Wouldn't it be wonderful if the White House refused to allow ABC News to attend briefings and office at the WH until they apologized? I'd love to see the Prez take on the press the way the right does.
I don’t disagree but I wish you would be more specific. What exactly should they be doing? Often in the past when Democrats have fought back they have been attacked but the media. And attacking the media just made the media even more unfair to them.
Over the weekend NBC showed clips from the Today Show because it is their 70th anniversary. They included Hillary saying “vast right-wing conspiracy”. She was clearly purposely exaggerating. The media, rather than acknowledge she the truth of her accusation chose to attack and mock her for saying “vast”.
I also remember the media attacking John Kerry because at first he didn’t respond to the insane Swift Boat attacks. I assumed he had decided not to respond to such blatant lies and that the media would debunk them. When he did fight back he was accused of looking defensive, the implication being he looked weak.
It seems like Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
To answer your first question, Theodora, is one, you show up and call them out when they do something dumb. Let them know you're displeased. Two, you do not relent. Three, you demand your side of the story be covered. I'd love to see Biden ask the Times when they're going to write about Biden voters who worry about the autocratic bent of the GOP.
Fighting back didn't hurt the GOP over the past 40 years. They hated being the "nattering nabobs of negativism." In fact, it's why the MSM defers to them. My experience w/ the media (10yrs. as producer/journalist & 25 yrs as media consultant) is that, yes, they are thin skinned and they will push back vs. criticism, but if you keep hammering, they eventually start to take it to heart, not because they are convinced you're right, but that they don't want to be criticized.
What if in Weds. presser, Biden called out ABC for the CDC edit, NYT for its incessant Trump voter stories, and WaPo and others for always framing battles as Biden's failure instead of the GOP lack of agenda and refusal to protect voting rights? And not just Weds., but every time he interacts w/ the press.
But what puzzles me is the lack of push back from the DNC, Schumer's & Pelosi's offices.
This may seem nuts but the media has the same kinds of responses Democrats fighting back that women often get — you look shrill and too aggressive when you fight back and weak when you don’t. I think there is a lot of truth to people subconsciously thinking of Democrats as the feminine, “Mommy” party. It always struck me as twisted that the media mocked Clinton because he felt other people’s pain. Gore was accused by Maureen Dowd of being so “feminized he was practically lactating” because he was too focused on the environment. I couldn’t believe the editors allowed such a misogynistic statement to be published.
Not too long ago was listening to a Pod Save American episode.Obama speech writer Jon Lovett said in passing that he has that same impression. I wish he would have talked about it more.
Ah, yes the words of William Safire, who then became the pinnacle of enlightened conservative commentary for many years on the op-ed page of the NYT. I don't believe for one instant that reporters and editors and producers take any Democratic criticism seriously, not from the leadership and certainly not from their readership/viewers. For them it's a badge of honor. Look at that idiot Chuck Todd (and Baquet has said this too) "If both sides are mad at us, we are doing it correctly." Without acknowledging or even addressing that the left and right have very different reasons for being angry at their coverage. Safire said the right would change the tenor of reporting from within organizations, and they have done that quite successfully.
Also, how do you know they haven't pushed back? I've seen Nancy take them on in her pressers and Joe has too. Every time they go on the offensive they run the risk of becoming the story, which then dilutes the message. When Joe pushes back on reporters it's oh look how mean he is rather than hmmm, we need to ask better questions.
Another horrendous example is the coverage of Trump's Nuremberg rally in AZ this past weekend. NYT posited is as a strategy for winning back 22—"Trump Rally Underscores GOP Tension Over How to Win in 22." JFC! Talk about the normalization of racism, hate, and authoritarianism/fascism.
MAP & Theodora, you both make good points. Liberals, by definition, are more tolerant, or to put another way, more acquiescent, unwilling to push back, thinking everyone, even the press, has a right to their view.
You're right, I don't know for sure that the left hasn't pushed back. But if they were, you might see it more on social media where the press can't edit it out of their stories. I think naming not only the offending reporters but their top editors might get a reaction. And maybe if MSM critics such as M. Sullivan, picks up the argument, you'd get traction.
I'd be curious, why do you think the GOP has been successful working the refs but Dems wouldn't be?
If you read the WaPo comments — those “most liked” readers are really excoriating them for the negative coverage of Biden and other things. That is a fairly recent phenomenon and I have been reading the comments for years. That is really hopeful news but I am not sure it is getting through to people who don’t pay that much attention and are still likely to be influenced by media coverage. I firmly believe that if the media had been putting at least as much focus on just how amazing our economic performance as they are giving to inflation Biden’s poll numbers would be significantly higher.
For that matter it would help if they stopped treating Biden’s poll numbers as shockingly low. Lots of presidents have survived those kinds of numbers and there is good reason to think Biden will too. Inflation is already slowing and is predicted to return to normal in a few months. With any luck Covid will start dropping too.
I am stuck at home because of ice/snow so I decided to reread Eric’s book “Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled over for Bush”. On page 10 he points out the during Clinton’s first months in office the post made such a big deal about his weak approval ratings they published an article with the snide headline “The Failed Clinton Presidency: It has a certain ring to it”. Yet when Bush’s fell into the 30s on more than one occasion the media did not portray him as a failed president. Most polls show Biden’s approval in the 40s but I have seen several articles about his failing presidency. Anyone who thinks there isn’t a double standard for Democrats should read Eric’s book. This has been going on literally for decades.
Dems use social media more to promote policies (and yes Democracy and voting rights) and to publicize accomplishments. You are right, they should probably be more aggressive in pushing back on Twitter etc. A few do—Eric Swallwell, Schiff, Brian Schatz, Tim Ryan, and others on occasion, but it's not unified and consistent. PA Dem legislature and Josh Shapiro (my next gov if I have anything to say about it) does too. Ron Klain has done so gently (retweeting) and been slammed for it by media folk on Twitter.
I'm an ordinary Joe and push back on journalists and media accounts all the time on Twitter for shoddy reporting and commentary (did you see the sad excuse for the Times op ed page yesterday? Coupled with their top stories. I despair.) They don't care—which gives lie to Sulzberger's lame ass excuse for getting rid of the PE. NYT got rid of the editors who actually would catch bad takes in stories so they could "hire more journalists." But what good is more coverage when the reporting and writing is so bad?
As for fellow media folk, Margaret S., Jen Rubin, Dana M., have picked up the argument and of course, media has ignored or pushed back, especially that they should be promoting democracy. Dan Froomkin sums it up nicely in his latest Press Run:
I think the GOP has been successful because of Liberal Guilt. Most journalists are college educated and most would say they are (at least) socially liberal. The truth does have a liberal bias and the GOP play on that and how easy it is to get someone who is fair to see their own flaws. "Oh my goodness are we being unfair? We need to correct that. Let's get reporters dedicated to covering GOP exclusively (Jeremy Peters, NYT for instance)."
GOP began really playing the refs in the 80s and 90s, which gave us the whole need for "balance" which has become baked in bothsidism. I think their views of Dems again are so baked in that it blinds them. And they won't do any soul searching. Look at the sad postmortems they did over the Iraq War and even the 2016 campaign. Halfhearted at best and nothing has changed.
Remember what happened when Obama tried to freeze out Fox News? Media banded around them with the rally cry "We are all Fox News." Journalists, especially the WH press corps, can be just as tribal as the GOP. When the media considers Project Veritas as "journalism" we know it's broken. From a CJR recent column:
"In November, FBI agents raided the apartment of right-wing provocateur James O’Keefe, who founded Project Veritas, as part of an investigation into the alleged theft of the president’s daughter’s diary. They seized two cellphones, after they had searched the homes of two more Veritas affiliates.
"The press is typically protected from these types of raids, and many mainstream news outlets, as well as First Amendment advocates, defended the site."
Many mainstream news outlets and First Amendment advocates defended the site.
Defending Project Veritas. This is what we've come to.
Bear in mind, however, that Fox News should have been crushed out of existence years ago, but for the other news outlets who came to their defense. And yet, every one of them has pointed at Fox as being the driving force behind the rise of Donald Trump, not owning up to the fact that they love Trump because he's so easy to report on.
Why are the mainstream media news outlets defending Project Veritas?
That organization was/is known for doing "gotcha" interviews where they either confront journalists or get producers/staff drunk to admit to "liberal bias" in their coverage of Republicans, particularly Trump.
The First Amendment, probably. It is the hardest one of the Bill of Rights to look at objectively. Never mind which wing Veritas flies with. The First Amendment is meant to protect journalistic sources.
Indeed, it's just weird that Project Veritas is now considered a "journalistic" enterprise despite its questionable tactics in obtaining information all in the cause of owning the libs.
They are a political dirty tricks operation pretending they are journalists to get cover. The media should not defend any organization which has as its main goal misleading the public. Our idiotic media would probably have defended Goebblels.
What comes to my mind is that major media is taking a page of TFG's book. Never admit mistakes. It has worked for the orange one and media is moving to that model instead of going for one of ownership and credibility.
I believe that Rick Klein is still the politics director for ABC News and in his public biography on the ABC News Web page, this paragraph stands out:
"Klein’s instincts and insights played a critical role throughout the last three presidential election cycles, helping guide ABC’s reporting on the campaigns and political battles in Washington. He has interviewed Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ken Burns, Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.”
I’m not saying his lack of high-profile Democratic interviews is telling, but you can draw your own conclusion.
I agree with comments that Democrats are in a lose-lose with major media conglomerates. If they speak out they're bombarded with false outrage from the GOP and accused of defensiveness by major media. The problem is that Democrats immediately retreat even when morality and truth are on their side, which further emboldens propaganda and inaccurate reporting. This is what drove anti-Hillary bias in 2016, and has led us to the door of fascism. It's the recurring theme of the 21st century...no accountability; no consequences. If the Democrats do nothing else in 2022, they must stand up and defend their values, stand up against misinformation, and stop backing down. If they cannot even do this, then we should be prepared for a massive rollback in civil rights and freedoms for 90% of the population.
As an ordinary nobody Dem, I do this all the time. But half the problem is that the media ignores or downplays the Dem message, coupled with the fact that the left loves to attack itself. Too many purists for whom it's all or nothing, and too many who are just as ignorant of history and how government works as on the right—Biden needs to behave like Trump and "lock them up!" People saw Mueller as the savior and when Trump wasn't gone after the report they were disappointed (even though we later learned how hamstrung/narrow the investigation was) and now it's "Garland is weak, why aren't they all in jail. There's no accountability." I've seen comparisons of how quickly McVeigh was arrested as an example of the DOJ not investigating 1/6. The cases are apples and oranges.
The Dems ARE standing up for Democracy and talk about it all the time, but we are a society that has been rewired for instant gratification; we have lost any sense of rationality and proportion, and are quickly tired and bored. We can't deal with the notion that legislation takes time, or that we need a majority of votes (it's the math stupid) to win or make laws or change procedures, or that new discoveries in the study of Covid means we have to adjust our behaviors.
That voters watched 1/6, witnessed (and still are) the GOP trying to nullify their votes, steal them, and suppress them yet still may choose to stay home or vote GOP in Nov—I mean when does it start being our responsibility and not just Joe, Nancy, and Chuck?
You make valid points, but the reality is that movements need leaders...whether from the grassroots or elected officials. The pandemic has hampered the former, so elected leadership must take the reins. The GOP leadership will pretend to be outraged and media will indulge them, but if Democratic leadership push through consistent messaging, it will reach people. For example, the groups that raise money to elect Secretaries of State have raised $33M for the GOP vs $1M for Democrats. These are literally the folks who certify the ballots in every state. Massive numbers of GOP candidates are running for local elections, often unopposed. Why aren't more Democratic and Independent candidates running for office? Nightmarish local GOP judges are running for reelection, unopposed. The electorate needs to be educated on the facts, which are horrifying. I don't care how obstinate the media is, consistent Democratic messaging would break through.
The Dems are trying to get candidates for every office. They cannot get people to run. It's astonishing. And then, when the worst happens, Dem voters (not the party) lift their heads out of the sand—like the recent Roe ruling—and wail "how did this happen?!" when people like me AND the party have consistently warned them. You cannot force people to listen or get them to come out and vote even when everything they want is on the line. Instead they just blame the Dems for bad messaging. "Why didn't you tell us?"
Right now, knowing what happened on 1/6 and with the GOP being very vocal about what they want to do if they take back Congress, Dems/left on social media are wailing about staying home because they didn't get their student loan debt cancelled or because "Biden has done nothing" or because Covid isn't gone so Dems are no better than the GOP. I mean COME ON. Is that because Joe isn't talking enough about saving our democracy? Seems pretty evident to me. Easier to just blame the Dems for bad messaging. In fact, the media/GOP insiders have seen early indications (dumb focus groups) that voters think 1/6 was overblown. Huh?
The Dems do not have a whole media ecosphere/echo chamber to amplify their every utterance like the GOP does. The closest is the 4-12 lineup on MSNBC, which while critical of the GOP does not carry the Dems' water like Newsmax, Fox, OANN, RW radio, etc. For years people who should know better (Jon Stewart for one) said MSNBC was no different from Fox News, which is not true at all. Another example, the NYT doesn't have a reporter dedicated to covering the Progressive Caucus or the Black caucus, but they do have one for the conservatives—Jeremy Peters.
All good points, but they emphasize the need for Democratic leadership to use their patdmforms constantly to hammer home messaging. Most of their audience is not on Twitter, so it's a waste of time and resources. Why not hold pro-democracy rallies (once Omicron has faded), and get people excited about running for local office? What seems obvious to you and I re the perilous state of democracy is not obvious to a large portion of the electorate. They aren't aware of the dangers of fascism, they aren't tuned into the GOP power grab happening across the country, they don't know about "Run For Something" which mentors people who want to run for office. We can argue that they should be more informed, but that doesn't solve the problem. We can point out the media's deficiencies, but they won't change. We have an existential threat that requires new modes of communication that disrupts the GOP framing.
I'm tired of arguing about this. It doesn't matter because anything Dems do is and will be judged—by both media and Dem bashers—as: 1) too late 2) not enough 3) too much 4) poorly timed 5) lame ass weak 6) hyperbole 7) all we hear is about blah blah blah boring isn't there something else they can talk about?
Mainstream Dems are caught up between attacks by Republicans/right-wing media that they're too liberal, progressive or "socialist" and attacks by purists in progressive circles that they aren't progressive enough or they're too cozy with corporate America and don't support workers and small businesses.
Transparency = honesty, humility, maturity. Owning mistakes is what grown ups do and little kids are taught to do. Too many journalists are so far afield from touting good values, taking pride in a the accuracy of their news product and an honorable purpose (other than $$/clicks) of telling it straight, good news writing, accuracy and meeting the needs of the American and world public. Our institutions are collapsing and it seems ABC et al have joined the fiddlers as Rome burns. They have lost their way.
Marcy Wheeler has an article today slamming the WaPo for being stenographers for Trump flunkies. In an article about the 1/6 prosecutions.
“One might think it newsworthy that an attorney for the Proud Boys revealed that prosecutors are, in fact, investigating Rudy’s militia ties. But the WaPo took from that, instead, that DOJ is not investigating Trump or anyone who might have been coordinating with the militias from the Willard Hotel.”
That article buried the fact that prosecutors are clearly looking at Rudy’s ties to organizers of the instruction, repeatedly asking a lawyer for some of the militia defendants about Rudy’s association with military members in the 30th paragraph.
That is an old media trick used to bury a story in a way that allows them to claim they had covered it.
I slammed it before Marcy did - and I got slammed for slamming it. Reader comments criticized me for not understanding that "they" cared more about inflation than what happens to these criminals, because "people have moved on. That story was buried under a tiny headline halfway down the screen.
The Post has a lot of right wing trolls commenting but if you look at the “most liked” comments they are also highly critical of the article. There are a couple of people who pointed out what you did without much pushback. They point out that the reporters undermines the premise of their article which is that Justice isn’t looking at Trump or his loyal lieutenants.
This happened nearly two decades ago, but it is still so telling.
ABC News got ahold of me about helping them with a documentary on Elvis in Las Vegas. Now, that could be a GREAT documentary--the cultural meanings of their connection, not to mention great visuals. Not "Harvest of Shame," but, ok. I spent an hour on the phone with them giving them information. They asked to interview me. Then they told me it would be at R&R Partners, which is the official ad agency of our tourism board--they came up with "what happens in Vegas ...." I thought, wait. I wrote back and said, you realize that this is an ad agency? They said it was no problem. I thought, well, that's weird, but fine. I drove close to an hour each way, was interviewed for an hour, and had to wait for an hour to be interviewed.
The documentary aired. I recorded it. It consisted of an anchorwoman standing in spots around Las Vegas and mentioning that Elvis had been here. Then they had current acts performing his songs. Really. I was appalled. But then I got to the end and watched the credits. They thanked the convention authority, R&R, this executive, that politician, etc. Not me.
I sent ABC News a bill for $500, at $100 an hour. We went back and forth a while. Of course I never got the money, but I had fun and annoyed them. And I resolved never to have anything to do with ABC News again.
Later, the local ABC affiliate lied to me and slandered me. I guess it's a problem at all levels!
I was in a management position in the 90's so I had opportunities to attend management/leadership seminars. I attended a seminar conducted by a consultant whose message was very similar to the one George Clooney's character in Up In The Air espoused (essentially shedding your literal and metaphorical baggage).
This consultant had written a book and the co author's last name was Shapiro. CNN called the consultant to ask him to appear on the network to talk about his book. The producer asked him who the co author was and when they heard Shapiro they asked if he was related to Robert Shapiro (the OJ Simpson trial was going on) and was there any way the consultant could tie his subject matter to OJ Simpson. The consultant said no. He never heard back from CNN.
Tom Fenton, the longtime CBS News foreign correspondent, did a great book called Bad News about the decline in foreign news coverage. His "best" story was when he used all of his tricks to line up an exclusive interview with someone in hiding and his bosses said, no, wait until he's actually in the news. On September 11, 2001, he was in the news. And CBS still thinks they're the House of Murrow and Cronkite.
Oh. My. Gosh. As an aside, I wonder how the "real" reporters at WaPo, NYT, etc. who actually work hard to produce excellent informative articles feel about how the pundit rattis suck up all the oxygen and in a sense give these publications a bad name. Or if they care about it at all. I would just be curious to know.
I know. But here's the thing: the "real" reporters there aren't covering politics. I wonder how they feel about the likes of The Habes kissing up, or the ones going out to the Ashtabula Applebee's to find the three MAGAs who aren't racist, but just think white people are superior, that's all.
I'm thinking about the reporters who have done stellar work on the 1/6 terrorist attack for example, plus some excellent profiles. And David Fahrenthold who investigated Trump's finances. They cover real news and human interest stories.
Oh, absolutely! They do great work. Some of the reporters at The Times and The Post have done heroic work (and now both can claim Farenthold--he's gone to The Times). Some others, too. But as for political coverage ... ugh.
It seems the American mainstream news media has been influenced by (mostly Republican) politicians who have not apologized &/or doubled down over statements or actions deemed controversial &/or inappropriate.
Seriously, I'm wondering how making an apology became a sign of weakness.
Many major American media outlets seemingly don't want to admit their various mistakes because the editors, producers, journalists and reporters don't want to admit what they did was wrong, and don't want to learn how to fix them.
How the f*ck did people in the media suddenly develop fragile egos?
Has decades of corporatization changed the way media outlets view themselves from being trusted institutions to marketable brands?
The same could be said of journalists working in these outlets.
Some of them seem to be more interested in making appearances on news programs while their actual journalistic output becomes either sloppy or downright unreadable.
Mr. Sulzberger, in a newsroom memo, said the public editor’s role had become outdated.
“Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be,” he wrote. “Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
On Tuesday, The Times announced the creation of the Reader Center, an initiative that appeared to overlap somewhat with the public editor’s role. The center will be responsible for responding directly to readers, explaining coverage decisions and inviting readers to contribute their voices.
What's hilarious is when we ratio egregious tweets or articles the "reporter" whines "why are liberals mean to me" or (Axis Maggie) "liberals don't understand journalism" followed by the obligatory circling of the wagons by outraged colleagues who assure their happy hour buddies that journalisming is HAAAARD they are the bestest EVAH!
Are you speculating this was more about Executive Editor Dean Baquet being unable to accept hard-hitting criticism about his own inadequacies in running the NYT newsroom?
No, just that there are reasons in addition to corporate control for the media’s malpractice. (I seriously doubt that Baquet has ever thought he was inadequate.)
I think it is a mistake to pick just one cause of the failing of the mainstream media. Corporate influence is surely one of them but there are other factors.
Far too many journalists are adolescents pretending to be adults. What they really want is the attention of people they deem to be cool. Just read this eye opening article about how Frank Bruni covered the 2000 campaign.
Another powerful distortion are the frames the media picks for their reporting. One of my pet peeves is how they put some people on a pedestal and others are deemed losers from the git go. For example the media portrayed Louie Freeh, James Comey and Ken Starr as men of great principles, “Boy Scouts”, non-partisan, etc. Reagan was a successful president, Carter a disaster. Once a frame has been chosen most journalists ignore all the things that contradict their preferred narrative. It is clear that these frames are a result of group think, likely coming from the incestuous Beltway Social Circle which is another factor that drives media coverage. I think most of us are unaware of the powerful influence of Beltway society.
It has happened so often that when my husband and I hear someone described that way we expect the opposite.
Agreed, I shouldn't have just focused on just corporate influence alone in explaining the failings of the media.
Although, there's no denying the problematic nature of media outlets being owned by corporations and how it's bad for journalistic independence & spin-free reporting.
Anyway, I read the American Progress piece on Bruni's coverage of the 2000 campaign. He wasn't a good reporter at all and was easily charmed by Dubya to write nice things about him.
Reporters like him are supposed to maintain a distance between them & their subjects, so it's disappointing he ended up behaving like an impressionable adolescent.
I have to wonder why Beltway journalists have a need to please the so-called "cool kids" of politics. It seems some of them are letting their own psychological inadequacies get in the way of doing their actual jobs.
Any mistake is seen as an opportunity for the right to pounce and accuse them of bad faith, thus eroding their credibility further—even though not correcting erodes their credibility. Instead of doing the right thing, they do nothing, hoping it will all go away with the next news cycle.
Transparency is a liability because the public doesn't care about honesty or accuracy in journalism, they/we only care about whether it is exciting and whether it confirms our biases. Without irrational loyalty to a brand from consumers, the "what have you done for me lately?" position easily overrides the "but they had good intentions" perspective. We live in a paranoid time, and so many institutions have already betrayed any trust that was placed in them, it would be kind of silly to trust any institution, ever. But if you did, chances are you'd trust an institution that never admitted to a mistake more than one that did, since the latter is simply evidence they made a mistake to begin with.
I think it is kind of silly when people (this includes both you and Eric, all due respect) always expect someone *else* should risk or even sacrifice their income or comfort to satisfy *your* faith in morality. Not that I disagree that everyone, most especially the people and institutions of "the media", need to put a lot more effort and intent into being honest. I just don't constantly express consternation, whether real or feigned, over why they don't.
I think we're living in a time where honesty and accountability are less important than profits and the size of one's audience. I don't mean to dwell on it, but I'm still gobsmacked by the vicious, biased coverage of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and equally annoyed by the blame the media has heaped on Biden for the inflation. Covid coverage has also been terrible, with conflicting or erroneous data and the carelessness shown by a press more interested in alarmist nonsense than in reporting facts. When it comes to covid, I have lost a lot of trust in what I'm reading.
Well said. I’m especially with you re: Afghanistan coverage. ‘Chaotic evacuation’ is talked about now by pundits, et al as fact, and the new moniker sticks, forever more. Nuance is dead. Context is dead. Facts don’t matter😱.
We're living in a time when people are blasted with the complex but very real fact that the truth is whatever most reliably allows us to predict or control the future, not what any particular authority declares about the past or the present. This is what happens when philosophical metaphysics converges with moral relativism and evolutionary psychology. I call it postmodernism, and it is broader than an academic fad or a school of art & architecture. It can't be undone by returning to the archaic assumptions that facts and logic can identify correct human behavior, let alone political policies, because it has already gone beyond that.
Reasoning is harder than logic, and honesty is more intricate than stating facts. If facts and logic were all we needed, we'd not have evolved consciousness, because quantities can be more than adequately calculated without it, and the hit-or-miss stochastic programming of animal behavior did fine for billions of years before we got here.
I know I annoy people with my "we have to rethink everything or we're never going to solve this problem" approach, but it's true. To understand why the Republicons and the media are doing things wrong, and effectively conspiring to do wrong things, the only really productive approach is to first accept what we ourselves are doing wrong. And I don't mean that in a "Dems are bad at messaging" way, I mean that in a 'maybe our assumptions and the standard theories about logic and reasoning and facts and honesty need to be reconsidered' way. When I say something like that, of course, postmodernists (which includes all the Dems as much as all the Cons) think I'm suggesting that facts and logic don't have value, but I'm not. I'm saying you don't actually know what they are, because you don't. All you know is what you assume you know because it was the right answer on a test you took, not because your approach actually works. If it worked, the fascists wouldn't be taking over.
"This is what happens when philosophical metaphysics converges with moral relativism and evolutionary psychology." I'd throw deconstructionism in there too, but you may consider that under moral relativism.
This is a very smart and well considered take. The thing I fear is that we are living in a time when even a reshifting in our thinking may be futile. Right now, even practical experience cannot get through to those who are willfully impervious—say an unvaxxed person who watches a friend or loved one contract Covid and die or be seriously impaired with long Covid. Before Trump (BTE?) this would most often move the unvaxxed person to finally get the shot and be thankful they didn't contract this terrible virus after seeing its impact. But now, we have many instances where even practical experience has no bearing. Even getting sick or watching a loved one get sick from it and die cannot move them to do what is logically right—and in their own best interest.
So where do we start to reshift? I'm seriously looking for suggestions.
"The thing I fear is that we are living in a time when even a reshifting in our thinking may be futile."
That couldn't ever be possible, but maybe you have to 'reshift' your thinking first to grasp why.
"Even getting sick or watching a loved one get sick from it and die cannot move them to do what is logically right—and in their own best interest."
This also exemplified the issue. It isn't about logic, either way. Your reasoning leads you to believe getting vaccinated is a good idea. Theirs doesn't. Your reasoning is good, and their reasoning is bad, but both are still just reasoning. You can't change the way they think, but you can change the way you think. That doesn't mean changing your mind about whether it is reasonable to get vaccinated. It means changing your terms and your tone, by saying it that way. It isn't about whether it is "logically right" to get vaccinated. It's just *reasonable*. Mixed signals like "logically right" (logic is about mathematical truth, right is about moral good, and despite postmodern dogma, the two are often, even perhaps always, in conflict) and trying to dictate to other people what is or isn't in *their* best interest (something they get to decide for themselves) doesn't help convince unreasonable people to be reasonable. Only reason, not logic, can do that.
People choosing not to vaxx (or wear a mask) has very little to do with reason. It mostly has to do with their emotions, on the right it's their hatred of liberals, "know it all experts," and Dems and their notions of "freedom;" on the left it's deep distrust of everything from Pharma to the government to govt authoriity and fear for their kids.
Of course there are some who "reason" that they are young, thin, healthy (no asthma, etc) so there is no downside to not getting vaxxed. They refuse to consider or dismiss the possibility they could become sicker than they believe and don't care that they could spread it others who are more vulnerable. As for "dictates" the administration issues mandates only after reason, encouragement, and incentives didn't work.
I disagree most profoundly. Being against masks and vaccine mandates comes from bad reasoning, but that's still reasoning. This is the root of the problem of postmodernism: by teaching people they should be "logical" instead of *reasonable*, we rob them of the only tool they have to think correctly (which isn't the same as thinking the correct things).
Your approach, dismissing their perspective as "based on emotion", is just assuming your conclusion. For all the trouble that anti-intellectualism causes, it is a toss-up whether it is worse than elite autocrasy, in any particular instance.
Of course all of your points about why it is foolish to not get vaccinated are true, but that's because they are TRUE, regardless of whether they are "logical" or "based on emotion". And you've exemplified why the postmodern approach doesn't work. The reason everyone should wear a mask and (AND!) get vaccinated isn't so they don't get sick. It's so that they don't get *other people* sick. You've implicitly accepted their self-centered approach in the way you try to convince them to abandon it. And on that basis, from the perspective of unemotional logic, they are more right than you are, because the odds are they won't get sick at all, and if they do get sick, they won't die. We focus on the number of deaths, they focus on the actual probabilities those deaths represent. Which side is being more emotional? The side that fears death and is willing to abandon their self-determination to avoid it.
You can't convince other people to change their minds by clinging to the same assumptions about why their minds have made the choices they have. It's arrogant and condescending. They are using reason. They're just not doing it right, and for the exact same reason you are: you've been taught to be "logical" instead, and are unable to extract yourself from that tar pit of assumptions.
The magattes and the well-intentioned but hapless leftists, dems, and liberals all keep doing the same thing over and over again, getting a bit more extreme with every iteration, and keep expecting different results. And that, not them being stupid and you being better, is why the world is going insane.
So to put it simply, we should be questioning our perceptions? That seems not only counterproductive but simply foolish. The problem is that we're seeing the Republicans becoming extremists and we can't do anything about it. Voting for Democrats won't stop it, although that seems to be the popular solution. We also are finding ourselves in a surreal state of affairs wherein we have an entire political party pushing death by pandemic in the name of patriotism, and claiming Donald Trump was screwed out of his second term as president.
Voting for Dems may not stop them shifting from fascism in the short run, but it would vastly help and move the country forward. Imagine two more Dem senators who would cancel out the quislings. We'd have the carve out, voting rights, and BBB, and legislation to close loopholes and codify "norms" to make our democracy stronger.
If GOP keep losing elections you will see a shift in their positioning. All most of the GOP congresscritters care about is power; getting it and retaining it. Right now most of them don't embrace fascism because they support it; it's their means to keep their seats and regain the majority—and avoid harassment and death threats. They are cynical, amoral, cowardly, and anti-American for sure. The problem is McConnell thinks he can control the crazies, but he can't, which is why they cannot regain the majority and we need every Dem vote.
As for that crazy fascist strain, it's endemic and won't go away anytime soon, not as long as media and the internet exist as they are right now.
During the Egyptian revolution in 2011 the people were thrilled about having open elections. Sadly, they learned the hard way that democracy entails much more than voting - you have to have candidates worth voting for, and without hidden agendas. Unfortunately, that has been the Achilles heel of the Democratic party, which is such a big tent, and with so many voters unwilling to be flexible. America reminds me of Egypt during that time, when they voted along religious lines and found themselves with an incompetent and dishonest president who fired most of the parliament and rewrote the constitution. In the end, after a year he was deposed by an authoritarian. I wish Americans would take a lesson from it. It's not just about voting, it's about understanding one's rights and responsibilities, and voting wisely.
At which we are seeing failures, where Proud Boys are running for office and far right moonbats are serving in Congress. All of them are deemed fine and dandy to Trump. He doesn't care how odious these people are because fanatics tend to be loyalists.
I appreciate your consternation. There isn't the space or context here for stepping through the reasoning and all the considerations to provide details on either what we should do or why we should do it. But I can give you a general guiding principle, which sums up the issue, regardless of specific circumstances:
When those you oppose keep getting more extreme, the worst thing you could possibly do is get more extreme yourself, and the best thing you can ever do is to get less extreme. Please don't misread this as a recommendation to compromise or accommodate them. But part of what makes reasoning superior to logic is that it encompasses the result as much as the process itself: whatever we do, it must, all by itself and with no external comparison, be what can be described as "reasonable". It is reasonable to do everything that we can, within the bounds of honesty and legal statutes, to prevent *any* antivaxxers or Republicons from ever getting elected. Our voting for Democrats won't stop the former GOP from becoming ever more fascist. But getting people who do vote for Republicons to stop doing that will, whether or not those people themselves are extremists or not. Barring that, we should prevent their winning elections from resulting in their holding office, or passing laws. Again, only if we can do so without lying or breaking the law. And if we say things that are not true, just make sure they're jokes instead of lies, and if we do break the law, make sure it is civil disobedience not violence.
That works fine when you can measure everything and rely on proven formulas. It is worse than useless when dealing with human motivations, politics, and government policy. You're conflating faith in science with faith in scientists.
The only thing that can be known with absolute certainty is *cogito ergo sum*. Everything else is inference.
You are factually mistaken. Your faith in some single absolute (and apparently unquestionable) 'scientific process' is misplaced and naive. The various processes of scientific research are extremely useful and productive, but that's because they don't rely on any faith in their infallibility, not because they do. Regardless, convincing people to change their political opinions is a difficult (and ultimately fruitless, even counter-productive) thing to investigate scientifically.
This is such deflating news. It’s like the biggest machines in the news sharing world want us to live in Idiocracy and sadly, they have the power to do it. Everyone who reads this newsletter needs to post links to all of their social media accounts to put pressure on ABC and all MSM outlets to get back to the business of telling the truth.
I don't think so. Considering how ABC loves to recite Republican talking points I believe it was deliberate. One only has to remember how Jonathan Karl endlessly recited Republican lies when Obama was President and don't forget how Karl sneered and held Obama in contempt.
Eric another piece that speaks to just how unfair and irresponsible the press and some news organizations can be. It's sad to see that ABC would be just as destructive as Faux News. I would love to see the Dems get a bit more Jen Psaki in them and call out the press. Just like she handles Peter Doocy. It's really just sad to see how the media is actually standing in the way of democracy on a daily basis. Just so tired.
Any news organization that doesn't quickly acknowledge and correct its mistakes loses all credibility. ABC's handling of Walensky's quote is both unethical and undermines public health. Not fixing the error is also chickenshit.
P.S.: Added "Still Alive" to may playlist. Thanks for the recommendation.
As long as MSM is 90+% owned and run by [extreme] conservatives (that conserve absolutely nothing but tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations) and until we use our anti-trust laws to break them up into smaller and more diverse agencies that are committed to telling the truth, there will continue to be an erosion of our democracy.
There is no such thing as alternative facts, there are only facts and that simple approach seems to escape them and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed.
The right wing eugenic freakout of 2022 is rich coming from Republicans who routinely and gleefully dismiss entire swaths of people as disposable.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the White House refused to allow ABC News to attend briefings and office at the WH until they apologized? I'd love to see the Prez take on the press the way the right does.
totally agree Dems need to fight back more
I don’t disagree but I wish you would be more specific. What exactly should they be doing? Often in the past when Democrats have fought back they have been attacked but the media. And attacking the media just made the media even more unfair to them.
Over the weekend NBC showed clips from the Today Show because it is their 70th anniversary. They included Hillary saying “vast right-wing conspiracy”. She was clearly purposely exaggerating. The media, rather than acknowledge she the truth of her accusation chose to attack and mock her for saying “vast”.
I also remember the media attacking John Kerry because at first he didn’t respond to the insane Swift Boat attacks. I assumed he had decided not to respond to such blatant lies and that the media would debunk them. When he did fight back he was accused of looking defensive, the implication being he looked weak.
It seems like Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
To answer your first question, Theodora, is one, you show up and call them out when they do something dumb. Let them know you're displeased. Two, you do not relent. Three, you demand your side of the story be covered. I'd love to see Biden ask the Times when they're going to write about Biden voters who worry about the autocratic bent of the GOP.
Fighting back didn't hurt the GOP over the past 40 years. They hated being the "nattering nabobs of negativism." In fact, it's why the MSM defers to them. My experience w/ the media (10yrs. as producer/journalist & 25 yrs as media consultant) is that, yes, they are thin skinned and they will push back vs. criticism, but if you keep hammering, they eventually start to take it to heart, not because they are convinced you're right, but that they don't want to be criticized.
What if in Weds. presser, Biden called out ABC for the CDC edit, NYT for its incessant Trump voter stories, and WaPo and others for always framing battles as Biden's failure instead of the GOP lack of agenda and refusal to protect voting rights? And not just Weds., but every time he interacts w/ the press.
But what puzzles me is the lack of push back from the DNC, Schumer's & Pelosi's offices.
This may seem nuts but the media has the same kinds of responses Democrats fighting back that women often get — you look shrill and too aggressive when you fight back and weak when you don’t. I think there is a lot of truth to people subconsciously thinking of Democrats as the feminine, “Mommy” party. It always struck me as twisted that the media mocked Clinton because he felt other people’s pain. Gore was accused by Maureen Dowd of being so “feminized he was practically lactating” because he was too focused on the environment. I couldn’t believe the editors allowed such a misogynistic statement to be published.
Not too long ago was listening to a Pod Save American episode.Obama speech writer Jon Lovett said in passing that he has that same impression. I wish he would have talked about it more.
Ah, yes the words of William Safire, who then became the pinnacle of enlightened conservative commentary for many years on the op-ed page of the NYT. I don't believe for one instant that reporters and editors and producers take any Democratic criticism seriously, not from the leadership and certainly not from their readership/viewers. For them it's a badge of honor. Look at that idiot Chuck Todd (and Baquet has said this too) "If both sides are mad at us, we are doing it correctly." Without acknowledging or even addressing that the left and right have very different reasons for being angry at their coverage. Safire said the right would change the tenor of reporting from within organizations, and they have done that quite successfully.
Also, how do you know they haven't pushed back? I've seen Nancy take them on in her pressers and Joe has too. Every time they go on the offensive they run the risk of becoming the story, which then dilutes the message. When Joe pushes back on reporters it's oh look how mean he is rather than hmmm, we need to ask better questions.
Another horrendous example is the coverage of Trump's Nuremberg rally in AZ this past weekend. NYT posited is as a strategy for winning back 22—"Trump Rally Underscores GOP Tension Over How to Win in 22." JFC! Talk about the normalization of racism, hate, and authoritarianism/fascism.
MAP & Theodora, you both make good points. Liberals, by definition, are more tolerant, or to put another way, more acquiescent, unwilling to push back, thinking everyone, even the press, has a right to their view.
You're right, I don't know for sure that the left hasn't pushed back. But if they were, you might see it more on social media where the press can't edit it out of their stories. I think naming not only the offending reporters but their top editors might get a reaction. And maybe if MSM critics such as M. Sullivan, picks up the argument, you'd get traction.
I'd be curious, why do you think the GOP has been successful working the refs but Dems wouldn't be?
If you read the WaPo comments — those “most liked” readers are really excoriating them for the negative coverage of Biden and other things. That is a fairly recent phenomenon and I have been reading the comments for years. That is really hopeful news but I am not sure it is getting through to people who don’t pay that much attention and are still likely to be influenced by media coverage. I firmly believe that if the media had been putting at least as much focus on just how amazing our economic performance as they are giving to inflation Biden’s poll numbers would be significantly higher.
For that matter it would help if they stopped treating Biden’s poll numbers as shockingly low. Lots of presidents have survived those kinds of numbers and there is good reason to think Biden will too. Inflation is already slowing and is predicted to return to normal in a few months. With any luck Covid will start dropping too.
I am stuck at home because of ice/snow so I decided to reread Eric’s book “Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled over for Bush”. On page 10 he points out the during Clinton’s first months in office the post made such a big deal about his weak approval ratings they published an article with the snide headline “The Failed Clinton Presidency: It has a certain ring to it”. Yet when Bush’s fell into the 30s on more than one occasion the media did not portray him as a failed president. Most polls show Biden’s approval in the 40s but I have seen several articles about his failing presidency. Anyone who thinks there isn’t a double standard for Democrats should read Eric’s book. This has been going on literally for decades.
Dems use social media more to promote policies (and yes Democracy and voting rights) and to publicize accomplishments. You are right, they should probably be more aggressive in pushing back on Twitter etc. A few do—Eric Swallwell, Schiff, Brian Schatz, Tim Ryan, and others on occasion, but it's not unified and consistent. PA Dem legislature and Josh Shapiro (my next gov if I have anything to say about it) does too. Ron Klain has done so gently (retweeting) and been slammed for it by media folk on Twitter.
I'm an ordinary Joe and push back on journalists and media accounts all the time on Twitter for shoddy reporting and commentary (did you see the sad excuse for the Times op ed page yesterday? Coupled with their top stories. I despair.) They don't care—which gives lie to Sulzberger's lame ass excuse for getting rid of the PE. NYT got rid of the editors who actually would catch bad takes in stories so they could "hire more journalists." But what good is more coverage when the reporting and writing is so bad?
As for fellow media folk, Margaret S., Jen Rubin, Dana M., have picked up the argument and of course, media has ignored or pushed back, especially that they should be promoting democracy. Dan Froomkin sums it up nicely in his latest Press Run:
https://presswatchers.org/2022/01/by-their-acts-top-newsrooms-reject-calls-to-be-pro-democracy/
I think the GOP has been successful because of Liberal Guilt. Most journalists are college educated and most would say they are (at least) socially liberal. The truth does have a liberal bias and the GOP play on that and how easy it is to get someone who is fair to see their own flaws. "Oh my goodness are we being unfair? We need to correct that. Let's get reporters dedicated to covering GOP exclusively (Jeremy Peters, NYT for instance)."
GOP began really playing the refs in the 80s and 90s, which gave us the whole need for "balance" which has become baked in bothsidism. I think their views of Dems again are so baked in that it blinds them. And they won't do any soul searching. Look at the sad postmortems they did over the Iraq War and even the 2016 campaign. Halfhearted at best and nothing has changed.
I do not want to be contrarian, but I don't think we fight back at all.
Remember what happened when Obama tried to freeze out Fox News? Media banded around them with the rally cry "We are all Fox News." Journalists, especially the WH press corps, can be just as tribal as the GOP. When the media considers Project Veritas as "journalism" we know it's broken. From a CJR recent column:
"In November, FBI agents raided the apartment of right-wing provocateur James O’Keefe, who founded Project Veritas, as part of an investigation into the alleged theft of the president’s daughter’s diary. They seized two cellphones, after they had searched the homes of two more Veritas affiliates.
"The press is typically protected from these types of raids, and many mainstream news outlets, as well as First Amendment advocates, defended the site."
Many mainstream news outlets and First Amendment advocates defended the site.
Defending Project Veritas. This is what we've come to.
Bear in mind, however, that Fox News should have been crushed out of existence years ago, but for the other news outlets who came to their defense. And yet, every one of them has pointed at Fox as being the driving force behind the rise of Donald Trump, not owning up to the fact that they love Trump because he's so easy to report on.
Why are the mainstream media news outlets defending Project Veritas?
That organization was/is known for doing "gotcha" interviews where they either confront journalists or get producers/staff drunk to admit to "liberal bias" in their coverage of Republicans, particularly Trump.
The First Amendment, probably. It is the hardest one of the Bill of Rights to look at objectively. Never mind which wing Veritas flies with. The First Amendment is meant to protect journalistic sources.
Indeed, it's just weird that Project Veritas is now considered a "journalistic" enterprise despite its questionable tactics in obtaining information all in the cause of owning the libs.
They are a political dirty tricks operation pretending they are journalists to get cover. The media should not defend any organization which has as its main goal misleading the public. Our idiotic media would probably have defended Goebblels.
Great idea!
What comes to my mind is that major media is taking a page of TFG's book. Never admit mistakes. It has worked for the orange one and media is moving to that model instead of going for one of ownership and credibility.
I believe that Rick Klein is still the politics director for ABC News and in his public biography on the ABC News Web page, this paragraph stands out:
"Klein’s instincts and insights played a critical role throughout the last three presidential election cycles, helping guide ABC’s reporting on the campaigns and political battles in Washington. He has interviewed Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ken Burns, Tom Hanks, Kevin Spacey, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.”
I’m not saying his lack of high-profile Democratic interviews is telling, but you can draw your own conclusion.
I agree with comments that Democrats are in a lose-lose with major media conglomerates. If they speak out they're bombarded with false outrage from the GOP and accused of defensiveness by major media. The problem is that Democrats immediately retreat even when morality and truth are on their side, which further emboldens propaganda and inaccurate reporting. This is what drove anti-Hillary bias in 2016, and has led us to the door of fascism. It's the recurring theme of the 21st century...no accountability; no consequences. If the Democrats do nothing else in 2022, they must stand up and defend their values, stand up against misinformation, and stop backing down. If they cannot even do this, then we should be prepared for a massive rollback in civil rights and freedoms for 90% of the population.
As an ordinary nobody Dem, I do this all the time. But half the problem is that the media ignores or downplays the Dem message, coupled with the fact that the left loves to attack itself. Too many purists for whom it's all or nothing, and too many who are just as ignorant of history and how government works as on the right—Biden needs to behave like Trump and "lock them up!" People saw Mueller as the savior and when Trump wasn't gone after the report they were disappointed (even though we later learned how hamstrung/narrow the investigation was) and now it's "Garland is weak, why aren't they all in jail. There's no accountability." I've seen comparisons of how quickly McVeigh was arrested as an example of the DOJ not investigating 1/6. The cases are apples and oranges.
The Dems ARE standing up for Democracy and talk about it all the time, but we are a society that has been rewired for instant gratification; we have lost any sense of rationality and proportion, and are quickly tired and bored. We can't deal with the notion that legislation takes time, or that we need a majority of votes (it's the math stupid) to win or make laws or change procedures, or that new discoveries in the study of Covid means we have to adjust our behaviors.
That voters watched 1/6, witnessed (and still are) the GOP trying to nullify their votes, steal them, and suppress them yet still may choose to stay home or vote GOP in Nov—I mean when does it start being our responsibility and not just Joe, Nancy, and Chuck?
You make valid points, but the reality is that movements need leaders...whether from the grassroots or elected officials. The pandemic has hampered the former, so elected leadership must take the reins. The GOP leadership will pretend to be outraged and media will indulge them, but if Democratic leadership push through consistent messaging, it will reach people. For example, the groups that raise money to elect Secretaries of State have raised $33M for the GOP vs $1M for Democrats. These are literally the folks who certify the ballots in every state. Massive numbers of GOP candidates are running for local elections, often unopposed. Why aren't more Democratic and Independent candidates running for office? Nightmarish local GOP judges are running for reelection, unopposed. The electorate needs to be educated on the facts, which are horrifying. I don't care how obstinate the media is, consistent Democratic messaging would break through.
The Dems are trying to get candidates for every office. They cannot get people to run. It's astonishing. And then, when the worst happens, Dem voters (not the party) lift their heads out of the sand—like the recent Roe ruling—and wail "how did this happen?!" when people like me AND the party have consistently warned them. You cannot force people to listen or get them to come out and vote even when everything they want is on the line. Instead they just blame the Dems for bad messaging. "Why didn't you tell us?"
Right now, knowing what happened on 1/6 and with the GOP being very vocal about what they want to do if they take back Congress, Dems/left on social media are wailing about staying home because they didn't get their student loan debt cancelled or because "Biden has done nothing" or because Covid isn't gone so Dems are no better than the GOP. I mean COME ON. Is that because Joe isn't talking enough about saving our democracy? Seems pretty evident to me. Easier to just blame the Dems for bad messaging. In fact, the media/GOP insiders have seen early indications (dumb focus groups) that voters think 1/6 was overblown. Huh?
The Dems do not have a whole media ecosphere/echo chamber to amplify their every utterance like the GOP does. The closest is the 4-12 lineup on MSNBC, which while critical of the GOP does not carry the Dems' water like Newsmax, Fox, OANN, RW radio, etc. For years people who should know better (Jon Stewart for one) said MSNBC was no different from Fox News, which is not true at all. Another example, the NYT doesn't have a reporter dedicated to covering the Progressive Caucus or the Black caucus, but they do have one for the conservatives—Jeremy Peters.
And then there's Facebook . . .
All good points, but they emphasize the need for Democratic leadership to use their patdmforms constantly to hammer home messaging. Most of their audience is not on Twitter, so it's a waste of time and resources. Why not hold pro-democracy rallies (once Omicron has faded), and get people excited about running for local office? What seems obvious to you and I re the perilous state of democracy is not obvious to a large portion of the electorate. They aren't aware of the dangers of fascism, they aren't tuned into the GOP power grab happening across the country, they don't know about "Run For Something" which mentors people who want to run for office. We can argue that they should be more informed, but that doesn't solve the problem. We can point out the media's deficiencies, but they won't change. We have an existential threat that requires new modes of communication that disrupts the GOP framing.
I'm tired of arguing about this. It doesn't matter because anything Dems do is and will be judged—by both media and Dem bashers—as: 1) too late 2) not enough 3) too much 4) poorly timed 5) lame ass weak 6) hyperbole 7) all we hear is about blah blah blah boring isn't there something else they can talk about?
I understand...you would think the media would show some interest in the inevitable restrictions of 1st Amendment rights under GOP rule, but alas.
Mainstream Dems are caught up between attacks by Republicans/right-wing media that they're too liberal, progressive or "socialist" and attacks by purists in progressive circles that they aren't progressive enough or they're too cozy with corporate America and don't support workers and small businesses.
Transparency = honesty, humility, maturity. Owning mistakes is what grown ups do and little kids are taught to do. Too many journalists are so far afield from touting good values, taking pride in a the accuracy of their news product and an honorable purpose (other than $$/clicks) of telling it straight, good news writing, accuracy and meeting the needs of the American and world public. Our institutions are collapsing and it seems ABC et al have joined the fiddlers as Rome burns. They have lost their way.
Marcy Wheeler has an article today slamming the WaPo for being stenographers for Trump flunkies. In an article about the 1/6 prosecutions.
“One might think it newsworthy that an attorney for the Proud Boys revealed that prosecutors are, in fact, investigating Rudy’s militia ties. But the WaPo took from that, instead, that DOJ is not investigating Trump or anyone who might have been coordinating with the militias from the Willard Hotel.”
That article buried the fact that prosecutors are clearly looking at Rudy’s ties to organizers of the instruction, repeatedly asking a lawyer for some of the militia defendants about Rudy’s association with military members in the 30th paragraph.
That is an old media trick used to bury a story in a way that allows them to claim they had covered it.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/01/15/breaking-prosecutors-are-asking-about-rudy-giulianis-ties-to-militias/
I slammed it before Marcy did - and I got slammed for slamming it. Reader comments criticized me for not understanding that "they" cared more about inflation than what happens to these criminals, because "people have moved on. That story was buried under a tiny headline halfway down the screen.
The Post has a lot of right wing trolls commenting but if you look at the “most liked” comments they are also highly critical of the article. There are a couple of people who pointed out what you did without much pushback. They point out that the reporters undermines the premise of their article which is that Justice isn’t looking at Trump or his loyal lieutenants.
There will be more trolls due to the $9.99 online subscription special deal WaPo peddled over the holidays.
And maybe more supportive voices as well. Trumpkins aren't the poor and downtrodden the media first portrayed them to be.
This happened nearly two decades ago, but it is still so telling.
ABC News got ahold of me about helping them with a documentary on Elvis in Las Vegas. Now, that could be a GREAT documentary--the cultural meanings of their connection, not to mention great visuals. Not "Harvest of Shame," but, ok. I spent an hour on the phone with them giving them information. They asked to interview me. Then they told me it would be at R&R Partners, which is the official ad agency of our tourism board--they came up with "what happens in Vegas ...." I thought, wait. I wrote back and said, you realize that this is an ad agency? They said it was no problem. I thought, well, that's weird, but fine. I drove close to an hour each way, was interviewed for an hour, and had to wait for an hour to be interviewed.
The documentary aired. I recorded it. It consisted of an anchorwoman standing in spots around Las Vegas and mentioning that Elvis had been here. Then they had current acts performing his songs. Really. I was appalled. But then I got to the end and watched the credits. They thanked the convention authority, R&R, this executive, that politician, etc. Not me.
I sent ABC News a bill for $500, at $100 an hour. We went back and forth a while. Of course I never got the money, but I had fun and annoyed them. And I resolved never to have anything to do with ABC News again.
Later, the local ABC affiliate lied to me and slandered me. I guess it's a problem at all levels!
I was in a management position in the 90's so I had opportunities to attend management/leadership seminars. I attended a seminar conducted by a consultant whose message was very similar to the one George Clooney's character in Up In The Air espoused (essentially shedding your literal and metaphorical baggage).
This consultant had written a book and the co author's last name was Shapiro. CNN called the consultant to ask him to appear on the network to talk about his book. The producer asked him who the co author was and when they heard Shapiro they asked if he was related to Robert Shapiro (the OJ Simpson trial was going on) and was there any way the consultant could tie his subject matter to OJ Simpson. The consultant said no. He never heard back from CNN.
Tom Fenton, the longtime CBS News foreign correspondent, did a great book called Bad News about the decline in foreign news coverage. His "best" story was when he used all of his tricks to line up an exclusive interview with someone in hiding and his bosses said, no, wait until he's actually in the news. On September 11, 2001, he was in the news. And CBS still thinks they're the House of Murrow and Cronkite.
Oh. My. Gosh. As an aside, I wonder how the "real" reporters at WaPo, NYT, etc. who actually work hard to produce excellent informative articles feel about how the pundit rattis suck up all the oxygen and in a sense give these publications a bad name. Or if they care about it at all. I would just be curious to know.
I know. But here's the thing: the "real" reporters there aren't covering politics. I wonder how they feel about the likes of The Habes kissing up, or the ones going out to the Ashtabula Applebee's to find the three MAGAs who aren't racist, but just think white people are superior, that's all.
I'm thinking about the reporters who have done stellar work on the 1/6 terrorist attack for example, plus some excellent profiles. And David Fahrenthold who investigated Trump's finances. They cover real news and human interest stories.
Oh, absolutely! They do great work. Some of the reporters at The Times and The Post have done heroic work (and now both can claim Farenthold--he's gone to The Times). Some others, too. But as for political coverage ... ugh.
That's very kind of you, and I appreciate it--and it's Michael or Mike!
It seems the American mainstream news media has been influenced by (mostly Republican) politicians who have not apologized &/or doubled down over statements or actions deemed controversial &/or inappropriate.
Seriously, I'm wondering how making an apology became a sign of weakness.
Many major American media outlets seemingly don't want to admit their various mistakes because the editors, producers, journalists and reporters don't want to admit what they did was wrong, and don't want to learn how to fix them.
How the f*ck did people in the media suddenly develop fragile egos?
transparency now seen as a liability
Why is transparency seen as a liability?
Has decades of corporatization changed the way media outlets view themselves from being trusted institutions to marketable brands?
The same could be said of journalists working in these outlets.
Some of them seem to be more interested in making appearances on news programs while their actual journalistic output becomes either sloppy or downright unreadable.
That doesn’t explain The NY Times firing its ombudsman. The Times is still controlled by the Sulzberger family.
From the NYT:
Mr. Sulzberger, in a newsroom memo, said the public editor’s role had become outdated.
“Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be,” he wrote. “Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
On Tuesday, The Times announced the creation of the Reader Center, an initiative that appeared to overlap somewhat with the public editor’s role. The center will be responsible for responding directly to readers, explaining coverage decisions and inviting readers to contribute their voices.
What's hilarious is when we ratio egregious tweets or articles the "reporter" whines "why are liberals mean to me" or (Axis Maggie) "liberals don't understand journalism" followed by the obligatory circling of the wagons by outraged colleagues who assure their happy hour buddies that journalisming is HAAAARD they are the bestest EVAH!
For us, not well at all.
You make an interesting point.
Are you speculating this was more about Executive Editor Dean Baquet being unable to accept hard-hitting criticism about his own inadequacies in running the NYT newsroom?
No, just that there are reasons in addition to corporate control for the media’s malpractice. (I seriously doubt that Baquet has ever thought he was inadequate.)
I think it is a mistake to pick just one cause of the failing of the mainstream media. Corporate influence is surely one of them but there are other factors.
Far too many journalists are adolescents pretending to be adults. What they really want is the attention of people they deem to be cool. Just read this eye opening article about how Frank Bruni covered the 2000 campaign.
https://www.americanprogress.org/?oldid=9654
Another powerful distortion are the frames the media picks for their reporting. One of my pet peeves is how they put some people on a pedestal and others are deemed losers from the git go. For example the media portrayed Louie Freeh, James Comey and Ken Starr as men of great principles, “Boy Scouts”, non-partisan, etc. Reagan was a successful president, Carter a disaster. Once a frame has been chosen most journalists ignore all the things that contradict their preferred narrative. It is clear that these frames are a result of group think, likely coming from the incestuous Beltway Social Circle which is another factor that drives media coverage. I think most of us are unaware of the powerful influence of Beltway society.
It has happened so often that when my husband and I hear someone described that way we expect the opposite.
I read that Bruni piece. He's still a lightweight, the male counterpart to Maureen Dowd.
Agreed, I shouldn't have just focused on just corporate influence alone in explaining the failings of the media.
Although, there's no denying the problematic nature of media outlets being owned by corporations and how it's bad for journalistic independence & spin-free reporting.
Anyway, I read the American Progress piece on Bruni's coverage of the 2000 campaign. He wasn't a good reporter at all and was easily charmed by Dubya to write nice things about him.
Reporters like him are supposed to maintain a distance between them & their subjects, so it's disappointing he ended up behaving like an impressionable adolescent.
I have to wonder why Beltway journalists have a need to please the so-called "cool kids" of politics. It seems some of them are letting their own psychological inadequacies get in the way of doing their actual jobs.
Really good point.
Any mistake is seen as an opportunity for the right to pounce and accuse them of bad faith, thus eroding their credibility further—even though not correcting erodes their credibility. Instead of doing the right thing, they do nothing, hoping it will all go away with the next news cycle.
Transparency is a liability because the public doesn't care about honesty or accuracy in journalism, they/we only care about whether it is exciting and whether it confirms our biases. Without irrational loyalty to a brand from consumers, the "what have you done for me lately?" position easily overrides the "but they had good intentions" perspective. We live in a paranoid time, and so many institutions have already betrayed any trust that was placed in them, it would be kind of silly to trust any institution, ever. But if you did, chances are you'd trust an institution that never admitted to a mistake more than one that did, since the latter is simply evidence they made a mistake to begin with.
I think it is kind of silly when people (this includes both you and Eric, all due respect) always expect someone *else* should risk or even sacrifice their income or comfort to satisfy *your* faith in morality. Not that I disagree that everyone, most especially the people and institutions of "the media", need to put a lot more effort and intent into being honest. I just don't constantly express consternation, whether real or feigned, over why they don't.
I think we're living in a time where honesty and accountability are less important than profits and the size of one's audience. I don't mean to dwell on it, but I'm still gobsmacked by the vicious, biased coverage of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and equally annoyed by the blame the media has heaped on Biden for the inflation. Covid coverage has also been terrible, with conflicting or erroneous data and the carelessness shown by a press more interested in alarmist nonsense than in reporting facts. When it comes to covid, I have lost a lot of trust in what I'm reading.
Well said. I’m especially with you re: Afghanistan coverage. ‘Chaotic evacuation’ is talked about now by pundits, et al as fact, and the new moniker sticks, forever more. Nuance is dead. Context is dead. Facts don’t matter😱.
We're living in a time when people are blasted with the complex but very real fact that the truth is whatever most reliably allows us to predict or control the future, not what any particular authority declares about the past or the present. This is what happens when philosophical metaphysics converges with moral relativism and evolutionary psychology. I call it postmodernism, and it is broader than an academic fad or a school of art & architecture. It can't be undone by returning to the archaic assumptions that facts and logic can identify correct human behavior, let alone political policies, because it has already gone beyond that.
Reasoning is harder than logic, and honesty is more intricate than stating facts. If facts and logic were all we needed, we'd not have evolved consciousness, because quantities can be more than adequately calculated without it, and the hit-or-miss stochastic programming of animal behavior did fine for billions of years before we got here.
I know I annoy people with my "we have to rethink everything or we're never going to solve this problem" approach, but it's true. To understand why the Republicons and the media are doing things wrong, and effectively conspiring to do wrong things, the only really productive approach is to first accept what we ourselves are doing wrong. And I don't mean that in a "Dems are bad at messaging" way, I mean that in a 'maybe our assumptions and the standard theories about logic and reasoning and facts and honesty need to be reconsidered' way. When I say something like that, of course, postmodernists (which includes all the Dems as much as all the Cons) think I'm suggesting that facts and logic don't have value, but I'm not. I'm saying you don't actually know what they are, because you don't. All you know is what you assume you know because it was the right answer on a test you took, not because your approach actually works. If it worked, the fascists wouldn't be taking over.
"This is what happens when philosophical metaphysics converges with moral relativism and evolutionary psychology." I'd throw deconstructionism in there too, but you may consider that under moral relativism.
This is a very smart and well considered take. The thing I fear is that we are living in a time when even a reshifting in our thinking may be futile. Right now, even practical experience cannot get through to those who are willfully impervious—say an unvaxxed person who watches a friend or loved one contract Covid and die or be seriously impaired with long Covid. Before Trump (BTE?) this would most often move the unvaxxed person to finally get the shot and be thankful they didn't contract this terrible virus after seeing its impact. But now, we have many instances where even practical experience has no bearing. Even getting sick or watching a loved one get sick from it and die cannot move them to do what is logically right—and in their own best interest.
So where do we start to reshift? I'm seriously looking for suggestions.
"The thing I fear is that we are living in a time when even a reshifting in our thinking may be futile."
That couldn't ever be possible, but maybe you have to 'reshift' your thinking first to grasp why.
"Even getting sick or watching a loved one get sick from it and die cannot move them to do what is logically right—and in their own best interest."
This also exemplified the issue. It isn't about logic, either way. Your reasoning leads you to believe getting vaccinated is a good idea. Theirs doesn't. Your reasoning is good, and their reasoning is bad, but both are still just reasoning. You can't change the way they think, but you can change the way you think. That doesn't mean changing your mind about whether it is reasonable to get vaccinated. It means changing your terms and your tone, by saying it that way. It isn't about whether it is "logically right" to get vaccinated. It's just *reasonable*. Mixed signals like "logically right" (logic is about mathematical truth, right is about moral good, and despite postmodern dogma, the two are often, even perhaps always, in conflict) and trying to dictate to other people what is or isn't in *their* best interest (something they get to decide for themselves) doesn't help convince unreasonable people to be reasonable. Only reason, not logic, can do that.
People choosing not to vaxx (or wear a mask) has very little to do with reason. It mostly has to do with their emotions, on the right it's their hatred of liberals, "know it all experts," and Dems and their notions of "freedom;" on the left it's deep distrust of everything from Pharma to the government to govt authoriity and fear for their kids.
Of course there are some who "reason" that they are young, thin, healthy (no asthma, etc) so there is no downside to not getting vaxxed. They refuse to consider or dismiss the possibility they could become sicker than they believe and don't care that they could spread it others who are more vulnerable. As for "dictates" the administration issues mandates only after reason, encouragement, and incentives didn't work.
I disagree most profoundly. Being against masks and vaccine mandates comes from bad reasoning, but that's still reasoning. This is the root of the problem of postmodernism: by teaching people they should be "logical" instead of *reasonable*, we rob them of the only tool they have to think correctly (which isn't the same as thinking the correct things).
Your approach, dismissing their perspective as "based on emotion", is just assuming your conclusion. For all the trouble that anti-intellectualism causes, it is a toss-up whether it is worse than elite autocrasy, in any particular instance.
Of course all of your points about why it is foolish to not get vaccinated are true, but that's because they are TRUE, regardless of whether they are "logical" or "based on emotion". And you've exemplified why the postmodern approach doesn't work. The reason everyone should wear a mask and (AND!) get vaccinated isn't so they don't get sick. It's so that they don't get *other people* sick. You've implicitly accepted their self-centered approach in the way you try to convince them to abandon it. And on that basis, from the perspective of unemotional logic, they are more right than you are, because the odds are they won't get sick at all, and if they do get sick, they won't die. We focus on the number of deaths, they focus on the actual probabilities those deaths represent. Which side is being more emotional? The side that fears death and is willing to abandon their self-determination to avoid it.
You can't convince other people to change their minds by clinging to the same assumptions about why their minds have made the choices they have. It's arrogant and condescending. They are using reason. They're just not doing it right, and for the exact same reason you are: you've been taught to be "logical" instead, and are unable to extract yourself from that tar pit of assumptions.
The magattes and the well-intentioned but hapless leftists, dems, and liberals all keep doing the same thing over and over again, getting a bit more extreme with every iteration, and keep expecting different results. And that, not them being stupid and you being better, is why the world is going insane.
So to put it simply, we should be questioning our perceptions? That seems not only counterproductive but simply foolish. The problem is that we're seeing the Republicans becoming extremists and we can't do anything about it. Voting for Democrats won't stop it, although that seems to be the popular solution. We also are finding ourselves in a surreal state of affairs wherein we have an entire political party pushing death by pandemic in the name of patriotism, and claiming Donald Trump was screwed out of his second term as president.
Voting for Dems may not stop them shifting from fascism in the short run, but it would vastly help and move the country forward. Imagine two more Dem senators who would cancel out the quislings. We'd have the carve out, voting rights, and BBB, and legislation to close loopholes and codify "norms" to make our democracy stronger.
If GOP keep losing elections you will see a shift in their positioning. All most of the GOP congresscritters care about is power; getting it and retaining it. Right now most of them don't embrace fascism because they support it; it's their means to keep their seats and regain the majority—and avoid harassment and death threats. They are cynical, amoral, cowardly, and anti-American for sure. The problem is McConnell thinks he can control the crazies, but he can't, which is why they cannot regain the majority and we need every Dem vote.
As for that crazy fascist strain, it's endemic and won't go away anytime soon, not as long as media and the internet exist as they are right now.
During the Egyptian revolution in 2011 the people were thrilled about having open elections. Sadly, they learned the hard way that democracy entails much more than voting - you have to have candidates worth voting for, and without hidden agendas. Unfortunately, that has been the Achilles heel of the Democratic party, which is such a big tent, and with so many voters unwilling to be flexible. America reminds me of Egypt during that time, when they voted along religious lines and found themselves with an incompetent and dishonest president who fired most of the parliament and rewrote the constitution. In the end, after a year he was deposed by an authoritarian. I wish Americans would take a lesson from it. It's not just about voting, it's about understanding one's rights and responsibilities, and voting wisely.
At which we are seeing failures, where Proud Boys are running for office and far right moonbats are serving in Congress. All of them are deemed fine and dandy to Trump. He doesn't care how odious these people are because fanatics tend to be loyalists.
McConnell couldn't control Trump and still can't.
I appreciate your consternation. There isn't the space or context here for stepping through the reasoning and all the considerations to provide details on either what we should do or why we should do it. But I can give you a general guiding principle, which sums up the issue, regardless of specific circumstances:
When those you oppose keep getting more extreme, the worst thing you could possibly do is get more extreme yourself, and the best thing you can ever do is to get less extreme. Please don't misread this as a recommendation to compromise or accommodate them. But part of what makes reasoning superior to logic is that it encompasses the result as much as the process itself: whatever we do, it must, all by itself and with no external comparison, be what can be described as "reasonable". It is reasonable to do everything that we can, within the bounds of honesty and legal statutes, to prevent *any* antivaxxers or Republicons from ever getting elected. Our voting for Democrats won't stop the former GOP from becoming ever more fascist. But getting people who do vote for Republicons to stop doing that will, whether or not those people themselves are extremists or not. Barring that, we should prevent their winning elections from resulting in their holding office, or passing laws. Again, only if we can do so without lying or breaking the law. And if we say things that are not true, just make sure they're jokes instead of lies, and if we do break the law, make sure it is civil disobedience not violence.
You have again failed to provide an intelligent response.
That works fine when you can measure everything and rely on proven formulas. It is worse than useless when dealing with human motivations, politics, and government policy. You're conflating faith in science with faith in scientists.
The only thing that can be known with absolute certainty is *cogito ergo sum*. Everything else is inference.
You are factually mistaken. Your faith in some single absolute (and apparently unquestionable) 'scientific process' is misplaced and naive. The various processes of scientific research are extremely useful and productive, but that's because they don't rely on any faith in their infallibility, not because they do. Regardless, convincing people to change their political opinions is a difficult (and ultimately fruitless, even counter-productive) thing to investigate scientifically.
Joe’s Vietnam (vs Joe’s Normandy)
This is such deflating news. It’s like the biggest machines in the news sharing world want us to live in Idiocracy and sadly, they have the power to do it. Everyone who reads this newsletter needs to post links to all of their social media accounts to put pressure on ABC and all MSM outlets to get back to the business of telling the truth.
Botched?
I don't think so. Considering how ABC loves to recite Republican talking points I believe it was deliberate. One only has to remember how Jonathan Karl endlessly recited Republican lies when Obama was President and don't forget how Karl sneered and held Obama in contempt.
And wasn't Karl the product of the Right Wing Media Breeding Machine? His origin story can be read here:
https://fair.org/extra/a-right-wing-mole-at-abc-news/
"If a newsletter writer like me to can admit mistakes, why can’t ABC News?"
I have the words for an answer to that, but not the energy ;)
Ha!
Eric another piece that speaks to just how unfair and irresponsible the press and some news organizations can be. It's sad to see that ABC would be just as destructive as Faux News. I would love to see the Dems get a bit more Jen Psaki in them and call out the press. Just like she handles Peter Doocy. It's really just sad to see how the media is actually standing in the way of democracy on a daily basis. Just so tired.
Any news organization that doesn't quickly acknowledge and correct its mistakes loses all credibility. ABC's handling of Walensky's quote is both unethical and undermines public health. Not fixing the error is also chickenshit.
P.S.: Added "Still Alive" to may playlist. Thanks for the recommendation.
As long as MSM is 90+% owned and run by [extreme] conservatives (that conserve absolutely nothing but tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations) and until we use our anti-trust laws to break them up into smaller and more diverse agencies that are committed to telling the truth, there will continue to be an erosion of our democracy.
There is no such thing as alternative facts, there are only facts and that simple approach seems to escape them and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed.