking journalists trying to tell the public what they need to know.
What we need now to rid ourselves of the stench of Trumpist skullduggery is a metaphorical opening wide of all the windows in the White House. (Trump’s confusion about what works inside the human body aside, sunlight is indeed the best of disinfectants.)
That means offering the public – sometimes through the press, sometimes directly – as much direct access to the internal operations as possible.
Sure, that increases the risk of political opponents seizing onto details and blowing them out of proportion.
But it also carries with it an enormous political upside: So much of what Republican Party leaders say these days is so unmoored from reality that simply bringing actual facts to light can serve as a hugely effective political rebuttal – and is more likely to get amplified by the reality-based press than obligatory talking points and stale spin.
Simply showing that the government is functioning again will go a long way.
Most people by now have a pretty good idea of what Trump did to the country, but they probably don’t understand just how badly he gutted the White House policy apparatus. Under Trump there was, effectively, no policy apparatus at all. There was, as NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has put it, “no White House.” It was just Trump. And even Trump varies dramatically from day to day.
It’s not enough for Biden to restore the policy apparatus and process – he needs to let the public see it at work. He needs to let us see who is helping him govern, and why, and how.
And to make the case that duplicity and bad faith are behind us, he needs to let White House staffers openly describe their motives, and honestly discuss competing views.
Next Steps
Biden has already said he’ll restore the daily press briefing, and that’s a great start.
But the press should also get him to commit to regular press conferences and to a minimum number of sit-down interviews — and not just with friendly journalists. Press conferences are overrated; it’s the sit-down interviews where reporters have a chance to really explore the issues and, if necessary, pierce the bubble.
One of the most important litmus tests for genuine transparency will be the number of White House aides who are authorized to speak to reporters on the record. There should be dozens of people willing and able to actually explain to reporters what’s going on inside the White House – with attribution and accountability.
In fact, the daily press briefing should regularly feature senior White House and administration officials – always on the record.
And rather than serving as a roadblock, the press secretary would ideally be an advocate for the press – and for transparency – within the White House.
Finally, let’s not forget what an extraordinary communications tool the Internet can be.
Although Trump’s use of social media to constantly lie, project, and blow off steam has been hugely counter-productive, it would be a blow to transparency if Biden only used Twitter for heavily vetted talking points instead of insights into his thinking.
As for the White House web site, well, it’s been a constant disappointment. The highlight of Bush’s listless website was Barneycam. Obama’s website was an improvement, adding an earnestly written blog and a petitions page along with essential information such as financial disclosure statements, staff salary lists, and visitors logs (which Trump refuses to make public.) But considering what it could have been, it underperformed.
And Trump’s White House website, like everything else he builds, is not much more than a brassy façade over shoddy construction.
I’d love to see Biden take the advice I gave Obama 12 years ago, when I suggested he create a Wiki White House:
Imagine a White House Web site where the home page isn’t just a static collection of transcripts and press releases, but a window into the roiling intellectual foment of the West Wing. Imagine a White House Web site where staffers maintain blogs in which they write about who they are and what they are working on; where some meetings are streamed in live video; where the president’s daily calendar is posted online; where major policy proposals have public collaborative workspaces, or wikis; where progress towards campaign promises is tracked on a daily basis; and where anyone can sign up for customized updates by e-mail, text message, RSS feed, Twitter, or the social network of their choice.
My favorite idea, when I was writing that piece, came from Steven Aftergood, the head of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. It was intended to make sure the site didn’t simply turn into a propaganda vehicle. Aftergood wondered:
“Maybe there’s a way to institutionalize a dissenting view, so you really have not the pretense of debate, but actual debate, that is accessible to the public… Maybe there’s something like the equivalent of a devil’s advocate on the White House Web site, who criticizes administration policy.”
That last part may be a bit too much to ask for – although I volunteer! – but given how much Trump’s conduct has led to a loss of faith in the government’s competence or even its good intentions, nothing short of extreme openness is likely to win back America’s trust and confidence.


presswatchers--2020-12-04--AP, NPR and others suddenly sounding all tough on Trump, but it’s too little and too late

“ AP not mincing words , ” said the viral tweet from Queens College radicalization expert Amarnath Amarasingam .
He linked to the Associated Press story from Wednesday by Aamer Madhani and Kevin Freking , which started off : Washington Post media writer Paul Farhi tweeted : “ As a colleague put it , this is @ ap going hard in the paint.
” Author and scholar Peter W. Singer tweeted : “ The second paragraph of this article might be the harshest thing the Associated Press has written since it was formed in 1846.
” The paragraph in question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Press ’ s political reporting has been hugely inconsistent in recent times .
I have seen some tough-as-nails analyses of Trump here and there ever since I launched this website over a year ago – but also a lot of remarkably credulous breaking-news accounts that simply quote Trump ’ s lies for paragraphs and paragraphs on end before some rebuttal lamely attributed to critics .
For instance , back on Nov. 19 , Julie Pace , the AP ’ s Washington bureau chief , wrote a simply scalding analysis that opened this way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same day , reporters Ed White , David Eggert and Zeke Miller filed an egregiously empty-headed and credulous report on Trump ’ s outrageous attempt to browbeat Michigan legislative leaders into going along with his attack on the integrity of the election .
Their lede : Contrast that with the New York Times ’ s now-famous headline : Trump Targets Michigan in His Ploy to Subvert the Election .
As it happened the Times ’ s very important word choice in that headline – using “ subvert ” instead of , say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the more aggressive , accurate coverage we ’ ve seen almost everywhere since .
The AP even updated its own lede , using the very word .
And yes , even NPR – which has been one of the most egregious abusers of false equivalence – is no longer treating Trump ’ s lying as a matter of debate .
But let ’ s go back to that AP story I mentioned at the top , that got so much attention .
It was certainly tougher than we ’ d grown to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Not according to Matt Negrin , the senior digital producer for “ The Daily Show With Trevor Noah ” who has also emerged as an astute media critic on Twitter and elsewhere .
He tweeted : Indeed , even in “ fact checks ” like this one by Hope Yen and Jill Colvin , the AP still uses euphemistic language about Trump ’ s outrageous lies and subversions — lamely writing that he “ clung to false notions ” and “ failed to cite specific evidence when repeatedly asked to do so.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have been job one for political journalists starting well over five years ago .
There have been countless occasions in which the press failed in the interim , none more crucial than in their willingness to promulgate Trump ’ s dangerous and willful ignorance about Covid-19 and spiteful misinformation about voting .
And even now , these theoretically emboldened mainstream political reporters still stop short of calling out Trump ’ s enablers in the Republican Party for the same kind of lies and misinformation .
That ’ s what is really going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become increasingly irrelevant but the Republican Party is still in a position to block progress in bad faith .
Heck , this alleged journalistic toughness hasn ’ t even extended to Trump ’ s closest aides and family members , all of whom bear enormous responsibility for his destructive words and acts .
Consider the puff piece Washington Post reporter Ashley Parker wrote on Thursday about departing White House communications director Alyssa Farah .
Parker wrote that “ Farah largely played a behind-the-scenes role in the White House , earning a reputation as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong relationship with the White House press corps.
” This even though , as Parker noted : “ Much of Farah ’ s final months focused on the coronavirus pandemic , which has left more than 275,000 Americans dead as the nation heads into a winter that experts predict will be especially brutal with the death toll continuing to spike.
” Consider the tongue bath the Washington Post ’ s Jacqueline Alemany gave Ivanka Trump this week , writing that “ Ivanka Trump has always been a business executive with a keen eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who know the family say she could soon embark on a new venture : selling herself to American voters.
” Ironically , this came just as Ivanka was being deposed by the Washington D.C. attorney general ’ s office as part of its lawsuit alleging the misuse of inaugural funds – and as the New York Times reported that Trump has discussed whether to grant her and her husband , among others , pre-emptive pardons .
A few days earlier , Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times had penned a sympathetic examination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next .
In spectacularly poor taste , the initial headline referred to the couple so deeply complicit in Trump ’ s ill treatment of immigrants as “ well-to-do refugees.
” It was eventually changed .
Acting with courage and integrity would have entailed news reporters and organizations calling Trump out when they would have taken some heat for it , rather than now , when Trump is quite literally a loser .
And it would not reserve truth-telling for the leader alone , but for his entire movement .
And let me tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our elite political reporters , the kicking of a president when he ’ s down is not actually an act of courage at all , it ’ s purely reflexive .
Glowing press coverage of George H.W .
Bush suddenly went profoundly negative after he threw up in the lap of the Japanese prime minister in January 1992 .
And political reporters treated George W. Bush like a hero until he sat idly by as New Orleans filled with water in 2005 .
Suddenly he was a goat , and always had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dubya is widely considered some sort of benevolent elder statesman , not just because of the contrast with Trump , but because our political media has forgotten about all his extraordinary lies .
A few weeks of somewhat less mincing coverage of Trump means nothing .
It does not mean lessons have been learned .
It is no cause for optimism .

“AP not mincing words,” said the viral tweet from Queens College radicalization expert Amarnath Amarasingam.
He linked to the Associated Press story from Wednesday by Aamer Madhani and Kevin Freking, which started off:
Increasingly detached from reality, President Donald Trump stood before a White House lectern and delivered a 46-minute diatribe against the election results that produced a win for Democrat Joe Biden, unspooling one misstatement after another to back his baseless claim that he really won.
Washington Post media writer Paul Farhi tweeted: “As a colleague put it, this is @ap going hard in the paint.”
Author and scholar Peter W. Singer tweeted: “The second paragraph of this article might be the harshest thing the Associated Press has written since it was formed in 1846.” The paragraph in question:
Trump called his address, released Wednesday only on social media and delivered in front of no audience, perhaps “the most important speech” of his presidency. But it was largely a recycling of the same litany of misinformation and unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud that he has been making for the past month.
Keep in mind that the Associated Press’s political reporting has been hugely inconsistent in recent times. I have seen some tough-as-nails analyses of Trump here and there ever since I launched this website over a year ago – but also a lot of remarkably credulous breaking-news accounts that simply quote Trump’s lies for paragraphs and paragraphs on end before some rebuttal lamely attributed to critics.
For instance, back on Nov. 19, Julie Pace, the AP’s Washington bureau chief, wrote a simply scalding analysis that opened this way:
President Donald Trump is trying to turn America’s free and fair election into a muddled mess of misinformation, specious legal claims and baseless attacks on the underpinnings of the nation’s democracy. The resulting chaos and confusion that has created isn’t the byproduct of Trump’s strategy following his defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. The chaos and confusion is the strategy.
I cheered! But that very same day, reporters Ed White, David Eggert and Zeke Miller filed an egregiously empty-headed and credulous report on Trump’s outrageous attempt to browbeat Michigan legislative leaders into going along with his attack on the integrity of the election. Their lede:
President Donald Trump summoned Michigan’s Republican legislative leaders to the White House for a meeting Friday amid a longshot GOP push to overturn the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the battleground state.
Contrast that with the New York Times’s now-famous headline: Trump Targets Michigan in His Ploy to Subvert the Election.
As it happened the Times’s very important word choice in that headline – using “subvert” instead of, say, “overturn” – set the tone for the more aggressive, accurate coverage we’ve seen almost everywhere since. The AP even updated its own lede, using the very word.
And yes, even NPR – which has been one of the most egregious abusers of false equivalence – is no longer treating Trump’s lying as a matter of debate.
Consider notoriously both-sides NPR host Steve Inskeep’s inordinately proud Dec. 2 tweet:
In an @NPR newscast just now, @KorvaColemanNPR gave a simple fact, in her calm newscaster's voice: "President Trump continues to lie, saying he won the election." Not a criticism; just a fact. Which is one thing you do in journalism. Just report what people are doing. — Steve Inskeep (@NPRinskeep) December 2, 2020
But let’s go back to that AP story I mentioned at the top, that got so much attention. It was certainly tougher than we’d grown to expect. But was it tough enough? Not according to Matt Negrin, the senior digital producer for “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah” who has also emerged as an astute media critic on Twitter and elsewhere. He tweeted:
This is going around a lot but the AP *is* mincing words. They don’t say Trump is “lying” or “attacking” democracy. Trump has been assaulting the election for almost a month in the same way, so he’s not “increasingly detached from reality.” It just took them a month to realize it https://t.co/DqxFn0rIEG — Matt Negrin, HOST OF HARDBALL AT 7PM ON MSNBC (@MattNegrin) December 3, 2020
Indeed, even in “fact checks” like this one by Hope Yen and Jill Colvin, the AP still uses euphemistic language about Trump’s outrageous lies and subversions — lamely writing that he “clung to false notions” and “failed to cite specific evidence when repeatedly asked to do so.”
Calling out Trump’s lies should have been job one for political journalists starting well over five years ago. There have been countless occasions in which the press failed in the interim, none more crucial than in their willingness to promulgate Trump’s dangerous and willful ignorance about Covid-19 and spiteful misinformation about voting.
And even now, these theoretically emboldened mainstream political reporters still stop short of calling out Trump’s enablers in the Republican Party for the same kind of lies and misinformation.
That’s what is really going to matter going forward, as Trump become increasingly irrelevant but the Republican Party is still in a position to block progress in bad faith.
Heck, this alleged journalistic toughness hasn’t even extended to Trump’s closest aides and family members, all of whom bear enormous responsibility for his destructive words and acts.
Consider the puff piece Washington Post reporter Ashley Parker wrote on Thursday about departing White House communications director Alyssa Farah. Parker wrote that “Farah largely played a behind-the-scenes role in the White House, earning a reputation as a hard-working professional who generally had a strong relationship with the White House press corps.”
This even though, as Parker noted: “Much of Farah’s final months focused on the coronavirus pandemic, which has left more than 275,000 Americans dead as the nation heads into a winter that experts predict will be especially brutal with the death toll continuing to spike.”
Consider the tongue bath the Washington Post’s Jacqueline Alemany gave Ivanka Trump this week, writing that “Ivanka Trump has always been a business executive with a keen eye for marketing,” and “those who know the family say she could soon embark on a new venture: selling herself to American voters.”
Ironically, this came just as Ivanka was being deposed by the Washington D.C. attorney general’s office as part of its lawsuit alleging the misuse of inaugural funds – and as the New York Times reported that Trump has discussed whether to grant her and her husband, among others, pre-emptive pardons.
A few days earlier, Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times had penned a sympathetic examination of where Ivanka and Jared might live next. In spectacularly poor taste, the initial headline referred to the couple so deeply complicit in Trump’s ill treatment of immigrants as “well-to-do refugees.” It was eventually changed.
Acting with courage and integrity would have entailed news reporters and organizations calling Trump out when they would have taken some heat for it, rather than now, when Trump is quite literally a loser. And it would not reserve truth-telling for the leader alone, but for his entire movement.
And let me tell you that from my own observation, for our elite political reporters, the kicking of a president when he’s down is not actually an act of courage at all, it’s purely reflexive.
Glowing press coverage of George H.W. Bush suddenly went profoundly negative after he threw up in the lap of the Japanese prime minister in January 1992.
And political reporters treated George W. Bush like a hero until he sat idly by as New Orleans filled with water in 2005. Suddenly he was a goat, and always had been.
These days, of course, Dubya is widely considered some sort of benevolent elder statesman, not just because of the contrast with Trump, but because our political media has forgotten about all his extraordinary lies.
A few weeks of somewhat less mincing coverage of Trump means nothing. It does not mean lessons have been learned. It is no cause for optimism.


presswatchers--2020-12-07--As Biden prepares, political reporters consider extreme GOP obstruction a given, rather than an outr

As Biden prepares, political reporters consider extreme GOP obstruction a given, rather than an outrage

There has never been a need for a more radical departure in governance in this country than there is right now .
But conventional media coverage is already circumscribing Joe Biden ’ s presidency by insistently positing extreme Republican intransigence and treating it as normal and inevitable — even before it has manifested itself .
Political reporters should be demarcating the enormous challenges ahead .
And they should be prepared to call out in alarm when they identify gratuitous obstructionism — instead of preemptively assuming it will be ubiquitous , and in that way making it seem innocuous and un-newsworthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they should identify it as a symptom of an unhinged , reality-defying consensus , rather than of everyday partisan politics .
You got a hint of that in the Washington Post ’ s recent survey ( bravo ! )
which found that only 12 of the 52 current Senate Republicans are willing to publicly acknowledge Biden ’ s victory .
What would actually be “ normal ” right now would be for the president-elect to be able to pick his governing team , and for the opposition party to object only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the mainstream .
But what the political press has instead normalized is the Republican Party ’ s Trump-addled take-no-prisoners partisanship .
Heck , Republican leaders don ’ t even need to threaten to block nominees , the elite media simply assumes they will – baking Republican intransigence into their narratives , and putting the onus on Biden to somehow avoid it .
Granted , it ’ s not unreasonable to anticipate that Mitch McConnell will do his utmost to obstruct Biden , and that many Republican senators will go along .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent seems to have internalized the inevitability of Republican obstruction himself — and is largely sticking to tried-and-true Democratic Party stalwarts rather than firebrands .
But it ’ s quite possible that some of McConnell ’ s caucus will refuse to go along with extreme partisan obstruction .
Even if Republicans hold on to their Senate majority , it will be a small one .
So when and if Republicans do block reasonable Biden nominees , that should elicit articles full of outrage , not knowing smirks and yawns .
As it looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be prepared for the knowing smirks and yawns .
As soon as Biden clinched the victory , political reporters started warning him that he shouldn ’ t pick people who might inspire Republican ’ s wrath .
Mike DeBonis wrote in the Washington Post that centrist Republicans have “ effective veto power over his administration ’ s staffing ” – with the presumption that they would use it .
One of the funniest headlines was in the The Hill on Nov. 13 : GOP senators say Warren nomination would divide Republicans – as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight should trouble Biden .
Alexander Bolton reported : Bolton acknowledged that several Republicans could conceivably peel off from the caucus — and even quoted right-wing Sen. Ron Johnson saying “ I give a great deal of latitude to the president ” on nominations – before dropping the boom : an unstated threat from McConnell .
Only when “ moderates ” – like director of national intelligence nominee and former Obama drone queen Avril D. Haines – are announced , do reporters such as Julian E. Barnes of the New York Times write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation in a sharply divided Senate ” ; the implication being that someone more progressive would lose .
Lisa Mascaro ’ s recent story for the Associated Press correctly acknowledged “ the political reality of a narrowly controlled Senate that will leave the new Democratic administration dependent on rival Republicans to get anything done.
” But before you know it , she was describing inexcusable conduct as if it ’ s just normal politics , writing that “ Republicans are swiftly signaling that they ’ re eager to set the terms of debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She described the GOP ’ s plight quite sympathetically , as “ suspended between an outgoing president it needs to keep close — Trump can still make or break careers with a single tweet — and the new one they are unsure how to approach.
” Patricia Zengerle of Reuters reported on Nov. 24 that “ Republican members of the U.S. Senate fired warning shots to President-elect Joe Biden that they may be prepared to stand in the way of his Cabinet appointments , despite the long-held tradition of a new president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run government agencies.
” But the comments from the members were critiques , not threats .
It ’ s Zengerle who assumed they would metastasize over time .
Several days later , when some far-right Republicans blustered about Biden ’ s most controversial selection yet – the outspoken Neera Tanden to be director of the Office of Management and Budget — Reuters ’ s Andrea Shalal stenographically quoted a spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn saying she had a “ zero chance ” of being confirmed .
There was no context or pushback .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mascaro and Matthew Daly of the Associated Press – which is all about how McConnell and the GOP chairs of key committees have remained silent about the confirmation process – assume the Republicans will fight .
“ Even if McConnell is willing to accept Biden ’ s choices for top Cabinet positions , the Republican leader is not expected to allow easy Senate confirmation without a political price , ” they wrote .
“ He is known for driving hard bargains even on routine business , and Republicans are eager to level payback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with procedural hurdles to Trump ’ s nominees.
” The reporters normalize extraordinary intransigence , writing for instance that Alejandro Mayorkas , a Cuban American former federal prosecutor who would be the first immigrant as secretary of homeland security , “ faces the potentially toughest path to confirmation , ” and quoting an anonymous Republican aide saying that Democrats “ have got a lot of work to do ” to persuade Republicans to support him .
Reporters are even reconciled to parts of the government remaining effectively neutered post-Trump because of Republicans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Cat Zakrzewski wrote that “ It ’ s looking increasingly likely that the incoming Biden administration will face a deadlocked Federal Communications Commission , ” because “ it could be difficult for Biden to nominate a tie-breaking Democratic commissioner to fill the fifth slot.
” It ’ s so much dog bites man with these people that the big news is when the Republicans say they won ’ t throw a fit about someone .
And all this is happening despite the fact that reporters who actually talk to Republican senators get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So Burgess Everett , a Politico congressional correspondent , actually reported , on Nov. 20 : Instead of proactively giving them cover for their dirty work , journalists should be mocking Republicans who criticize Biden ’ s nominees for their hypocrisy , which will surely only grow .
Like this : So more of that , please .

There has never been a need for a more radical departure in governance in this country than there is right now.
But conventional media coverage is already circumscribing Joe Biden’s presidency by insistently positing extreme Republican intransigence and treating it as normal and inevitable — even before it has manifested itself.
Political reporters should be demarcating the enormous challenges ahead. And they should be prepared to call out in alarm when they identify gratuitous obstructionism — instead of preemptively assuming it will be ubiquitous, and in that way making it seem innocuous, and barely even newsworthy, when it happens.
Similarly, they should identify it as a symptom of an unhinged, reality-defying consensus, rather than of everyday partisan politics. You got a hint of that in the Washington Post’s recent survey (bravo!) which found that only 12 of the 52 current Senate Republicans are willing to publicly acknowledge Biden’s victory.
What would actually be “normal” right now would be for the president-elect to be able to pick his governing team, and for the opposition party to object only to nominees who are wildly unqualified or radically out of the mainstream.
But what the political press has instead normalized is the Republican Party’s Trump-addled take-no-prisoners partisanship. Heck, Republican leaders don’t even need to threaten to block nominees. The elite media simply assumes they will — baking Republican intransigence into their narratives, and putting the onus on Biden to somehow avoid it.
Granted, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate that presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will do his utmost to obstruct Biden, and that many Republican senators will go along.
And granted, Biden to some extent seems to have internalized the inevitability of Republican obstruction himself — and is largely sticking to tried-and-true Democratic Party stalwarts rather than firebrands.
But it’s quite possible that some of McConnell’s caucus will refuse to go along with extreme partisan obstruction. Even if Republicans hold on to their Senate majority, it will be a small one.
So when and if Republicans block reasonable Biden nominees, that should elicit articles full of outrage, not knowing smirks and yawns.
As it looks now, however, you should probably be prepared for the smirks and yawns.
As soon as Biden clinched his election victory, political reporters started warning him that he shouldn’t pick people who might inspire Republicans’ wrath.
Mike DeBonis wrote in the Washington Post that centrist Republicans have “effective veto power over his administration’s staffing” — with the presumption that they would use it.
One of the funniest headlines was in the The Hill on Nov. 13: GOP senators say Warren nomination would divide Republicans — as if dividing Republicans in a successful confirmation fight should trouble Biden. Alexander Bolton reported:
Senate Republicans are warning that President-elect Joe Biden would spark “a fight” if he were to nominate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or former national security adviser Susan Rice to his Cabinet.
Bolton acknowledged that several Republicans could conceivably peel off from the caucus — and even quoted right-wing Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saying “I give a great deal of latitude to the president” on nominations — before dropping the boom: an unstated threat from McConnell.
Only when “moderates,” such as director of national intelligence nominee and former Obama drone queen Avril D. Haines — are announced, do reporters such as Julian E. Barnes of the New York Times write that they are “likely to win confirmation in a sharply divided Senate”; the implication being that someone more progressive would lose.
Lisa Mascaro‘s recent story for the Associated Press correctly acknowledged “the political reality of a narrowly controlled Senate that will leave the new Democratic administration dependent on rival Republicans to get anything done.”
But before you know it, she was describing inexcusable conduct as if it were just normal politics, writing that “Republicans are swiftly signaling that they’re eager to set the terms of debate and exact a price for their votes.”
She described the GOP’s plight quite sympathetically, as “suspended between an outgoing president it needs to keep close — Trump can still make or break careers with a single tweet — and the new one they are unsure how to approach.”
Patricia Zengerle of Reuters reported on Nov. 24 that “Republican members of the U.S. Senate fired warning shots to President-elect Joe Biden that they may be prepared to stand in the way of his Cabinet appointments, despite the long-held tradition of a new president having the right to choose who will run government agencies.”
But the comments from the members were critiques, not threats. It’s Zengerle who assumed they would metastasize over time.
Several days later, when some far-right Republicans blustered about Biden’s most controversial selection yet – the outspoken Neera Tanden as director of the Office of Management and Budget — Reuters’s Andrea Shalal stenographically quoted a spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, saying Tanden had “zero chance” of being confirmed. There was no context or pushback.
Even articles like this one by Lisa Mascaro and Matthew Daly of the Associated Press — which is all about how McConnell and the GOP chairs of key committees have remained silent about the confirmation process — assume that Republicans will fight.
“Even if McConnell is willing to accept Biden’s choices for top Cabinet positions, the Republican leader is not expected to allow easy Senate confirmation without a political price,” they wrote. “He is known for driving hard bargains even on routine business, and Republicans are eager to level payback on Democrats for running out the clock with procedural hurdles to Trump’s nominees.”
The reporters normalize extraordinary intransigence, writing for instance that Alejandro Mayorkas, a Cuban-American former federal prosecutor who would be the first immigrant to serve as secretary of homeland security, “faces the potentially toughest path to confirmation,” and quoting an anonymous Republican aide who says Democrats “have got a lot of work to do” to persuade Republicans to support him.
Reporters are even reconciled to parts of the government remaining effectively neutered in the post-Trump era because of Republicans in the Senate. The Washington Post’s Cat Zakrzewski wrote, “It’s looking increasingly likely that the incoming Biden administration will face a deadlocked Federal Communications Commission” because “it could be difficult for Biden to nominate a tie-breaking Democratic commissioner to fill the fifth slot.”
It’s so much dog-bites-man with these people that the big news is when Republicans say they won’t throw a fit about some potential Biden nominee.
And all of this is happening despite the fact that reporters who actually talk to Republican senators get the impression they’ll go along.
Burgess Everett, a Politico congressional correspondent reported this on Nov. 20:
Senate Republicans are signaling they will confirm most of President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet picks in January — a rare bright spot for a White House that may clash with a GOP majority for years to come. Many Republicans won’t even publicly concede that Biden will be the next president while President Donald Trump fights to overturn the election results. But a critical mass of GOP senators said in interviews that Biden has the right to his Cabinet, indicating he may be able to staff his administration largely to his liking.
Instead of proactively giving them cover for their dirty work, journalists should mock Republicans who criticize Biden’s nominees for their blatant hypocrisy, which will surely only grow. Like this:
GOP senators who wouldn’t comment when Trump called fallen US soldiers “losers,” but say they can’t sleep at night bc of Neera Tanden’s political tweets really need to be called out by reporters — Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) December 1, 2020
Did a handsome prince just kiss you and wake you up after four years? https://t.co/oUg3x6bgGG — Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) November 29, 2020
There's going to be a lot of this. Of course the Senate should demand tax returns from nominees. Also, it would be nice if the people of Iowa would hold Grassley accountable for his unprincipled hypocrisy. https://t.co/cvkJIMp5QA — Binyamin Appelbaum (@BCAppelbaum) November 30, 2020
More of that, please.


presswatchers--2020-12-10--Red alert for reporters as Trump loyalists destroy the evidence on their way out the door

The news that CDC director Robert Redfield forced career staff to delete an incriminating email from a Trump political appointee is a red alert moment for Washington-based reporters , who should fan out to everywhere Trump loyalists are possibly destroying the evidence of their misdeeds as they head out the door .
“ Reporters should start looking at that right now and start saying to the White House , to the executive branch agencies : ‘ What are you going to do to preserve documents ?
’ , ” said Lisa Rosenberg , executive director of the wonderful pro-transparency group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosenberg because of her leading role in a brilliant new report full of recommendations for how the Biden administration should repair critical gaps in transparency , ethics , and oversight .
The report also serves as an excellent guide for how reporters should hold the next administration accountable .
And I ’ ll have a lot more on that soon .
But first things first .
“ One of the concerns we in the accountability community have right now is that there ’ s going to be a wiping of all the computers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are just going to disappear , ” Rosenberg said .
The potential scope of the problem is enormous , for obvious reasons .
“ Donald Trump has absolutely no credibility when it comes to preserving documents , ” Rosenberg said .
“ He ’ s been doing this all along : he deletes tweets , even though they ’ re public policy ; he rips up notes , when they ’ re even taken — he rips up notes and some of his folks have to go and literally tape them back together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Washington Post reported last year about how Trump “ has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin , including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials.
” “ So we know that there ’ s a history where there are supposed to be documents preserved , ” Rosenberg said , “ but then they disappear or they vanish.
” Of course it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the destroying and deleting .
“ Because of Trump , and so many other folks that he surrounds himself with because of their history , there ’ s a real risk that they ’ re going to want to cover things up and hide things and prevent them from being embarrassed , ” she said .
“ Potentially to protect them protect them from legal liability.
” Reporters can ’ t just sit back and wait for the destruction to reveal itself , Rosenberg said .
“ Journalists can hold folks ’ feet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question people and they can remind people of what their duties are to preserve these records.
” Specifically , that means reporting on how these official documents belong to the public , not to the president .
That means reporting on the relevant federal laws , including the Presidential Records Act .
It means a particular focus on electronic records , because they are so much easier to destroy – no bonfire or shredding party necessary .
The history of presidential records law is relevant .
From a 2019 Congressional Research Service report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Nixon wanted to destroy recordings created in the White House that , among other things , documented actions he and others took in response to investigations connected to a burglary in the Watergate building and his reelection campaign .
Under policy at the time , presidential materials were considered the President ’ s private property .
In response , Congress passed a number of laws to preserve the integrity of documents and other information related to Nixon ’ s presidency and made those laws applicable to all future presidencies .
Enacted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PRA ; 44 U.S.C .
§§2201-2207 ) established public ownership of records created by Presidents and their staff in the course of discharging their official duties .
The PRA additionally established procedures for congressional and public access to presidential and vice presidential information and the preservation and public availability of such records at the conclusion of a presidency .
Several other laws are applicable , too .
Richard Painter , the former George W. Bush ’ s ethics counsel turned virulent Trump critic , recently explained on Just Security : Sadly , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mockery of records law .
I extensively covered the George W. Bush administration ’ s many successful – if duplicitous — strategies to escape retention rules .
“ I actually think journalists are the key enforcers of the records documents right now , ” Rosenberg said .
“ And hopefully , they elevate the issue so that those good actors in the White House , if they see wrongdoing , if they see people covering up things , maybe they act , maybe they speak out , maybe there are whistleblowers.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – or , barring that , to report what they ’ ve seen internally .
One option would be to report to an agency ’ s inspector general , and insist that the IG request an immediate injunction – which would also make the issue public .
There are so many areas where Trump and his loyalists will face the judgment of history – if not of the judiciary – it ’ s hard to know what to worry about the most when it comes to the destruction of documents .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first solid evidence we ’ ve gotten relates to a cover-up of the Trump administration ’ s inexcusable and tragic politicization of the failed response to the coronavirus pandemic .
As Dan Diamond first reported for Politico , one disappearing document we now know about was an Aug. 8 email sent by Paul Alexander , who was then the scientific adviser to then-Health and Human Services spokesperson Michael Caputo .
Alexander was trying to get career employees in charge of the CDC ’ s canonical Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports to tone things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus .
Rep. James Clyburn , who chairs the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis , disclosed the deletion in a letter to Redfield and HHS Secretary Alex Azar .
Clyburn summed it up in a tweet : Journalists should be concerned , too .
They should make a full-court press on every source they have in the White House and the rest of the executive branch to root out any attempts to destroy the public record — before it ’ s too late .

The news that CDC director Robert Redfield forced career staff to delete an incriminating email from a Trump political appointee is a red alert moment for Washington-based reporters, who should fan out to everywhere Trump loyalists are possibly destroying the evidence of their misdeeds as they head out the door.
“Reporters should start looking at that right now and start saying to the White House, to the executive branch agencies: ‘What are you going to do to preserve documents?’,” said Lisa Rosenberg, executive director of the wonderful pro-transparency group, Open The Government.
I interviewed Rosenberg because of her leading role in a brilliant new report full of recommendations for how the Biden administration should repair critical gaps in transparency, ethics, and oversight. The report also serves as an excellent guide for how reporters should hold the next administration accountable. And I’ll have a lot more on that soon.
But first things first.
“One of the concerns we in the accountability community have right now is that there’s going to be a wiping of all the computers – that all of the documents that are just going to disappear,” Rosenberg said.
The potential scope of the problem is enormous, for obvious reasons.
“Donald Trump has absolutely no credibility when it comes to preserving documents,” Rosenberg said. “He’s been doing this all along: he deletes tweets, even though they’re public policy; he rips up notes, when they’re even taken — he rips up notes and some of his folks have to go and literally tape them back together again.”
Another example: Greg Miller of the Washington Post reported last year about how Trump “has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials.”
“So we know that there’s a history where there are supposed to be documents preserved,” Rosenberg said, “but then they disappear or they vanish.”
Of course it wouldn’t just be Trump doing the destroying and deleting. “Because of Trump, and so many other folks that he surrounds himself with because of their history, there’s a real risk that they’re going to want to cover things up and hide things and prevent them from being embarrassed,” she said. “Potentially to protect them protect them from legal liability.”
Reporters can’t just sit back and wait for the destruction to reveal itself, Rosenberg said. “Journalists can hold folks’ feet to the fire, and they can question people and they can remind people of what their duties are to preserve these records.”
Specifically, that means reporting on how these official documents belong to the public, not to the president. That means reporting on the relevant federal laws, including the Presidential Records Act. It means a particular focus on electronic records, because they are so much easier to destroy – no bonfire or shredding party necessary.
The history of presidential records law is relevant. From a 2019 Congressional Research Service report:
Following his resignation as President, Richard Nixon wanted to destroy recordings created in the White House that, among other things, documented actions he and others took in response to investigations connected to a burglary in the Watergate building and his reelection campaign. Under policy at the time, presidential materials were considered the President’s private property. In response, Congress passed a number of laws to preserve the integrity of documents and other information related to Nixon’s presidency and made those laws applicable to all future presidencies. Enacted in 1978, the Presidential Records Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. §§2201-2207) established public ownership of records created by Presidents and their staff in the course of discharging their official duties. The PRA additionally established procedures for congressional and public access to presidential and vice presidential information and the preservation and public availability of such records at the conclusion of a presidency.
Several other laws are applicable, too. Richard Painter, the former George W. Bush’s ethics counsel turned virulent Trump critic, recently explained on Just Security:
Destroying or stealing documents belonging to the United States government is a crime. Destroying or stealing documents to cover up another crime, or activity that may be under investigation, is also a crime. Lying about what happened to missing documents is yet another crime. A departing federal official may take personal property from the office but no more. That includes perhaps some family photos – and of course that red cap. But everything else stays where it is. Anyone who doesn’t understand that could end up staying with the government a lot longer than anticipated or desired.
Sadly, Trump is not the first president to make a mockery of records law. I extensively covered the George W. Bush administration’s many successful – if duplicitous — strategies to escape retention rules.
“I actually think journalists are the key enforcers of the records documents right now,” Rosenberg said. “And hopefully, they elevate the issue so that those good actors in the White House, if they see wrongdoing, if they see people covering up things, maybe they act, maybe they speak out, maybe there are whistleblowers.”
Reporters should encourage staffers to go public – or, barring that, to report what they’ve seen internally. One option would be to report to an agency’s inspector general, and insist that the IG request an immediate injunction – which would also make the issue public.
There are so many areas where Trump and his loyalists will face the judgment of history – if not of the judiciary – it’s hard to know what to worry about the most when it comes to the destruction of documents. But it’s not a surprise that the first solid evidence we’ve gotten relates to a cover-up of the Trump administration’s inexcusable and tragic politicization of the failed response to the coronavirus pandemic.
As Dan Diamond first reported for Politico, one disappearing document we now know about was an Aug. 8 email sent by Paul Alexander, who was then the scientific adviser to then-Health and Human Services spokesperson Michael Caputo. Alexander was trying to get career employees in charge of the CDC’s canonical Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports to tone things down to match Trump’s downplaying of the virus.
Rep. James Clyburn, who chairs the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, disclosed the deletion in a letter to Redfield and HHS Secretary Alex Azar.
Clyburn summed it up in a tweet:
I am deeply concerned that the Trump Administration’s political meddling with the nation’s coronavirus response has put American lives at greater risk, and that Administration officials may have taken steps to conceal and destroy evidence of this dangerous conduct. — James E. Clyburn (@WhipClyburn) December 10, 2020
Journalists should be concerned, too. They should make a full-court press on every source they have in the White House and the rest of the executive branch to root out any attempts to destroy the public record — before it’s too late.


presswatchers--2020-12-14--Political reporters want a fight with Biden? Fight for transparency!

Easily-bored political reporters are looking for something exciting to do now that the Trump circus is leaving town , and I have an idea : Demand transparency from the Biden administration , and don ’ t let up .
Start by insisting that Biden hold open-ended press conferences ASAP .
Then get him to publicly commit not simply to a return to Obama-level transparency , but to a new era of openness .
The only way a public that has lost faith in government can learn to trust it again will be by being able to truly see how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable .
Here are a few specific questions reporters should ask : • When will you start releasing White House visitors logs again , like Obama did but Trump refused to do ?
And will you do it with fewer exceptions and less subterfuge ?
• Will you demand that your agency heads do the same ?
• Will you publicly authorize multiple top administration officials to speak to reporters on the record – without any more anonymous “ background briefings ” ?
• Will you proactively establish entire classes of documents that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without reporters having to ask ?
That would include the calendars of agency heads , agency org charts , top contracts and grants , all unclassified correspondence with Congress , and a summary of classified inspector general reports , for starters .
• Will you restore transparency of the pardon process ?
Will you pledge to use clemency for mercy and justice and never for personal protection or political favor ?
• Will you promise to respect Congress ’ s oversight powers ?
Will you hereby reject Trump ’ s blanket refusal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Here is a list of documents that Congress has requested from the executive branch , but that Trump has refused to turn over .
Will you release them now ?
• Here is a list of the most important Freedom of Information Act requests that have been ignored by the Trump administration .
Will you make the information public without any further delay ?
• Are you committed to appointing nonpolitical inspectors generals ?
Do you promise to fire them only for good and specified causes ?
• Please publicly acknowledge the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive branch .
• Will you pledge not to use the Espionage Act of 1917 to pursue leakers ?
• Will you renounce the prosecution of journalists for doing their job ?
• Do you recognize that the Obama administration was insufficiently forthright about surveillance , killer drones and cyberwarfare ?
Do you agree that the public deserves to know what the government ’ s overarching approach is to these increasingly common and powerful tools , as well as what guardrails prevent their misuse ?
• Will you , unlike Obama , openly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of foreign prisoners and covert targeted killings of terror suspects ?
There is nothing inappropriately partisan or provocative about journalists starting to bang this drum now , and loud .
Habits are forming within the new administration , and it ’ s essential for the public weal that those habits be good ones .
“ Without rules in place to ensure transparency , ethics , accountability , none of the stuff that we want to get done is going to get done effectively , ” says Lisa Rosenberg , executive director of Open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s right to know .
“ Because at its core , for our democracy , for institutions to work , they need to be accountable .
So if we want to address COVID , if we want to address climate change — it doesn ’ t matter what it is — we need to start with the fundamentals .
And the fundamentals are an accountable government.
” I interviewed Rosenberg because she recently finished shepherding an extraordinary report titled “ Accountability 2021 : Recommendations for restoring accountability in the federal government.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of my favorite good-government types – put together a spectacular and exhaustive list for policymakers in the executive and judicial branch .
It ’ s also something of a cheat sheet for reporters who want to set a positive , public-spirited agenda .
Several of my suggestions above are cribbed from it .
One goal , Rosenberg said , should be for Biden to say “ I will be available to journalists .
I commit to making all of these people available to journalists .
And ask us anything.
” She said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ he should ask them about their commitment to transparency.
” One of the major , concrete recommendations in the report : “ We want what we ’ re calling a chief accountability officer to be in the White House , ” Rosenberg said .
“ And that person then would implement the ethics orders , the transparency orders — all of those sorts of initiatives that we hope to see issued on day one of a Biden presidency.
” Having such a position would be a big step forward , Rosenberg said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , presumably , they have the ear of the president .
And they can say , ‘ You know , Mr. President , this isn ’ t going the way it ’ s supposed to .
We ’ re not seeing proactive disclosures , ’ or ‘ We ’ re seeing when one agency doesn ’ t talk to another.
’ “ One particularly resonant passage for me , from the report : And one possible solution : If , after four years of completely failing to hold Trump accountable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove how tough it is , it could do so not by finding fake scandals to blow out of proportion , but by aggressively pushing Biden to meet the needs of the public in a way no president has ever done before .

Easily-bored political reporters are looking for something exciting to do now that the Trump circus is leaving town, and I have an idea: Demand transparency from the Biden administration, and don’t let up.
Start by insisting that Biden hold open-ended press conferences ASAP. Then get him to publicly commit not simply to a return to Obama-level transparency, but to a new era of openness. The only way a public that has lost faith in government can learn to trust it again will be by being able to truly see how it works — and by seeing it held accountable.
Here are a few specific questions reporters should ask:
When will you start releasing White House visitors logs again, like Obama did but Trump refused to do? And will you do it with fewer exceptions and less subterfuge?
Will you demand that your agency heads do the same?
Will you publicly authorize multiple top administration officials to speak to reporters on the record – without any more anonymous “background briefings”?
Will you proactively establish entire classes of documents that will be made public by federal agencies without reporters having to ask? That would include the calendars of agency heads, agency org charts, top contracts and grants, all unclassified correspondence with Congress, and a summary of classified inspector general reports, for starters.
Will you restore transparency of the pardon process? Will you pledge to use clemency for mercy and justice and never for personal protection or political favor?
Will you promise to respect Congress’s oversight powers? Will you hereby reject Trump’s blanket refusal to comply with congressional requests and subpoenas?
Here is a list of documents that Congress has requested from the executive branch, but that Trump has refused to turn over. Will you release them now?
Here is a list of the most important Freedom of Information Act requests that have been ignored by the Trump administration. Will you make the information public without any further delay?
Are you committed to appointing nonpolitical inspectors generals? Do you promise to fire them only for good and specified causes?
Please publicly acknowledge the value of dissenters and whistleblowers inside the executive branch.
Will you pledge not to use the Espionage Act of 1917 to pursue leakers?
Will you renounce the prosecution of journalists for doing their job?
Do you recognize that the Obama administration was insufficiently forthright about surveillance, killer drones and cyberwarfare? Do you agree that the public deserves to know what the government’s overarching approach is to these increasingly common and powerful tools, as well as what guardrails prevent their misuse?
Will you, unlike Obama, openly discuss American policy about the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners and covert targeted killings of terror suspects?
There is nothing inappropriately partisan or provocative about journalists starting to bang this drum now, and loud. Habits are forming within the new administration, and it’s essential for the public weal that those habits be good ones.
“Without rules in place to ensure transparency, ethics, accountability, none of the stuff that we want to get done is going to get done effectively,” says Lisa Rosenberg, executive director of Open The Government, which advances the public’s right to know. “Because at its core, for our democracy, for institutions to work, they need to be accountable. So if we want to address COVID, if we want to address climate change — it doesn’t matter what it is — we need to start with the fundamentals. And the fundamentals are an accountable government.”
I interviewed Rosenberg because she recently finished shepherding an extraordinary report titled “Accountability 2021: Recommendations for restoring accountability in the federal government.” The contributors – an all-star collection of most of my favorite good-government types – put together a spectacular and exhaustive list for policymakers in the executive and judicial branch.
It’s also something of a cheat sheet for reporters who want to set a positive, public-spirited agenda. Several of my suggestions above are cribbed from it.
One goal, Rosenberg said, should be for Biden to say “I will be available to journalists. I commit to making all of these people available to journalists. And ask us anything.”
She said that when Biden interviews job candidates, “he should ask them about their commitment to transparency.”
One of the major, concrete recommendations in the report: “We want what we’re calling a chief accountability officer to be in the White House,” Rosenberg said. “And that person then would implement the ethics orders, the transparency orders — all of those sorts of initiatives that we hope to see issued on day one of a Biden presidency.”
Having such a position would be a big step forward, Rosenberg said. “By placing that person in the White House, presumably, they have the ear of the president. And they can say, ‘You know, Mr. President, this isn’t going the way it’s supposed to. We’re not seeing proactive disclosures,’ or ‘We’re seeing when one agency doesn’t talk to another.’ “
One particularly resonant passage for me, from the report:
Agency leadership fails to reward civil servants who work to advance transparency, instead too often consistently violate legal requirements to provide comprehensive, accurate, and timely information to the public; the default to extreme, unwarranted secrecy often puts civil rights and civil liberties at risk; and antiquated technology and the lack of uniform data protocols leave us in the dark.
And one possible solution:
The president should prioritize the institutionalization and protection of dissent across government. Each agency should at minimum create a “dissent channel” —modeled after the Dissent Channel at the Department of State and the Direct Channel at the United States Agency for International Development—that allows civil servants and federal contractors to voice objections to policies, corruption, or inappropriate interference by political appointees, and clarify that any civil servant or contractor that appropriately utilizes the channel for those purposes will be protected from retaliation under applicable whistleblower protection laws.
If, after four years of completely failing to hold Trump accountable, the political press suddenly wants to prove how tough it is, it could do so not by finding fake scandals to blow out of proportion, but by aggressively pushing Biden to meet the needs of the public in a way no president has ever done before.