"Covering the 2020 campaign, the press should make sure they don't put their thumb on the scale for Trump in hopes of marketing a close race." Marketing a close race, that's why I don't think news should be for profit.
These days are often compared to the end of Nixon but the big difference was the media used to be fair and balanced and Republicans did put country before party. Today the media, as you so well point out, is all about the ratings and because of that we might have to endure another four years of this madness. The polls look good for Biden but the scary thing is that the Republicans will use dirty tricks and voter suppression to cheat their way to keeping power. Will the media report these stories and take back their role as referee of our democracy or ignore it because the ratings might be better? Unfortunately we know the answer.
Chris Cillizza was one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation in the coverage of the Hillary email pseudo-scandal. He didn’t even understand the basics of the story, mistaking the fact that Powell’s people had told him that although Powell had used his personal email account for day to day State Department business he had used a separate system for communicating classified information. Cillizza was so ignorant about the subject that he interpreted this to mean that Powell used his State.gov email account for that. Anyone reporting on this subject should have known state.gov is not a secure server and was never approved for transmitting classified information. Officials like Powell and Clinton always used a SCIF for classified communication.
But then Cillizza has made it clear that he doesn’t care about giving people the facts:
“My job is to assess not the rightness of each argument but to deal in the real world of campaign politics in which perception often (if not always) trumps reality. I deal in the world as voters believe it is, not as I (or anyone else) thinks it should be. ”
Isn't it exactly the same plan the media ran in 2016? There is no difference here. It is just that Biden is a less controversial choice than Clinton was, so it was easier. I do believe the media grudges run long and deep, don't you? Did the DC press (many who went onto become movers and shakers at corporate news) ever get over their animosity towards the Clintons after getting kicked out of the West Wing? Watergate and the NYT? Part of problem is how wrong NYT got it with Watergate (did the DC and East Coast political bureau ever get over the outsiders from Arkansas winning over their folks?) It is going to be a lot harder to drag Biden through the mud with his popularity but of course they want a neck and neck race. To this day I hear how Clinton ran a campaign only against Trump, not a campaign of issues. That was the media's doing. Will they do it again? It looks like it.
i didn't really get into it in this piece, but yes this is how the press viewed the 2016: they wanted a close race bc they despised her—they wanted to make sure his historic victory (which all journos assumed was certain) would not be enjoyable. they wanted her to stumble across the finish line, battered and bruised. thus, emails, Clinton Foundation nonsesne coverage, etc
This is where the right wing is so much smarter than the left.
First, they work the refs. By making the accusations, they get more favorable coverage. You know it, I know it, and the average three-year-old in Masillon, Ohio, knows it.
Second, they do it because it works. It worked when Nixon sicced his goons on the press, and then the press got cold feet on Iran-Contra because they didn't want to be seen as taking down only republican presidents when, of course, any president who did that would deserve to be taken down (perhaps they forgot their role, which should be heralded, in reporting on Vietnam and how it pretty well destroyed LBJ).
Third, set aside the partisanship. The argument goes to something that sports announcers say about their broadcasts. If they're local, it's best for their team to win, but to face a challenge. If they're national, it's better for the race to go down to the wire. Same principle applies here. What sells? A closer race.
A close race sells papers or clicks, whichever applicable. “The Media” wants to make money.
I do think you underestimate the Clinton polling lead in 2016. The national, and particularly the State polls showed a small but significant Clinton lead.
There are several State poll averages which are encouraging. AZ, GA, and NC are particularly positive. Equally the lack of States where Trump polls above 50% is a good sign.
But the time to relax is 11/4/20. And even then I’m convinced there will be a fight.
The GOP’s also had the establishment media supporting them since the late 1970s. We get the media pouncing on the Democrats, left, and progressives every chance they get. So jumping on Biden’s gaffe — an obvious fact pointed out poorly — is treated on a par with or worse than any racist remark Trump has ever made — and which literally inspires killings.
Compensating for media bias is difficult AF. And it’s a huge advantage for the GOP and right wing.
Contrary to their self-promotions, the media have actually reached a point where they’re harming the nation.
At its highest levels, much of what is deemed "the media" does its best to make right-wing slants and actions acceptable AND welcome. This is why the malfeasance of both the Trump and W. Bush admins were always briefly covered, while relatively small gaffes and possible missteps of Democrats and Liberals/Progressives are breathlessly covered for days/weeks/months on end.
Everything that we are seeing as far as coverage is concerned is something that has been going on for decades. This normalization is not a bug. This is who they are. And the tactics "work" because of far too many of operate under the idea that the "press" and the right-wing slant of Republicans are 2 separate entities.
It's not fear that drives those in the media. It's complicity.
i def agree what we're seeing is a continued trend. i guess what makes the trend so shocking is that it involves Trump and there seems to be no way/no willingness for press to acknowledge he represents something drastically different and dangerous.
When Paul Krugman put out his column collection on Bush, Russell Baker reviewed it for The New York Review of Books and talked about the failures of DC pundits. Baker later said that he was raised in the Great Depression, as were most reporters of his time, and they grew up poor. But most of today's reporters grew up during a time of prosperity but were children of the 1960s. So his generation was more interested in fiscal issues (I'm paraphrasing, and Baker wasn't this high-falutin'), while the younger generation was more interested in social issues. So Krugman was unique in commenting on and understanding the economics of things. But Baker also said he never covered a politician who had less money than he did, and today, that has changed. If you think about it, this goes a ways toward explaining some things.
So does the story of his Times colleague Anthony Lewis, who planned to write his column from DC, spent some time there, and realized he couldn't write honestly if he lived there and moved to the Boston area. That problem pervades punditry today.
"Covering the 2020 campaign, the press should make sure they don't put their thumb on the scale for Trump in hopes of marketing a close race." Marketing a close race, that's why I don't think news should be for profit.
the downsides certainly come into view during the campaign season i think, which beltway press clearly views as a marketable commodity
These days are often compared to the end of Nixon but the big difference was the media used to be fair and balanced and Republicans did put country before party. Today the media, as you so well point out, is all about the ratings and because of that we might have to endure another four years of this madness. The polls look good for Biden but the scary thing is that the Republicans will use dirty tricks and voter suppression to cheat their way to keeping power. Will the media report these stories and take back their role as referee of our democracy or ignore it because the ratings might be better? Unfortunately we know the answer.
completely agree abt the looming threats of GOP dirty tricks
Chris Cillizza was one of the biggest purveyors of misinformation in the coverage of the Hillary email pseudo-scandal. He didn’t even understand the basics of the story, mistaking the fact that Powell’s people had told him that although Powell had used his personal email account for day to day State Department business he had used a separate system for communicating classified information. Cillizza was so ignorant about the subject that he interpreted this to mean that Powell used his State.gov email account for that. Anyone reporting on this subject should have known state.gov is not a secure server and was never approved for transmitting classified information. Officials like Powell and Clinton always used a SCIF for classified communication.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/10/17/clinton-lawyer-pounds-cnns-chris-cillizza-on-email-analysis-piece/
But then Cillizza has made it clear that he doesn’t care about giving people the facts:
“My job is to assess not the rightness of each argument but to deal in the real world of campaign politics in which perception often (if not always) trumps reality. I deal in the world as voters believe it is, not as I (or anyone else) thinks it should be. ”
https://www.mediamatters.org/cnn/chris-cillizzas-reddit-ama-was-delightful-catastrophe
yeah, Cillizza remains an embarrassment for CNN
(By Eric Boehlert, article)
'His creepy behavior has become so normalized that we often fail the ask the simply questions.’
Eric Boehlert
Trump gets media ratings and clicks, period. Also, the oddsmakers right now have Trump 10 percentage points over Biden.
Isn't it exactly the same plan the media ran in 2016? There is no difference here. It is just that Biden is a less controversial choice than Clinton was, so it was easier. I do believe the media grudges run long and deep, don't you? Did the DC press (many who went onto become movers and shakers at corporate news) ever get over their animosity towards the Clintons after getting kicked out of the West Wing? Watergate and the NYT? Part of problem is how wrong NYT got it with Watergate (did the DC and East Coast political bureau ever get over the outsiders from Arkansas winning over their folks?) It is going to be a lot harder to drag Biden through the mud with his popularity but of course they want a neck and neck race. To this day I hear how Clinton ran a campaign only against Trump, not a campaign of issues. That was the media's doing. Will they do it again? It looks like it.
i didn't really get into it in this piece, but yes this is how the press viewed the 2016: they wanted a close race bc they despised her—they wanted to make sure his historic victory (which all journos assumed was certain) would not be enjoyable. they wanted her to stumble across the finish line, battered and bruised. thus, emails, Clinton Foundation nonsesne coverage, etc
This is where the right wing is so much smarter than the left.
First, they work the refs. By making the accusations, they get more favorable coverage. You know it, I know it, and the average three-year-old in Masillon, Ohio, knows it.
Second, they do it because it works. It worked when Nixon sicced his goons on the press, and then the press got cold feet on Iran-Contra because they didn't want to be seen as taking down only republican presidents when, of course, any president who did that would deserve to be taken down (perhaps they forgot their role, which should be heralded, in reporting on Vietnam and how it pretty well destroyed LBJ).
Third, set aside the partisanship. The argument goes to something that sports announcers say about their broadcasts. If they're local, it's best for their team to win, but to face a challenge. If they're national, it's better for the race to go down to the wire. Same principle applies here. What sells? A closer race.
press clearly wants a close race, which I think explains so much of media’s misguided Dems in Disarray coverage
Precisely.
A close race sells papers or clicks, whichever applicable. “The Media” wants to make money.
I do think you underestimate the Clinton polling lead in 2016. The national, and particularly the State polls showed a small but significant Clinton lead.
There are several State poll averages which are encouraging. AZ, GA, and NC are particularly positive. Equally the lack of States where Trump polls above 50% is a good sign.
But the time to relax is 11/4/20. And even then I’m convinced there will be a fight.
The GOP’s also had the establishment media supporting them since the late 1970s. We get the media pouncing on the Democrats, left, and progressives every chance they get. So jumping on Biden’s gaffe — an obvious fact pointed out poorly — is treated on a par with or worse than any racist remark Trump has ever made — and which literally inspires killings.
Compensating for media bias is difficult AF. And it’s a huge advantage for the GOP and right wing.
Contrary to their self-promotions, the media have actually reached a point where they’re harming the nation.
They aren't "working" the refs.
They ARE the refs.
At its highest levels, much of what is deemed "the media" does its best to make right-wing slants and actions acceptable AND welcome. This is why the malfeasance of both the Trump and W. Bush admins were always briefly covered, while relatively small gaffes and possible missteps of Democrats and Liberals/Progressives are breathlessly covered for days/weeks/months on end.
Everything that we are seeing as far as coverage is concerned is something that has been going on for decades. This normalization is not a bug. This is who they are. And the tactics "work" because of far too many of operate under the idea that the "press" and the right-wing slant of Republicans are 2 separate entities.
It's not fear that drives those in the media. It's complicity.
i def agree what we're seeing is a continued trend. i guess what makes the trend so shocking is that it involves Trump and there seems to be no way/no willingness for press to acknowledge he represents something drastically different and dangerous.
This may sound nutty, but here goes.
When Paul Krugman put out his column collection on Bush, Russell Baker reviewed it for The New York Review of Books and talked about the failures of DC pundits. Baker later said that he was raised in the Great Depression, as were most reporters of his time, and they grew up poor. But most of today's reporters grew up during a time of prosperity but were children of the 1960s. So his generation was more interested in fiscal issues (I'm paraphrasing, and Baker wasn't this high-falutin'), while the younger generation was more interested in social issues. So Krugman was unique in commenting on and understanding the economics of things. But Baker also said he never covered a politician who had less money than he did, and today, that has changed. If you think about it, this goes a ways toward explaining some things.
So does the story of his Times colleague Anthony Lewis, who planned to write his column from DC, spent some time there, and realized he couldn't write honestly if he lived there and moved to the Boston area. That problem pervades punditry today.
This.