Biden, the press, and the "unity" charade
Here we go again
 |
If you’ve been enjoying ad-free PRESS RUN since its launch, or have just recently become a reader, please consider subscribing for $6 a month. Thanks!
Stay healthy.
Be kind.
Just days into Joe Biden's first week as president, the Beltway press — reading off GOP talking points — was buzzing about "unity." Specifically, reporters wanted to know when the new president was going to make a grand gesture, or even a policy concession, to Republicans as an expression of his goodwill.
The overeager New York Times noted that in the first "hours" (!) of Biden's presidency, there hadn't yet been any "tangible actions" towards bipartisanship, such as adopting "Republican priorities." Instead, the Democrat's outreach had been "more about words." Days later at a White House press briefing, it was a Times reporter again who pressed the issue, demanding to know, "When are we going to see one of those substantial outreaches that says , 'This is something the Republicans want to do, too'?"
Three days into Biden's presidency and the press was demanding to know when he'd start placating the GOP by pushing "Republican priorities." (Answer: That's not how elections work.) That same day, CNN interviewed Trump supporters in Texas who wanted Biden to be "less divisive."
To date, there's been virtual no news coverage on which "Democratic priorities" the GOP is willing to adopt in the name of unity. As is custom with the D.C. media, the entire onus of bipartisanship is being placed on Democrats, who are responsible for breaking the Capitol fever, which is fueled by obstructionist Republicans. (Example: An overwhelming majority of Americans support further Covid financial relief, which Republican senators steadfastly oppose.)
Over the over, the press insists that Biden's welcomed call for unity following a bloody insurrection inside the U.S. Capitol, now means that any policy push by him is divisive, because Republicans oppose it. Even if that includes wearing masks during a public health crisis.
Here's what Biden said in his Inauguration Day speech: Americans should unite against looming internal forces which threaten the country. They include racism, nativism, political extremism, white supremacy and domestic terrorism. Nowhere in that speech did Biden suggest he was going to abandon his supporters and hand over his political agenda to the GOP in the name of "unity" — because that would be absurd.
Still, news reports keeps advancing the GOP narrative that if Biden, fresh off a seven- million vote victory, works hard to turn his campaign promises into reality, he's shattering the dream of unity. It's phony Republican outrage that the press ought to call it out, instead of embracing.
Obviously "unity" doesn't have be about legislation and governance. Unity can be about having a President of the United States who doesn't call members of the opposing party baby killers, and thieves, and demand they be jailed. It can be about having civil, intelligent public discourse. It doesn't mean surrendering the Democratic agenda in order to make Republicans feel good. And it doesn't mean abandoning accountability for the previous president in the form of an impeachment trial.
"As President Preaches Unity, Charlottesville Calls for Justice," read a recent page-one New York Times headline, suggesting there's a built-in conflict between those seeking racial justice and Biden's new term as president. Biden has repeatedly said the reason he decided to run for president was watching Trump praise racist Charlottesville rioters in August 2017. The idea that he doesn't want people there to seek justice isn't rooted in any fact. Nonetheless, the Times played the "unity" card, suggesting, "Mr. Biden’s desire for civility is at odds with confronting the threat that white supremacy presents to democracy."
We've seen this media trend before. Soon after Barack Obama took office in 2009, the press made it clear that the new Democratic president would be graded based on how many votes he got from the other party. "The [stimulus] bill will be judged a political success not simply if it becomes law, but if it's deemed 'bipartisan' -- with joint ownership that takes a first step toward the new brand of politics Obama has promised,” wrote ABC News' Rick Klein.
Days into his first term, NBC's Chuck Todd asked Obama if he would veto his own emergency stimulus bill because it didn't not have Republican support. In 2010, when Democrats passed Obamacare without any Republican votes, the Times announced Obama had "lost something for good," by failing to secure any GOP support.
Fast forward to 2017: When Republicans in the House pushed to dismantle Obamacare along party-line votes, The Times claimed the GOP’s vote represented “a remarkable act of political resuscitation.” The D.C. media seemed unbothered by Trump’s lack of bipartisan support, even though he promised he’d work with the other side. Instead, lots of pundits saluted a major Trump “victory.”
Same when the GOP rammed through a United States Supreme Court pick with just 50 Senate votes. Where was the media teeth gnashing then?
Here's the press’ skewed perspective: When Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by three million votes, it wasn't seen as a sign of weakness when he couldn't find common ground with other side. When Biden wins the popular by seven million votes, he gets dinged for not being bipartisan.
It’s really time to stop the “unity” charade.
(photo Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
📺 GOOD STUFF:
People often ask me if complaining about the media and publicly pointing out the shortfalls works? Is anyone at news outlets paying attention to liberal critiques? The good news is yes — they hear us and often make changes when the blowback is intense.
Here's a recent, small example of ABC News being forced to change the framing of its Biden polling story, when people pointed out how absurd its first take was.
🎤 FUN STUFF — BECAUSE WE ALL NEED A BREAK:
The Ghost of Paul Revere, “Good at Losing Everything”
The pride of Portland, Maine, calls themselves a “holler folk band.” If that conjures up sounds of The Lumineers and Mumford & Sons, then it’s an accurate description. Banjo, acoustic guitars, foot-stomping chorus — it’s all here for a rumination on life and love.
Well listen up man I want you to know
It'll hurt like hell but it's okay to go
If there's one thing you learn about life my friend
You get good at losing everything
| 33 | 48 |
Thanks for the reminder of how irredeemably stupid Chuck Todd made himself look when he asked if Obama would veto his own legislation if it didn't have any Republican support. It's more than a little bit bizarre that Republican solidarity, no matter how blatantly political, is almost admired, while Dem solidarity is deemed obstructive or divisive. That's your so called "liberal media" in action.
The media is defining bipartisan in a very narrow way. I have repeatedly seen bills passed with just a handful of Republican votes being called bipartisan but now the media seem to be defining it as having a lot, not just some Republican support. I think they should also consider having a lot of support among Republican voters as being bipartisan.
The Post ran this headline at the end of last week after only two full working days for the Biden administration “Turned off by Biden’s approach, GOP opposition to stimulus relief intensifies
Biden may find he can get a big plan or a bipartisan plan — but not both”
Sure sounds like they are implying the blame is Biden’s. Since when are proposals supposed to be negotiated with the other side before they are even formulated? Forget the idea of traditional negotiations in which the party in power makes their proposal, then negotiates with the other side. Democrats are suppose to compromise and adjust to their opponents wishes before they even formulate their proposal.
The media also framed their reporting about Mitch refusing to agree to power sharing like his opposition was written in stone putting Democrats in a bind. Then Mitch agreed to let it go forward. All of this is designed to showcase maximum conflict over progress.
And then there is this convoluted reasoning Glenn Kessler gives for awarding Biden 3 Pinnocchios (out of 4) for his claim that under Trump federal contracts awarded to foreign companies went up 30%. Kessler starts out saying that the federal data system is very confusing. He then seems to tie himself in knots to prove Biden is lying. At one point he says that his analysis found “ the sum of foreign-sourced obligations increased 28 percent in that time frame, which is almost three years“. But then goes on to look at just Pentagon contracts and just the percent of money awarded to foreign sources, not the total at number of contracts.
The whole analysis seems convoluted and bizarre, designed to prove Biden is lying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/27/bidens-jab-that-foreign-company-contracts-went-up-30-under-trump/