vox--2020-10-21--Trump broke the press. Here’s how to fix it.

Last Friday , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was confronted by a CBS reporter as he stepped off a plane .
“ What is your response to the New York Post story about your son , sir ?
” To his credit , Biden dismissed the question , but that ’ s not really the point .
The story the reporter was referencing , which was peddled to the Post by Rudy Giuliani , is absolute bullshit .
The staff journalist who wrote the story even reportedly refused to put his name on the byline out of concerns that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this reminds you of Hillary Clinton ’ s fake email scandal in 2016 , it should .
Then , as now , the goal of people like Giuliani was to get the press to cover a story not in order to convince people that it ’ s true , but to amplify a false narrative and divert attention — and maybe drive the public to exhaustion .
It ’ s a strategy that Steve Bannon colorfully dubbed “ flooding the zone with shit.
” I ’ ve written about this problem more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and yet I still struggle to come up with viable solutions .
The pattern is always the same : Trump , or operators working on his behalf , flood the zone with shit and the media responds as it always does : it covers the story .
Even though much of the coverage is skeptical , as the Washington Post ’ s Greg Sargent argued , the mere fact that stories are printed with the words “ Biden ” and “ emails ” means the zone-flooding approach succeeded .
In general , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than it handled the Clinton story in 2016 , which suggests some lessons were learned .
But I still worry that the attention — even to debunk it — nonetheless gives such a story oxygen , allowing the right to muddy the waters and confuse voters .
So what , exactly , is the media supposed to do ?
I reached out to Jay Rosen , a media critic and professor at NYU and one of the sharpest analysts of political journalism in the social media age , to talk about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why he thinks the prevailing model of journalism has been hacked , why the press has been either unwilling or unable to adapt , and some practical steps journalists can take to deal with the realities of this new media ecosystem .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
You wrote recently that Trump has exposed the weaknesses in “ the journalist ’ s code.
” What does that mean ?
There ’ s a code that tells journalists what ’ s newsworthy .
You won ’ t see it written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s research .
But it includes timeliness , conflict , anything totally unexpected , anything seemingly consequential , anything that involves a charismatic person whose human interest looms large in the news , and so on .
Trump has hacked the newsworthiness code by being newsworthy in the traditional sense every day , many times a day .
He dominates the public conversation .
He overwhelms journalists trying to process all this news .
He exhausts the patience of the public .
And he throws off so many false or misleading statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that as well .
If , as a journalist , you continue with the traditional newsworthiness code , you will participate in this method , which Steve Bannon accurately described .
“ The Democrats don ’ t matter .
The real opposition is the media.
” Trump governs by fighting with the news media .
“ And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.
” Which overwhelms many codes that journalists have for how to do their work .
I ’ m glad you brought up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” strategy , because that ’ s really what we ’ re talking about here .
And let ’ s use the first presidential debate as an example .
Trump did what he always does : overwhelmed the moderator and Biden with a barrage of lies and outrageous claims , and the press responded as it always does , namely by fact-checking Trump .
But I think you and I both agree that Trump ’ s playing a totally different game .
He ’ s not trying to win in the marketplace of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the public sphere and watching the press fumble all over itself while trying to debunk a hurricane of falsehoods .
Why does this keep working over and over again ?
Glenn Kessler , the Washington Post fact-checker , has said many times that before Trump , presidents , Democratic and Republican , reacted in the same way when they were successfully fact-checked by the press .
They would change the claim to make it kind-of sort-of factual , or they would take it out of the stump speech , because they didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being described as untruthful .
And this was true across parties .
Trump not only doesn ’ t do that , but he frequently doubles and triples down on a false statement , or makes it part of his stump speech , like the claim that Biden is trying to destroy protections for preexisting conditions .
But that ’ s not the only thing .
Attempts by the press to serve as a “ check ” on his lying only help Trump prove the culture-war proposition : “ They ’ re trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you.
” Glenn Kessler put out a book this year about 20,000 lies and distortions that Donald Trump has passed across that system .
Well , if the fact-check is supposed to be a check on the tendencies of public figures to exaggerate or slip in falsehoods , it ’ s obviously not working .
The press just hasn ’ t figured out how to build new routines on the wreckage of the old .
That ’ s one part of the answer .
Another part of the answer is that “ flood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s crude but well-suited to an age of media abundance .
In the Russian setting , it ’ s called the firehose of falsehood .
The most important feature is the constant production of falsehoods in every channel , every platform — mixed with a little truth .
Another key feature is that you don ’ t care if the truth claims are contradictory .
There ’ s no need to be consistent .
You use every tool you can .
You throw out multiple crappy arguments rather than make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals of this method is to overwhelm and dishearten people rather than persuade them .
It ’ s about driving them from the public arena , getting them to give up on efforts to know the truth .
The firehose of falsehood is very hard to oppose .
It ’ s difficult to know what to do in response .
Is Trump so extreme in his nihilism and bullshit artistry that the press just isn ’ t capable of dealing with him ?
And I want to be clear and say that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , but I do think Trump is different .
I would agree that the producers of news aren ’ t capable of dealing with Trump within their present rules and formulas .
One of the odd things about the news system as it stands is that there ’ s no emergency switch .
To fix this you would have to call a halt to regular journalism , suspend your routines .
You would have to , for example , tear apart the Sunday shows and start again with different premises .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I have tried to write about that very thing just to make it sound a little bit more possible .
But it would take something like that to match the phenomena , and our journalists aren ’ t very good at coming up with new practices on the fly .
They will assimilate critiques over a long period of time and occasionally change their behavior .
People think it doesn ’ t happen , but it does — slowly .
A good example would be the change in the way the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they kind of listened to the critique that if you glorify these people , you get more shooters .
So there have been changes in how they handle that .
They don ’ t use photographs of the shooters as much .
They ’ re aware that centering the story on these people is unfair to the victims .
But that took 10 years or so .
We don ’ t have 10 years .
We don ’ t have 10 days at this point .
The press has an agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ good place to push this conversation in the direction of solutions .
One thing you ’ ve said over and over again is that journalists have to abandon what you call “ the savvy style , ” and part of the problem is that reporters have this delusion that they ’ re merely spectators when , in fact , they ’ re actors in the process .
By that I mean the actions they take , the things they choose to focus on , impacts the very events they claim to be just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial distinction ?
When you look at the American news sphere as it stands , two big things influence political journalism .
One is extremely well-known : commercial pressures .
We can call it ratings .
We can call it clicks .
We can call it the industry of attention .
All these are names for the same thing , which is using news to generate an audience , and then selling that audience .
And , of course , Trump assists with that .
That ’ s why the words of Les @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are so revealing : “ It may not be good for America , but it ’ s damn good for CBS.
” But even after we allow for that , there is still within the media system a good deal of autonomy and room for maneuver , where journalists can do what they think is important , even though they are parts of a commercial operation .
And here , I think , political journalists took a wrong turn .
At some time in the ’ 70s and the ’ 80s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a game of insiders .
They sought to explain to an audience that was itself sort of fascinated by politics — the political junkies , as they are sometimes called — how that game worked and who the masters of it were .
This gave us political journalism as a savvy analysis of who was up , who was down , who ’ s winning or likely to win , the horse race , the spin , the strategy — all of that .
I call it the savvy style in political journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for politics to the junkies who wanted that and responded well to it .
Why do you think the American press has been unwilling or unable to adapt ?
If we asked members of the press , responsible people like , say , Dean Baquet , the editor of the New York Times , or others in positions similar to his , or those on the front lines like [ the Times ’ s ] Peter Baker , they would say they have adapted .
And if you asked them , “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would say things like , “ Well , we ’ re a little more likely to call a lie a lie.
” Dean Baquet would point to the various far-reaching , big investigations of Donald Trump that they ’ ve done for five years , and to his taxes especially .
“ See ?
We ’ ve been tough on him.
” They would say they ’ re more skeptical than they were at the beginning .
They ’ re less likely to run with his latest tweets .
They think they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand , because their metric is any departure from normal news judgment , whereas people like you and I are comparing what they continue to do to the phenomenon of Donald Trump .
And that ’ s a different scale .
As an institution , the American press has a thin tradition of self-reflection .
Part of the reason is it ’ s hardly an institution at all .
It ’ s a collection of newsrooms that kind of operate in a similar way , but there ’ s no council that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO of the press .
If a Martian landed and said , “ Take me to the media ’ s headquarters , ” where would you take them ?
After these major crashes in which the news media failed the public in very visible ways , like the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003 , or the 2016 election , there ’ s no 9/11 Commission to figure out what happened .
There ’ s no panel that can synthesize what went wrong .
I thought this latest Hunter Biden nonsense story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least learned a few lessons from 2016 and handled this much better than the Hillary story in 2016 .
Do you see progress there ?
Yes , I do .
There was more restraint .
Of course , the fact that Rudy Giuliani was involved helped a lot .
Still , I think there has been some serious reflection about document hacks with obscure actors involved , and the dangers of running with material like that .
I know for a fact that some journalists participated in scenario-planning around that possibility , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A journalism that ’ s equal to the scale of the Trump problem will be seen as inherently biased by a lot of people , which I ’ m fine with , but it seems like a real problem .
The editor of the New York Times , for example , wants to serve the entire country , but how does he do that ?
You can sort of see this in the conservative response to Savannah Guthrie ’ s handling of the town hall .
It ’ s bullshit , obviously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfair .
If you ’ re running a paper or a network , what ’ s your response to this challenge ?
The key is in your phrase , “ seen as inherently biased by a lot of people.
” If we start with perception , there can be no answer .
When the goal is to be seen as without bias you wind up with the view from nowhere , and all the dysfunction that comes with it : working the refs , “ both sides do it , ” a focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-ideological , and so on .
To continue with that model because you ’ re afraid of being called biased is defeatist .
But you ’ re right : Dean Baquet wants the Times to be a paper that serves the entire country , Republicans and Democrats .
What ’ s actually achievable , however , is a newsroom that serves everyone in the country — Democrats and Republican — who shares with Times journalists a certain baseline reality and evidentiary standard .
That ’ s all you can get .
Today this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That cohort could shrink .
Trump has tried to shrink it .
Over time it could grow .
It could disappear altogether .
Margaret Sullivan , media writer for the Washington Post , uses the phrase the “ reality-based press ” for what I believe is the same idea .
Social media guidelines currently on the books at the New York Times say , “ If our journalists are perceived as biased ... that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom.
” This kind of thinking can not work .
If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his newsroom , then Baquet has surrendered power to enemies of the Times , who will always perceive bias because it is basic to their interests to do so .
One last thing I will say , and it ’ s something you ’ ve suggested before , which is that we need a better answer to the question , “ What does it mean to succeed at election coverage ?
” As it stands , success is some unholy combination of clicks or ratings and predicting winners .
That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I guess the question is then what will replace it ?
I have two answers to that .
One is sort of leaning into the light , and one is leaning into the dark .
I ’ ve been advocating for a long time for a citizens agenda approach to election coverage .
It puts the electorate in the center of the story , rather than the candidates .
The protagonists are the voters struggling to get their concerns addressed by the system , including the media system , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people you ’ re trying to inform , “ What do you want the candidates to be talking about as they compete for votes ?
” Another way to put the question would be , “ What do you want this campaign to be about ?
” By asking lots of people those questions and getting a really good sense of their answers , you generate a priority list that can keep you from getting blown away by a hurricane of lies , or by the inside game of polls and tactics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you “ win ” when you gain an accurate sense of what people want the campaign to be about , and when you successfully pressure the candidates to address those things people told you they want the campaign to be about .
At the local level during this cycle , there are , here and there , public radio stations and local newspapers , that are doing it .
So there is an alternative out there .
It ’ s weak compared to the status quo .
But it ’ s real , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place and overhaul the entire contraption .
The other answer is darker because I think this is where we are going .
The Republican Party has become a counter-majoritarian party .
It can only win elections by making it harder to vote , and by making it harder to understand what the party is all about .
The conflict with honest journalism is structural , not just a matter of broken practices or bad actors .
And I believe the people who report on politics in the United States are going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins or loses .
If our journalists continue in the assumption that we have a normal system where there is a contest for power between roughly similar parties with different philosophies , then every day of operation they will be distorting the picture more and more .
Can that go on indefinitely ?
I don ’ t know , but it seems to me that we ’ re headed for a crash .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Last Friday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was confronted by a CBS reporter as he stepped off a plane. “What is your response to the New York Post story about your son, sir?”
To his credit, Biden dismissed the question, but that’s not really the point. The story the reporter was referencing, which was peddled to the Post by Rudy Giuliani, is absolute bullshit. The staff journalist who wrote the story even reportedly refused to put his name on the byline out of concerns that it was bogus and unreliable.
If any of this reminds you of Hillary Clinton’s fake email scandal in 2016, it should. Then, as now, the goal of people like Giuliani was to get the press to cover a story not in order to convince people that it’s true, but to amplify a false narrative and divert attention — and maybe drive the public to exhaustion. It’s a strategy that Steve Bannon colorfully dubbed “flooding the zone with shit.”
I’ve written about this problem more than once (here and here) and yet I still struggle to come up with viable solutions. The pattern is always the same: Trump, or operators working on his behalf, flood the zone with shit and the media responds as it always does: it covers the story. Even though much of the coverage is skeptical, as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent argued, the mere fact that stories are printed with the words “Biden” and “emails” means the zone-flooding approach succeeded.
In general, the press has handled the Biden story much better than it handled the Clinton story in 2016, which suggests some lessons were learned. But I still worry that the attention — even to debunk it — nonetheless gives such a story oxygen, allowing the right to muddy the waters and confuse voters.
So what, exactly, is the media supposed to do?
I reached out to Jay Rosen, a media critic and professor at NYU and one of the sharpest analysts of political journalism in the social media age, to talk about the media’s dilemma. We discussed why he thinks the prevailing model of journalism has been hacked, why the press has been either unwilling or unable to adapt, and some practical steps journalists can take to deal with the realities of this new media ecosystem.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
The model is broken
Sean Illing
You wrote recently that Trump has exposed the weaknesses in “the journalist’s code.” What does that mean?
Jay Rosen
There’s a code that tells journalists what’s newsworthy. You won’t see it written down except maybe in a journalism professor’s research. But it includes timeliness, conflict, anything totally unexpected, anything seemingly consequential, anything that involves a charismatic person whose human interest looms large in the news, and so on.
Trump has hacked the newsworthiness code by being newsworthy in the traditional sense every day, many times a day. He dominates the public conversation. He overwhelms journalists trying to process all this news. He exhausts the patience of the public. And he throws off so many false or misleading statements that he breaks the controls or checks on that as well.
If, as a journalist, you continue with the traditional newsworthiness code, you will participate in this method, which Steve Bannon accurately described. “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media.” Trump governs by fighting with the news media. “And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” Which overwhelms many codes that journalists have for how to do their work.
Sean Illing
I’m glad you brought up Trump’s “flood the zone” strategy, because that’s really what we’re talking about here. And let’s use the first presidential debate as an example. Trump did what he always does: overwhelmed the moderator and Biden with a barrage of lies and outrageous claims, and the press responded as it always does, namely by fact-checking Trump.
But I think you and I both agree that Trump’s playing a totally different game. He’s not trying to win in the marketplace of ideas. He’s dumping bullshit into the public sphere and watching the press fumble all over itself while trying to debunk a hurricane of falsehoods.
Why does this keep working over and over again?
Jay Rosen
Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact-checker, has said many times that before Trump, presidents, Democratic and Republican, reacted in the same way when they were successfully fact-checked by the press. They would change the claim to make it kind-of sort-of factual, or they would take it out of the stump speech, because they didn’t want to suffer the penalty of being described as untruthful. And this was true across parties.
Trump not only doesn’t do that, but he frequently doubles and triples down on a false statement, or makes it part of his stump speech, like the claim that Biden is trying to destroy protections for preexisting conditions.
But that’s not the only thing. Attempts by the press to serve as a “check” on his lying only help Trump prove the culture-war proposition: “They’re trying to take me down because they hate you.” Glenn Kessler put out a book this year about 20,000 lies and distortions that Donald Trump has passed across that system. Well, if the fact-check is supposed to be a check on the tendencies of public figures to exaggerate or slip in falsehoods, it’s obviously not working. The press just hasn’t figured out how to build new routines on the wreckage of the old.
That’s one part of the answer. Another part of the answer is that “flood the zone” is a propaganda method. It’s crude but well-suited to an age of media abundance.
In the Russian setting, it’s called the firehose of falsehood. The most important feature is the constant production of falsehoods in every channel, every platform — mixed with a little truth. Another key feature is that you don’t care if the truth claims are contradictory. There’s no need to be consistent. You use every tool you can. You throw out multiple crappy arguments rather than make one good one.
One of the goals of this method is to overwhelm and dishearten people rather than persuade them. It’s about driving them from the public arena, getting them to give up on efforts to know the truth. The firehose of falsehood is very hard to oppose. It’s difficult to know what to do in response.
Sean Illing
Is Trump so extreme in his nihilism and bullshit artistry that the press just isn’t capable of dealing with him? And I want to be clear and say that there’s nothing new about bullshit in politics, but I do think Trump is different.
Jay Rosen
I would agree that the producers of news aren’t capable of dealing with Trump within their present rules and formulas. One of the odd things about the news system as it stands is that there’s no emergency switch. To fix this you would have to call a halt to regular journalism, suspend your routines. You would have to, for example, tear apart the Sunday shows and start again with different premises. And there’s no appetite for that.
I have tried to write about that very thing just to make it sound a little bit more possible. But it would take something like that to match the phenomena, and our journalists aren’t very good at coming up with new practices on the fly. They will assimilate critiques over a long period of time and occasionally change their behavior. People think it doesn’t happen, but it does — slowly.
A good example would be the change in the way the news media deals with mass shooting situations, where they kind of listened to the critique that if you glorify these people, you get more shooters. So there have been changes in how they handle that. They don’t use photographs of the shooters as much. They’re aware that centering the story on these people is unfair to the victims. But that took 10 years or so.
We don’t have 10 years. We don’t have 10 days at this point.
The press has an agenda. Own it.
Sean Illing
This is probably a good place to push this conversation in the direction of solutions. One thing you’ve said over and over again is that journalists have to abandon what you call “the savvy style,” and part of the problem is that reporters have this delusion that they’re merely spectators when, in fact, they’re actors in the process. By that I mean the actions they take, the things they choose to focus on, impacts the very events they claim to be just covering.
Why is this such a crucial distinction?
Jay Rosen
When you look at the American news sphere as it stands, two big things influence political journalism. One is extremely well-known: commercial pressures. We can call it ratings. We can call it clicks. We can call it the industry of attention. All these are names for the same thing, which is using news to generate an audience, and then selling that audience. And, of course, Trump assists with that. That’s why the words of Les Moonves, the former CEO of CBS, are so revealing: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
But even after we allow for that, there is still within the media system a good deal of autonomy and room for maneuver, where journalists can do what they think is important, even though they are parts of a commercial operation.
And here, I think, political journalists took a wrong turn. At some time in the ’70s and the ’80s, they began to look at politics as a game of insiders. They sought to explain to an audience that was itself sort of fascinated by politics — the political junkies, as they are sometimes called — how that game worked and who the masters of it were. This gave us political journalism as a savvy analysis of who was up, who was down, who’s winning or likely to win, the horse race, the spin, the strategy — all of that.
I call it the savvy style in political journalism. It kind of reduced the audience for politics to the junkies who wanted that and responded well to it.
Sean Illing
Why do you think the American press has been unwilling or unable to adapt?
Jay Rosen
If we asked members of the press, responsible people like, say, Dean Baquet, the editor of the New York Times, or others in positions similar to his, or those on the front lines like [the Times’s] Peter Baker, they would say they have adapted. And if you asked them, “What do you mean by that?” they would say things like, “Well, we’re a little more likely to call a lie a lie.” Dean Baquet would point to the various far-reaching, big investigations of Donald Trump that they’ve done for five years, and to his taxes especially. “See? We’ve been tough on him.”
They would say they’re more skeptical than they were at the beginning. They’re less likely to run with his latest tweets. They think they have adapted. That’s important to understand, because their metric is any departure from normal news judgment, whereas people like you and I are comparing what they continue to do to the phenomenon of Donald Trump. And that’s a different scale.
As an institution, the American press has a thin tradition of self-reflection. Part of the reason is it’s hardly an institution at all. It’s a collection of newsrooms that kind of operate in a similar way, but there’s no council that unites it. There’s no CEO of the press. If a Martian landed and said, “Take me to the media’s headquarters,” where would you take them?
After these major crashes in which the news media failed the public in very visible ways, like the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, or the 2016 election, there’s no 9/11 Commission to figure out what happened. There’s no panel that can synthesize what went wrong.
Sean Illing
I thought this latest Hunter Biden nonsense story from the Post showed that the media at least learned a few lessons from 2016 and handled this much better than the Hillary story in 2016.
Do you see progress there?
Jay Rosen
Yes, I do. There was more restraint. Of course, the fact that Rudy Giuliani was involved helped a lot. Still, I think there has been some serious reflection about document hacks with obscure actors involved, and the dangers of running with material like that. I know for a fact that some journalists participated in scenario-planning around that possibility, so maybe that had some effect.
Sean Illing
A journalism that’s equal to the scale of the Trump problem will be seen as inherently biased by a lot of people, which I’m fine with, but it seems like a real problem. The editor of the New York Times, for example, wants to serve the entire country, but how does he do that? You can sort of see this in the conservative response to Savannah Guthrie’s handling of the town hall. It’s bullshit, obviously, but half the country thought she was unfair. If you’re running a paper or a network, what’s your response to this challenge?
Jay Rosen
The key is in your phrase, “seen as inherently biased by a lot of people.” If we start with perception, there can be no answer. When the goal is to be seen as without bias you wind up with the view from nowhere, and all the dysfunction that comes with it: working the refs, “both sides do it,” a focus on the horse race because it feels non-ideological, and so on. To continue with that model because you’re afraid of being called biased is defeatist.
But you’re right: Dean Baquet wants the Times to be a paper that serves the entire country, Republicans and Democrats. What’s actually achievable, however, is a newsroom that serves everyone in the country — Democrats and Republican — who shares with Times journalists a certain baseline reality and evidentiary standard. That’s all you can get. Today this group includes a minority of Republicans. That cohort could shrink. Trump has tried to shrink it. Over time it could grow. It could disappear altogether. Margaret Sullivan, media writer for the Washington Post, uses the phrase the “reality-based press” for what I believe is the same idea.
Social media guidelines currently on the books at the New York Times say, “If our journalists are perceived as biased... that can undercut the credibility of the entire newsroom.” This kind of thinking cannot work. If the perception of critics can shape rule-making in his newsroom, then Baquet has surrendered power to enemies of the Times, who will always perceive bias because it is basic to their interests to do so.
Sean Illing
One last thing I will say, and it’s something you’ve suggested before, which is that we need a better answer to the question, “What does it mean to succeed at election coverage?” As it stands, success is some unholy combination of clicks or ratings and predicting winners. That’s the approach to journalism that has to die, and I guess the question is then what will replace it?
Jay Rosen
I have two answers to that. One is sort of leaning into the light, and one is leaning into the dark.
I’ve been advocating for a long time for a citizens agenda approach to election coverage. It puts the electorate in the center of the story, rather than the candidates. The protagonists are the voters struggling to get their concerns addressed by the system, including the media system, but also the candidates. It begins by asking the people you’re trying to inform, “What do you want the candidates to be talking about as they compete for votes?” Another way to put the question would be, “What do you want this campaign to be about?” By asking lots of people those questions and getting a really good sense of their answers, you generate a priority list that can keep you from getting blown away by a hurricane of lies, or by the inside game of polls and tactics.
In the citizens agenda model, you “win” when you gain an accurate sense of what people want the campaign to be about, and when you successfully pressure the candidates to address those things people told you they want the campaign to be about. At the local level during this cycle, there are, here and there, public radio stations and local newspapers, that are doing it. So there is an alternative out there. It’s weak compared to the status quo. But it’s real, and it does begin in a different place and overhaul the entire contraption.
The other answer is darker because I think this is where we are going. The Republican Party has become a counter-majoritarian party. It can only win elections by making it harder to vote, and by making it harder to understand what the party is all about. The conflict with honest journalism is structural, not just a matter of broken practices or bad actors. And I believe the people who report on politics in the United States are going to have to confront that reality, whether Trump wins or loses.
If our journalists continue in the assumption that we have a normal system where there is a contest for power between roughly similar parties with different philosophies, then every day of operation they will be distorting the picture more and more. Can that go on indefinitely? I don’t know, but it seems to me that we’re headed for a crash.


vox--2020-10-21--Factory farms are an ideal breeding ground for the next pandemic

We ’ ve seen the devastating effects of a pandemic firsthand : the loss of human life , the economic toll , and the impact on everything from mental health to children ’ s education .
Which is why , as Covid-19 spread , people looked for a way to prevent future outbreaks .
In the US , people started to call for the closure of “ wet markets ” overseas .
Some research suggested that the many different species living closely together in these markets might have allowed the virus to mutate and jump to humans .
But Martha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Institutes of Health , says that if we ’ re really serious about preventing a future pandemic , we also need to look closer to home .
“ I think it ’ s really easy to think that pandemics come from other places , ” she explains , “ I think it ’ s really easy to think that they ’ re foreign invaders coming from other people who were doing things in a bad way .
And I certainly would never underplay the importance of wet markets and all the opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But I think it ’ s sometimes hard to see things in your own backyard.
” On this episode of the Future Perfect podcast , Nelson explains the pandemic risk lurking on factory farms in the US .
Nelson has studied our system of raising pigs closely , and she argues that by moving pigs across the country and raising large numbers of pigs in very close proximity , we ’ re creating ideal conditions for a dangerous influenza virus to develop .
And since she ’ s also seen how easily pigs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s even more concerned .
Given the frequency of pig to human transmission , she says , we ’ re “ playing Russian roulette ” with our current system of factory farming animals .
• Sigal Samuel wrote an in-depth explainer on the pandemic risks of factory farms earlier this year .
She ’ s also written about “ wet markets.
” • For more on how viruses can spread in the pig population , Martha Nelson has an excellent paper , “ When Pigs Fly.
” • The Food and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2013 report on the health risks of factory farming .
• Sonia Shah ’ s book , Pandemic , is a great primer on how pandemic strains emerge .
This podcast is made possible thanks to support from Animal Charity Evaluators .
They research and promote the most effective ways to help animals .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

We’ve seen the devastating effects of a pandemic firsthand: the loss of human life, the economic toll, and the impact on everything from mental health to children’s education.
Which is why, as Covid-19 spread, people looked for a way to prevent future outbreaks.
In the US, people started to call for the closure of “wet markets” overseas. Some research suggested that the many different species living closely together in these markets might have allowed the virus to mutate and jump to humans.
But Martha Nelson, who studies viruses at the National Institutes of Health, says that if we’re really serious about preventing a future pandemic, we also need to look closer to home.
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
“I think it’s really easy to think that pandemics come from other places,” she explains, “I think it’s really easy to think that they’re foreign invaders coming from other people who were doing things in a bad way. And I certainly would never underplay the importance of wet markets and all the opportunities for novel pathogens to emerge there. But I think it’s sometimes hard to see things in your own backyard.”
On this episode of the Future Perfect podcast, Nelson explains the pandemic risk lurking on factory farms in the US.
Nelson has studied our system of raising pigs closely, and she argues that by moving pigs across the country and raising large numbers of pigs in very close proximity, we’re creating ideal conditions for a dangerous influenza virus to develop. And since she’s also seen how easily pigs can spread novel viruses to humans, she’s even more concerned.
Given the frequency of pig to human transmission, she says, we’re “playing Russian roulette” with our current system of factory farming animals.
Further reading:
This podcast is made possible thanks to support from Animal Charity Evaluators. They research and promote the most effective ways to help animals.


vox--2020-10-21--Trump’s team is pushing for a debate on foreign policy. That could backfire.

Ahead of Thursday ’ s final presidential debate , President Donald Trump is pushing for foreign policy to dominate his conversation with Democratic candidate Joe Biden .
The reason — beyond not having to answer for his disastrous handling of the coronavirus , the economy , race relations , and climate change — is that it ’ s arguably the one area where Trump can make the strongest case for his four years in office .
Among the successes Trump can point to are that he oversaw the military defeat of ISIS ; ordered the assassinations of top Iranian military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bakr al-Baghdadi ; and brokered historic normalization of relations deals between Israel and two Arab nations just two years after moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem .
He improved the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) with Canada and Mexico and signed a “ phase one ” trade deal with China .
The US and the Taliban signed a peace accord , paving the way for nearly all US troops to come home from Afghanistan .
The White House helped facilitate diplomatic negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader Kim Jong Un , got Pyongyang to stop , at least for the time being , testing nuclear bombs and the missiles that could carry them to America .
And he hasn ’ t started any new wars , either .
Add to all this the fact that Biden has a decades-long foreign policy record to defend , which offers Trump multiple areas to attack him .
A debate on global affairs would allow the president to lambaste Biden over issues like his support for the Iraq War , his opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and his failure during his time in the Obama administration to curb China ’ s aggressiveness against the US and its neighbors .
It ’ s no surprise , then , that Trump would feel on firmer ground talking about his foreign policy than almost any other aspect of his presidency .
“ Foreign policy is a massive advantage for Trump in the race , ” Jason Miller , a senior adviser to the president ’ s 2020 campaign , told me .
“ Joe Biden ’ s experience in foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , adding that “ he ’ s a weak leader and not respected on the global stage.
” It ’ s why Trump campaign chair Bill Stepien on Monday sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates asking for “ an emphasis on foreign policy ” in Thursday ’ s debate .
“ We were told explicitly that the final debate would be the foreign policy debate , ” Miller told me .
Biden ’ s campaign disputes that characterization .
“ The campaigns and the Commission agreed months ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topics , ” national press secretary TJ Ducklo told Vox .
“ The Trump campaign is lying about that now because Donald Trump is afraid to face more questions about his disastrous Covid response.
” Either way , the case Trump wants to make is he is the better commander in chief .
But if you scratch at the surface of Trump ’ s foreign policy record , the initial shine wears off — underscoring the risk of the president ’ s play .
Why pushing for a foreign policy debate probably won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy picture Trump aims to paint isn ’ t as pretty as he ’ ll make it seem .
America ’ s global image has tanked on the president ’ s watch .
The total trade deficit in the US , which Trump sought to slash in part by altering trade relations with China , is nearing an all-time high .
He ’ s cozied up to autocrats and failed to stop their most egregious human rights abuses , especially Beijing ’ s internment of around 2 million Uighur Muslims .
Iran has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nuclear weapon if it chooses to pursue one , despite the sanctions Trump has placed on the country .
He also has major problems in the areas where he aims to tout his success .
North Korea is a stronger nuclear power now than it was four years ago when Trump took office .
Neither the United Arab Emirates nor Bahrain — the two countries that signed normalization deals with Israel — were actually at war with that country and both were already deeply engaged with Jerusalem when the so-called Abraham Accords @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still killing in Afghanistan even after its agreement with Washington and has yet to come anywhere close to signing any kind of power-sharing agreement with the Afghan government .
But experts say despite those failings , there ’ s a logic to the president wanting to highlight his global efforts .
“ Relatively speaking , he is better off talking about foreign policy than talking about the state of the country , ” said Daniel Drezner , a US foreign policy expert at Tufts University ’ s Fletcher School .
“ There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point to , Drezner said .
But would pointing to that list in a debate be a good idea ?
Maybe not .
Trump ’ s push for a foreign policy debate has two additional glaring weaknesses Experts noted two main reasons why Trump ’ s push to have a foreign policy debate might backfire on him .
The first is that Biden is actually quite strong when talking about foreign policy .
He ’ s dealt with it for decades , chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , and served for eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a wealth of experience and knowledge that ’ s hard to combat , even if Trump thinks Biden ’ s worldview is misguided .
Take Biden ’ s response to a foreign policy question during last week ’ s ABC News town hall in Pennsylvania .
Mark Hoffman , a conservative who voted for Trump four years ago , asked Biden : “ Does President Trump ’ s foreign policy deserve some credit ?
” “ A little , but not a whole lot , ” Biden said .
“ We find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re more isolated in the world than we ’ ve ever been.
” Then he listed off Trump ’ s foreign policy sins : You have Iran closer to having enough nuclear material to build a bomb .
North Korea has more bombs and missiles available to it .
We find ourselves where our NATO allies are publicly saying they can ’ t count on us .
We ’ re in a situation , as well , where in the Far East , we find ourselves in the — in the Western Pacific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
You have Japan and South Korea at odds with one another , China is making moves .
So , I — you know , I would say we find ourselves less secure than we ’ ve been .
I do compliment the president on the deal with Israel recently , but , you know , if you take a look , we ’ re not very well trusted around the world .
When 17 major nations of the world were asked who they trust more , who is a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind both — a national survey , international survey — both behind Putin as well as Xi .
Biden said a lot more , but you get the idea .
Such a retort might make Trump think twice about really challenging Biden on foreign policy .
And then there ’ s the domestic side of things : Few American voters care deeply about foreign policy or vote for a presidential candidate based solely or even mostly on their handling of it .
“ Foreign policy is viewed as an elite sport .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Justin Logan , a US foreign policy expert at Catholic University .
Even if Trump were to win a foreign policy debate against the former vice president , that victory likely wouldn ’ t propel him to overtake Biden ’ s lead in the polls , Logan added .
“ He ’ d be waltzing before a blind audience .
It ’ s just not a salient issue.
” A foreign policy debate “ probably won ’ t make things worse ” for Trump — especially since discussing domestic issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — “ but it certainly can ’ t save the candidate , ” Logan concluded .
All that said , it is quite stunning that foreign policy has barely featured at all in the 2020 election .
The year , of course , has been dominated by the coronavirus pandemic and domestic political turmoil , namely the fight over the Supreme Court and issues of racial justice .
But foreign policy is where a president has the most latitude to act , and many experts feel the nation deserves to hear more about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on foreign policy in debates has been a disservice to voters , ” said Kate Kizer , the policy director for the progressive advocacy group Win Without War .
Trump , whether for political gain or out of genuine belief , appears to agree .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Ahead of Thursday’s final presidential debate, President Donald Trump is pushing for foreign policy to dominate his conversation with Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The reason — beyond not having to answer for his disastrous handling of the coronavirus, the economy, race relations, and climate change — is that it’s arguably the one area where Trump can make the strongest case for his four years in office.
Among the successes Trump can point to are that he oversaw the military defeat of ISIS; ordered the assassinations of top Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; and brokered historic normalization of relations deals between Israel and two Arab nations just two years after moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
He improved the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico and signed a “phase one” trade deal with China. The US and the Taliban signed a peace accord, paving the way for nearly all US troops to come home from Afghanistan. The White House helped facilitate diplomatic negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo. And Trump, through summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, got Pyongyang to stop, at least for the time being, testing nuclear bombs and the missiles that could carry them to America.
And he hasn’t started any new wars, either.
Add to all this the fact that Biden has a decades-long foreign policy record to defend, which offers Trump multiple areas to attack him. A debate on global affairs would allow the president to lambaste Biden over issues like his support for the Iraq War, his opposition to the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, and his failure during his time in the Obama administration to curb China’s aggressiveness against the US and its neighbors.
It’s no surprise, then, that Trump would feel on firmer ground talking about his foreign policy than almost any other aspect of his presidency.
“Foreign policy is a massive advantage for Trump in the race,” Jason Miller, a senior adviser to the president’s 2020 campaign, told me. “Joe Biden’s experience in foreign policy has been a complete disaster,” he said, adding that “he’s a weak leader and not respected on the global stage.”
It’s why Trump campaign chair Bill Stepien on Monday sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates asking for “an emphasis on foreign policy” in Thursday’s debate. “We were told explicitly that the final debate would be the foreign policy debate,” Miller told me.
Biden’s campaign disputes that characterization. “The campaigns and the Commission agreed months ago that the debate moderator would choose the topics,” national press secretary TJ Ducklo told Vox. “The Trump campaign is lying about that now because Donald Trump is afraid to face more questions about his disastrous Covid response.”
Our letter to the BDC (Biden Debate Commission) pic.twitter.com/ZsY5JfMbT7 — BillStepien (@BillStepien) October 19, 2020
Either way, the case Trump wants to make is he is the better commander in chief. But if you scratch at the surface of Trump’s foreign policy record, the initial shine wears off — underscoring the risk of the president’s play.
Why pushing for a foreign policy debate probably won’t work for Trump
The foreign policy picture Trump aims to paint isn’t as pretty as he’ll make it seem.
America’s global image has tanked on the president’s watch. The total trade deficit in the US, which Trump sought to slash in part by altering trade relations with China, is nearing an all-time high. He’s cozied up to autocrats and failed to stop their most egregious human rights abuses, especially Beijing’s internment of around 2 million Uighur Muslims. Iran has moved closer to being able to develop a nuclear weapon if it chooses to pursue one, despite the sanctions Trump has placed on the country.
He also has major problems in the areas where he aims to tout his success.
North Korea is a stronger nuclear power now than it was four years ago when Trump took office. Neither the United Arab Emirates nor Bahrain — the two countries that signed normalization deals with Israel — were actually at war with that country and both were already deeply engaged with Jerusalem when the so-called Abraham Accords were announced. And the Taliban is still killing in Afghanistan even after its agreement with Washington and has yet to come anywhere close to signing any kind of power-sharing agreement with the Afghan government.
But experts say despite those failings, there’s a logic to the president wanting to highlight his global efforts. “Relatively speaking, he is better off talking about foreign policy than talking about the state of the country,” said Daniel Drezner, a US foreign policy expert at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. “There’s actually a list” Trump can point to, Drezner said.
But would pointing to that list in a debate be a good idea? Maybe not.
Trump’s push for a foreign policy debate has two additional glaring weaknesses
Experts noted two main reasons why Trump’s push to have a foreign policy debate might backfire on him.
The first is that Biden is actually quite strong when talking about foreign policy. He’s dealt with it for decades, chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and served for eight years as vice president. That’s a wealth of experience and knowledge that’s hard to combat, even if Trump thinks Biden’s worldview is misguided.
Take Biden’s response to a foreign policy question during last week’s ABC News town hall in Pennsylvania. Mark Hoffman, a conservative who voted for Trump four years ago, asked Biden: “Does President Trump’s foreign policy deserve some credit?”
“A little, but not a whole lot,” Biden said. “We find ourselves in a position where we’re more isolated in the world than we’ve ever been.”
Then he listed off Trump’s foreign policy sins:
You have Iran closer to having enough nuclear material to build a bomb. North Korea has more bombs and missiles available to it. We find ourselves where our NATO allies are publicly saying they can’t count on us. We’re in a situation, as well, where in the Far East, we find ourselves in the — in the Western Pacific, where we’re isolated, as well. You have Japan and South Korea at odds with one another, China is making moves. So, I — you know, I would say we find ourselves less secure than we’ve been. I do compliment the president on the deal with Israel recently, but, you know, if you take a look, we’re not very well trusted around the world. When 17 major nations of the world were asked who they trust more, who is a better leader, and the president came in behind both — a national survey, international survey — both behind Putin as well as Xi.
Biden said a lot more, but you get the idea. Such a retort might make Trump think twice about really challenging Biden on foreign policy.
And then there’s the domestic side of things: Few American voters care deeply about foreign policy or vote for a presidential candidate based solely or even mostly on their handling of it. “Foreign policy is viewed as an elite sport. It’s the political equivalent of polo,” said Justin Logan, a US foreign policy expert at Catholic University.
Even if Trump were to win a foreign policy debate against the former vice president, that victory likely wouldn’t propel him to overtake Biden’s lead in the polls, Logan added. “He’d be waltzing before a blind audience. It’s just not a salient issue.”
A foreign policy debate “probably won’t make things worse” for Trump — especially since discussing domestic issues might be more harmful for the president — “but it certainly can’t save the candidate,” Logan concluded.
All that said, it is quite stunning that foreign policy has barely featured at all in the 2020 election. The year, of course, has been dominated by the coronavirus pandemic and domestic political turmoil, namely the fight over the Supreme Court and issues of racial justice.
But foreign policy is where a president has the most latitude to act, and many experts feel the nation deserves to hear more about their plans. “The lack of focus on foreign policy in debates has been a disservice to voters,” said Kate Kizer, the policy director for the progressive advocacy group Win Without War.
Trump, whether for political gain or out of genuine belief, appears to agree.
Emily Stewart contributed reporting.
ntribute today from as little as $3.