This phrase says it all: "...the media’s extraordinary disconnect with everyday Americans." With California on fire for months at a time, and floods from "hundred year" storms devastating the midwest and east, some honest reporting on climate change was due. Instead the media hammers Joe Biden for wearing a Rolex watch, ignores a rapidly rebounding economy, and falls all over itself every time Trump shows his ass. Newspaper and TV editors look at their dismal reader/viewer ratings and wonder why they are shrinking.
Also, too, they hammer Biden for visiting his loved ones in the cemetery and wanting to spend weekends with loved ones in Wilmington. Their actions speak volumes about not only their laziness as propagandists but also what their personal "values" are.
Fourth media fail: The massive effort to portray Biden as a fool for withdrawing from Afghanistan. With few exceptions, the withdrawal was portrayed as a catastrophe for which Biden was fully to blame, despite the actual facts. On the other hand, Trump's withdrawal of thousands of troops at the end of his presidency was barely mentioned - a withdrawal that was discussed with the Taliban but not the Afghan government. The withdrawal left the doors wide open for Al Qaeda and other extremists to pour in. Yet Trump was widely quoted as the wise statesman.
Fifth media fail: The lack of coverage of the efforts by the GOP to destroy our democracy anywhere other than the opinion columns.
I hold out no hope based on the NYT's weak tea op ed "warning us of the dangers of Trump" from 1/1. Sure, it was probably the most hard-hitting the Times' ed board has produced in a while (that wasn't castigating Dems). And they do put the words Republican and authoritarian in the same sentence once (I bet there were debates about that!). But their language is way too measured for a hair-on-fire subject. They talk about our democracy being threatened but don't lay out exactly what the stakes are. And once again they assume that the GOP will win the midterms— and continue to push a Democratic midterm bloodbath (in the guise of a question) with boxed links to articles in which all but one declare the Dems will be wiped out if they don't do A,B,C,Z.
Here are two sample graphs:
"It is regular citizens who threaten election officials and other public servants, who ask, 'When can we use the guns?' and who vow to murder politicians who dare to vote their conscience. It is Republican lawmakers scrambling to make it harder for people to vote and easier to subvert their will if they do. It is Donald Trump who continues to stoke the flames of conflict with his rampant lies and limitless resentments and whose twisted version of reality still dominates one of the nation’s two major political parties.
"In short, the Republic faces an existential threat from a movement that is openly contemptuous of democracy and has shown that it is willing to use violence to achieve its ends. No self-governing society can survive such a threat by denying that it exists. Rather, survival depends on looking back and forward at the same time."
Regular citizens. A movement. Republicans "scrambling to make it harder." The Times' editors refuse to come out and say point blank that the existential threat we face is the GOP. They dance around it, take a short jab here and there, yet make it seem as if the danger is coming solely from Trump, when it is the entire GOP with the exception of Kinzinger and Cheney. (They also blame all Dems for the sins of Manchin and Sinema—a failure is a failure.)
Nowhere do they mention their own culpability in normalizing Trump, refusing to consistently call his lies lies or call for his resignation, and even now these editors pretend that there are still sensible Republicans—"Republican leaders could help by being honest with their voters and combating the extremists in their midst." The entire party has enabled Trump, pays fealty to him, and has capitulated to those extremists! Nor do the Times' editors call 1/6 what it was—a failed insurrection. Instead, it's still a riot.
Sure, I am nitpicking—at least they said something and do mention Republicans more than Democrats. But it's not enough to tell the story, it's also how the story is told. We see it with the skewered coverage—exemplified by the trio of epic fails Eric writes about today.
With a few exceptions, our media, led by the vaunted NYT, is most definitely not up to the crisis moment we are facing.
You will get your answer on January 6th when Trump holds a presser and the NYT, WaPo, CNN and MSNBC and all the networks will cover it as a legitimate news event, giving the narcissist exactly what he craves.
Couple of quick points. Too under the weather to elaborate so may be a couple of quick barely-coherent points.
I think we're at the point that the question should be less How did the mainstream fail society this time? and Instead Why is the mainstream regularly misreporting? Why>How and all that.
My theory, noted here often enough, is that what and how things get reported is a deliberate choice. I cannot, refuse to believe that mainstream reporters and editors are that ignorant of what they're reporting. I should say that I cannot because I've seen the occasional interview over the years where a reporter demonstrates real knowledge of their area of expertise, approximately none of it getting reflected in their reporting. Instead, one gets propaganda, BS, going through the motions of appearing as a serious journalist, whatever. It's interesting, telling that the premier or most prominent journalism award -- the Pulitzer -- is essentially rigged and little more than fiat decisions.
It's not just the political in which the media fail. Economic reporting is as bad -- like political reportage, it's a case of a few flakes of gold in a mountain of hot steaming feces (dunno in which area the media fail more) as well as national security. (The slamming/sliming of Biden on the withdrawal from Afghanistan is maybe literally insane given that the critics in the media also failed approximately 100% in their coverage of Afghanistan for over forty years. Bonus factoid: That liberal, progressive Afghanistan that the Biden critics have been crying about? Afghanistan's most liberal, modern state was in the late 1970s to which Carter responded by creating the Islamofascist mujahideen from which Al Qaida and the Taliban descended.)
As for Dems' need to be crushed in 2022: Since some crushing as a result of GOP state house's laws formalizing their vote rigging, I think some crushing both inevitable and from which there will be no recovery. That's what an existential crisis means. Which is another story the media have been failing in reporting for approximately forty years.
I agree that it matters why this is happening. Solutions depend on understanding the reasons the media so often does a poor job.
After years of watching and wondering I have come to believe there are multiple reasons for the media’s malpractice. In some cases such as lhealth and economic reporting they aren’t qualified so they just repeat what experts who have their ear say. Math literacy is also a problem. It has driven me crazy that during this god awful pandemic so many have used total, not per capita numbers of cases, deaths, etc. to make comparisons.
In many instances the media act like a bunch of teenagers dying to get the approval of the people they perceive as the Kool Kids. Anyone who is good at schmoozing them is likely to get positive coverage. George W Bush is one example as is Chris Christie. For decades Trump was also given a pass because he knew how to schmooze the media. From what I have read even the odious Steve Bannon was a media favorite because he deliberately courted them. That is how he was able to con them into buying into stories like the supposed Clinton Foundation corruption and the Biden-Ukraine “scandal”.
In other cases it is clear that reporters or their bosses have been intimidated by right wing accusations of liberal bias. They are afraid of losing access to powerful conservatives or to those with access to information and power. A recent article by Dan Froomkin describes an example of editors at the NY Times pressuring a reporter because her factual article about homelessness in NYC made Rudy G look cruel. I found it interesting that in that reporter’s experience pressure usually came from mid-level editors who were trying to please their bosses.
And then there is the problem of favorite, long running narratives like “Dems in disarray” or women as mean bosses. Those seem to be the product of implicit bias and groupthink.
When Jim Acosta got booted out of the daily press briefing by Trump, it had long-reaching consequences for press freedom. There have always been rumblings about how reporters can be shut out of the loop if they're critical of the administration, but Trump made that rumor into fact.
And much great, important reporting resulted. </sarcasm>
You had a historically unfit candidate being elected POTUS — without a majority of the vote — who ended up causing a couple of hundred thousand unnecessary deaths and an unknown number of people permanently harmed. The media have been consistently silent as to his unfitness as well as that he literally killed said people for no good, acceptable reason.
But Acosta got back into the briefing room.
As for the judge’s ruling vis a vis the Times: the Times’ consistently harmful reporting should be magnitudes more concerning. While the decision is not good — and quite possibly a harbinger — whatever one fears from the state is not as bad as the harm the media do freely and by choice. Obviously, state pressures won’t fix that failing, but not will it make things worse.
No, because the Judge's sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution, not decide what people need or do not need to know. Remember the First Amendment? "Harmful reporting" is protected speech.
I expect this to be resolved on the appellate level.
My primary problem is that since the victim here has done so much real harm, I can’t care too much. Now, in different circumstances, sure. Not the Times, though.
Too, their endemic crappy reporting has made them maybe appear less important allowing the judge to, uh, misrule here.
Um no. You trust the state over free journalism? As much as I bash the press for the shit job they do we need the—but to do their jobs properly. I certainly didn’t trust the state under Trump and there are always those bureaucrats itching to go a step too far no matter what party they belong to. It’s human nature. Acosta continually pushed back on the Trump admin which is why they took his press pass away.
It's a question that is as old as the Constitution and not a matter if which one you trust. It's what the Constitution says. What that judge said was unconstitutional, and that is why we have appellate courts.
No, I’m saying state messing around with a mainstream media that’s been complicit in the nation going to hell is less of a problem than the media would like you to think. That’s all. Problem, sure, but for me less of a problem than actual harm caused by the victims here. Query, too, how *we’d* be hurt as a practical matter.
I’m not sure that’s quite accurate. Too, the question who are the harmed journalists here? And given Biden’s privacy issue (emphasis on issue, not right), maybe the Times’ claiming a right to publish other journalists’ materials is questionable. (I know; PV. Not sure they’re not essentially reporters here.)
Being kicked out of any press briefing is meaningless because press briefings are empty shows. Mainstream reporting is based on nurturing sources then “reporting” the sources’ self-serving BS. Press briefings are even worse. Mainstream reporting is less honestly reporting, more putting on a show of reporting, giving the impression that the audience is being informed when they’re actually doing the opposite.
If conducted properly they provide an opportunity to ask questions about the admin’s thinking. But this WH press corps just waste time with inane questions.
JFC I didn’t say important stories were broken. I said the press briefings offer an opportunity for journalists to ask good questions to prove deeper into the thinking/positions of an administration. That this particular crop fails isn’t the fault of the briefing.
They have no incentive to change. As a norm, the mainstream produces establishment propaganda. The problem the past couple of decades is that the leadership is opposed to the good of the nation. The wealth they can net is greater for hollowing out the economy. Their media are what they are and change is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
That leaves two things we can do.
One is to be aware that the mainstream is harmful and to be avoided. The other is to get the word out. I’d dare say that getting no news is better than getting it from the mainstream media — or social networks for that matter. Create a trusted media diet and rely on that. And spread the word.
I don't think the mainstream is as evil as you do. And you have to bear in mind that alternatives can be, and mostly are, as biased as you've ever seen. If you read only what you agree with, you're no better than the average reader of the Daily Caller.
I regularly read the Washington Post and strongly disagree with much of their reporting. It’s coverage of Biden is unbalanced, being unfairly negative. They hype any problem is a crisis, usually one that will doom his presidency but mostly ignore the very good economic news because the prefer to obsess about inflation.
Unfairly negative media coverage of Democrats has helped damage our democracy. Post election media analyses showed that the coverage of Hillary in 2015 - 2016 was not only more negative overall than the coverage of Trump, it ignored her well though out policy proposals to obsess about Republican-created “scandals”.
The media also gave Gore more negative coverage than they did Bush.
I don’t think the media is evil but that doesn’t change the fact that they have done a lot of damage to our democracy. That is what this site is trying to make everyone see.
I actually read what I don’t necessarily agree with. It’s a matter of trust, not having beliefs reinforced.
As I’ve noted, in no particular order, the mainstream has actively supported the GOP since the 80s (previously shitting on Carter for the wrong reasons); failed on economic and financial reporting; in 2015 refused to report that Trump was historically unfit for office and still refuse to call him a killer re refusing to respond competently to Covid; the foreign policy blob wouldn’t exist without the mainstream willing to promote them; essentially ignoring GOP attack on the vote; and contributing to polarization.
As I’ve noted, my belief is that mainstream reporting has been actual harmful and not informative on important issues.
You are right that the media coverage has too often been harmful to our democracy. Read this article about how the media gave Gore more negative media coverage than it did Bush. One thing that jumped out at me was a this:
“ One way Gore suffered was by not performing up to press expectations during the presidential debates, the report found.”
Clearly press’s own expectations, not actual performance, made them cover Gore more negatively. So if one candidate is far less qualified he or she can perform badly but meet the media’s low expectations in comparison to a far more qualified candidate like Gore if they don’t perform perfectly. Talk about having a blatant double standard!
The article also describes another way the press’s bias drives their warped coverage — their excuse for not writing about policy is they think no one will read them.
The article also includes the common but completely idiotic excuse that Bush and Gore were “two somewhat flawed candidates”, a variation on the “not a perfect candidate” line. That makes me want to scream! In what universe are there candidates who aren’t flawed? What human isn’t?
My problem is what you’re referring to is the rule with too few exceptions that matter. But agreed. Gore coverage was snippy and infused with disdain for him while Bush was fully acceptable. Now, we’re one bother with anyone’s actual record, Gore had an adequate one, Bush really none. Failed businesses, front man for the Rangers and governor in a state where the governor has little power.
I’m too old to worry about it but I am concerned for my kids and grandkids. My son’s wife is from the EU and he speaks German and Spanish so that wouldn’t be too hard for them to do. I’m not sure how easy it is for Americans to emigrate to other countries unless they already have a job.
ASI thought was clear enough, if you haven’t been inspired to leave the last couple of decades, I doubt that the next couple of years will be significantly worse such as one would feel compelled to leave.
a great thing about this nation, and where actually exceptional is that repression and oppression, relatively speaking, is inflected relatively gently -- like, you can keep more people down for longer with honey than you can with vinegar. Approximately one-quarter of full time workers don't get a living wage? Give then easy credit instead of mandating paying full time workers living wages. (Spoiler: $15/hour is not a living wage in most parts of the country.)
But with that comes a reasonable amount of freedom for people to do for themselves up to a point. It's hard, I know. Then again, a couple of decades of electing shit was not forced on voters; it's what they kept choosing.
Anyway, back to the relative freedom: On a day to day basis, I don't know that things will be especially worse under the coming de jure one party state.
OTOH, if one believes that a state should serve its people, not just an elite, well, we've been failing at that since at least the 80s, maybe longer. So if you weren't compelled by that to move (or figure out where to move to), well, you probably shouldn't be worried now :)
Yet… weren’t those precise elections - 2000 & 2016 … - the most debated and controversial in our county’s history? ( Brooks Brothers riot / ‘Meddling’… not exactly decisive ) Actually heard 2000 described as ‘the fork in the road’…
The main stream media's narrative is intentional. The owners of the media are fans of the super wealthy, namely right wing players who own everything. In a year when we saw an actual insurrection take place at the Capitol, think about that for a second, we did not and still do not have daily headlines calling for the heads of those in power who planned it. The evidence is more clear every day. In a year when storms and wild fires got more severe than ever, we did not see headlines clamoring for immediate climate response, reporting on the environmental precipice the world finds itself. In a year when the continuing pandemic continued to kill American citizens at an alarming rate, where were the headlines calling for the nonsensical partisan bullshit to stop and mandates to be passed. These headlines aren't there because the media owners don't want that. There goal is to put their crony Republican criminals back in power. It's better for them financially. The Fourth Estate is dead, at least the MSM. Plain and simple.
I suspect many would have expected The New York Times to make the top 3, but everybody at The Times spent the year at a diner in Ashtabula, asking old white men what they think of Kamala Harris.
And I emailed E.J. Dionne, and thanked him. He's one of the few DC pundits who has been a reporter and still reports. I append the email here because even he won't go there:
Your newest column is why I cite you as the best writer on politics in DC today.
But I am curious:
"Let’s stipulate: A media ecosystem divided between a mainstream that takes pride in nonpartisan toughness on incumbents and a powerful right-wing communications network makes life harder for Democrats. But there is little chance of changing the media narrative unless Democrats themselves shift the broader conversation."
Now, you were yourself a top political reporter before going into columns and academe (confession: I once was a very mediocre newspaper reporter and editor, later wrote a lot of columns, and am a history professor--and, dare I say, old pal of mutual friend Heather Richardson). And one of the things I realized about myself as a reporter was that I was lazy. I really didn't want to have to dig.
You were different, but that paragraph presents a problem for me. Namely, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of those assigned to report on politics in DC who actually report, as opposed to reciting horse race results. To put it another way, I sure learned a lot about what Joe Manchin was saying and doing each day, but it took a lot of digging for me to find out what actually was in the bill.
The problem is not merely the right-wing ecosystem. It is that the rest of those who cover politics in DC--and I hate to say they cover it--allow the right-wing ecosystem to affect and even drive their narrative, and they are more interested in clicks and fire than in illumination. And more of those in your position need to call them out, for the sake of democracy.
Great letter. Also, I absolutely love Professor Richardson and subscribe to her Substack column. I feel like I'm getting a personalized mini Master Class in History every day when she weaves current stories with historical happenings. The context she provides is invaluable. I'm still kicking myself for not getting a second major in History when I graduated college in nineteen mumble mumble.
I'd meant to delete the name-dropping! But Heather is great. I'm a much less able and important history professor, and in your case, it's never too late! :)
I would just like some indication these so called news organizations know how badly they screwed up. Or will they continue to write their own epitaphs?
Don’t hold your breath. The august NY Times has never even acknowledged that they spent a lot of time in the 90s pushing right wing smears of the Clinton’s, let alone apologized for it. Even after years of right wing investigations by Congress, a Special Prosecutor and an Independent Counsel who spent millions of our tax dollars and had the full cooperation of the Clinton-hating head of the FBI Louie Freeh could find no proof for the accusations of corruption the Times had constantly flogged, the Times did not acknowledge that they had allowed themselves to be played by right wing operatives. Instead they allowed the manipulation to continue, becoming a mouthpiece for Cheney’s and Bush’s WMD lies.
They will continue to write their epitaphs by refusing to recognize the story in front of them: Republicans are determined to dismantle the federal government by any means necessary.
They aren't missing it. Many understand it's happening, but they are so wedded to the outdated—and counterproductive—notion of "objectivity" that they couch it in weak terms or use bothersidism so as not to seem biased. But you can't stay on the sidelines when our democracy is at stake. You have to take a side and get in the fight.
I appreciate the ALL CAPS because I want to scream that out every time I read this column. I'm on WTAF 24/7. Meanwhile, do we call this a column or a newsletter? What kind of media is substack?
If this were a traditional newspaper, it would be a column. What Eric writes is no different from Margaret Sullivan's columns, or Jen Rubin's mini hits. I call them "mini" only because she publishes several every day. Her output is remarkable.
Today’s Washington Post has an excellent article by Margaret Sullivan on it’s main webpage (although it is still listed as under the Style section!) Here are some highlights:
“If American democracy is going to survive, the media must make this crucial shift”
“For the most part, news organizations are not making democracy-under-siege a central focus of the work they present to the public.”
“ We are losing our democracy day by day, and journalists are individually aware of this, but media outlets are not centering this as the story it should be,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of autocracy..”
It wasn't that long ago but thank you for reminding everyone that there were two Democrats who did not act perfectly in public during a pandemic. Never mind the Republicans who deny the pandemic...
Yes and one of them wound up fighting a recall battle which we are very grateful that not only did he win but he slaughtered the Trump clone put up by the GOP.
The same Trump clone who continues to say that the recall election was rigged against him.
Yes but that's not reality. Democrats "paying the price" is what Press Run documents daily. The MSM's continued support of the big lie is going to destroy their industry and destroy the Republican Party. What the MSM sees is not what Americans are seeing with their own eyes. The story is that a rogue, cultish group has invaded the House of Representatives and is determined to destroy our government for their own benefit. I cannot think of a bigger story in the past year (actually, many years) except for the pandemic. A compliant press corp will not work forever.
Oops - I should have added the ‘snark’ /s symbol to everything I posted today :) My point was - (piggybacking on Joe B’s pointing out the R ‘immunocompromised’ issue) - that the news focus continues to be very ‘selective’. While these side items are not The Big 3 that Eric has detailed (appreciate the Christie book sales follow up) - it’s no different than going after Joe this weekend for ‘excessive trips to Delaware’ that cost 1.3 million - vs TFG spending 30+million in trips ‘home’… & same exact deal as the $600 KH cookware… /s… ( and I actually just called a $276 million ginned up circus -a side item )?????! Wow.
Definitely missed the sarcasm; I apologize that I jumped on the comment. I think it is different than going after Biden for his "excessive trips to Delaware" vs. fawning over cult members and fluffing them up. In almost every case, the Democrat is the impediment to cooperative government while the Republicans do everything they accuse the Democrats of.
Insanity - doing the same thing over, over, expecting a new result. Lousy reporting invites great critics like Eric, Sullivan, Ruben to cheer us on and remind us all to keep beating the outrage drum until msm wakes up to their complicity and duplicity with the powers that be in order to maintain access, profits. Just as the maga crowd cares and knows nothing about the Constitution the press seems to care about nothing but clicks and profits.
Insanity is doing the same thing IN THE SAME WAY and expecting a different result, is the proper quote FAI — it’s comparable to the same mistake when stated “money is the root of all evil” when IT’S THE LOVE OF money that is… why does this not become common knowledge?
I know our issues with the press or mainstream media would be much less if the right leaning media was slightly more fair. Specifically Fox and a lot of the radio. I get why MSNBC may grill Buttigieg on the supply chain issues or bring up inflation when talking with other officials. It's fair to bring up those points.
But then you have Fox which is just right wing, and really far right wing, propaganda. If Biden had done what Trump did in 2020 regarding Covid, I would expect the media to go after Biden. Yet we saw Fox just spread the propaganda and offer no criticisms.
And that creates our frustrations, since the right wing media is just pure propaganda at this point, the rest of media just ends up overcompensating in desperately trying to be fair.
This phrase says it all: "...the media’s extraordinary disconnect with everyday Americans." With California on fire for months at a time, and floods from "hundred year" storms devastating the midwest and east, some honest reporting on climate change was due. Instead the media hammers Joe Biden for wearing a Rolex watch, ignores a rapidly rebounding economy, and falls all over itself every time Trump shows his ass. Newspaper and TV editors look at their dismal reader/viewer ratings and wonder why they are shrinking.
they do become committed to narratives!
Also, too, they hammer Biden for visiting his loved ones in the cemetery and wanting to spend weekends with loved ones in Wilmington. Their actions speak volumes about not only their laziness as propagandists but also what their personal "values" are.
👆
I’m glad you read Politico so we don’t have to. Thank you.
ha, it’s painful!
Maybe you should impose a surcharge to subscribers every time you have to read Pols**tico for your research. You truly are "taking one for the team."
It's hard to believe that Tiger Beat On The Potomac got even worse under its' new right wing owner. But it did...
Fourth media fail: The massive effort to portray Biden as a fool for withdrawing from Afghanistan. With few exceptions, the withdrawal was portrayed as a catastrophe for which Biden was fully to blame, despite the actual facts. On the other hand, Trump's withdrawal of thousands of troops at the end of his presidency was barely mentioned - a withdrawal that was discussed with the Taliban but not the Afghan government. The withdrawal left the doors wide open for Al Qaeda and other extremists to pour in. Yet Trump was widely quoted as the wise statesman.
Fifth media fail: The lack of coverage of the efforts by the GOP to destroy our democracy anywhere other than the opinion columns.
Finally, Theresa May(!) - of all people! -Stood up (in Parliament?) and said “Biden is just completing tRump’s previously made negotiation!!!”
Amen!
🔥✔️
I hold out no hope based on the NYT's weak tea op ed "warning us of the dangers of Trump" from 1/1. Sure, it was probably the most hard-hitting the Times' ed board has produced in a while (that wasn't castigating Dems). And they do put the words Republican and authoritarian in the same sentence once (I bet there were debates about that!). But their language is way too measured for a hair-on-fire subject. They talk about our democracy being threatened but don't lay out exactly what the stakes are. And once again they assume that the GOP will win the midterms— and continue to push a Democratic midterm bloodbath (in the guise of a question) with boxed links to articles in which all but one declare the Dems will be wiped out if they don't do A,B,C,Z.
Here are two sample graphs:
"It is regular citizens who threaten election officials and other public servants, who ask, 'When can we use the guns?' and who vow to murder politicians who dare to vote their conscience. It is Republican lawmakers scrambling to make it harder for people to vote and easier to subvert their will if they do. It is Donald Trump who continues to stoke the flames of conflict with his rampant lies and limitless resentments and whose twisted version of reality still dominates one of the nation’s two major political parties.
"In short, the Republic faces an existential threat from a movement that is openly contemptuous of democracy and has shown that it is willing to use violence to achieve its ends. No self-governing society can survive such a threat by denying that it exists. Rather, survival depends on looking back and forward at the same time."
Regular citizens. A movement. Republicans "scrambling to make it harder." The Times' editors refuse to come out and say point blank that the existential threat we face is the GOP. They dance around it, take a short jab here and there, yet make it seem as if the danger is coming solely from Trump, when it is the entire GOP with the exception of Kinzinger and Cheney. (They also blame all Dems for the sins of Manchin and Sinema—a failure is a failure.)
Nowhere do they mention their own culpability in normalizing Trump, refusing to consistently call his lies lies or call for his resignation, and even now these editors pretend that there are still sensible Republicans—"Republican leaders could help by being honest with their voters and combating the extremists in their midst." The entire party has enabled Trump, pays fealty to him, and has capitulated to those extremists! Nor do the Times' editors call 1/6 what it was—a failed insurrection. Instead, it's still a riot.
Sure, I am nitpicking—at least they said something and do mention Republicans more than Democrats. But it's not enough to tell the story, it's also how the story is told. We see it with the skewered coverage—exemplified by the trio of epic fails Eric writes about today.
With a few exceptions, our media, led by the vaunted NYT, is most definitely not up to the crisis moment we are facing.
I sincerely hope they prove me wrong.
You will get your answer on January 6th when Trump holds a presser and the NYT, WaPo, CNN and MSNBC and all the networks will cover it as a legitimate news event, giving the narcissist exactly what he craves.
Absolutely! Was even going to add that in, but this was already a long response.
Oh, and yesterday was the (annual) day Mo Dowd gave over her column to her Trump loving brother, Kevin. Skipped that one.
YES! She’s a piece of work. Ditto to skipping.
Funny that was run on an actual *holiday*, too… geez
I’m going to need to share that. Under your name of course.
Thanks! Sure.
Couple of quick points. Too under the weather to elaborate so may be a couple of quick barely-coherent points.
I think we're at the point that the question should be less How did the mainstream fail society this time? and Instead Why is the mainstream regularly misreporting? Why>How and all that.
My theory, noted here often enough, is that what and how things get reported is a deliberate choice. I cannot, refuse to believe that mainstream reporters and editors are that ignorant of what they're reporting. I should say that I cannot because I've seen the occasional interview over the years where a reporter demonstrates real knowledge of their area of expertise, approximately none of it getting reflected in their reporting. Instead, one gets propaganda, BS, going through the motions of appearing as a serious journalist, whatever. It's interesting, telling that the premier or most prominent journalism award -- the Pulitzer -- is essentially rigged and little more than fiat decisions.
It's not just the political in which the media fail. Economic reporting is as bad -- like political reportage, it's a case of a few flakes of gold in a mountain of hot steaming feces (dunno in which area the media fail more) as well as national security. (The slamming/sliming of Biden on the withdrawal from Afghanistan is maybe literally insane given that the critics in the media also failed approximately 100% in their coverage of Afghanistan for over forty years. Bonus factoid: That liberal, progressive Afghanistan that the Biden critics have been crying about? Afghanistan's most liberal, modern state was in the late 1970s to which Carter responded by creating the Islamofascist mujahideen from which Al Qaida and the Taliban descended.)
As for Dems' need to be crushed in 2022: Since some crushing as a result of GOP state house's laws formalizing their vote rigging, I think some crushing both inevitable and from which there will be no recovery. That's what an existential crisis means. Which is another story the media have been failing in reporting for approximately forty years.
Excellent point re: being deliberate
Sounds a little paranoid til you eliminate the alternatives ;)
I agree that it matters why this is happening. Solutions depend on understanding the reasons the media so often does a poor job.
After years of watching and wondering I have come to believe there are multiple reasons for the media’s malpractice. In some cases such as lhealth and economic reporting they aren’t qualified so they just repeat what experts who have their ear say. Math literacy is also a problem. It has driven me crazy that during this god awful pandemic so many have used total, not per capita numbers of cases, deaths, etc. to make comparisons.
In many instances the media act like a bunch of teenagers dying to get the approval of the people they perceive as the Kool Kids. Anyone who is good at schmoozing them is likely to get positive coverage. George W Bush is one example as is Chris Christie. For decades Trump was also given a pass because he knew how to schmooze the media. From what I have read even the odious Steve Bannon was a media favorite because he deliberately courted them. That is how he was able to con them into buying into stories like the supposed Clinton Foundation corruption and the Biden-Ukraine “scandal”.
In other cases it is clear that reporters or their bosses have been intimidated by right wing accusations of liberal bias. They are afraid of losing access to powerful conservatives or to those with access to information and power. A recent article by Dan Froomkin describes an example of editors at the NY Times pressuring a reporter because her factual article about homelessness in NYC made Rudy G look cruel. I found it interesting that in that reporter’s experience pressure usually came from mid-level editors who were trying to please their bosses.
https://presswatchers.org/2021/12/when-facts-have-a-liberal-bias-new-york-times-editors-can-get-squirmy/
And then there is the problem of favorite, long running narratives like “Dems in disarray” or women as mean bosses. Those seem to be the product of implicit bias and groupthink.
When Jim Acosta got booted out of the daily press briefing by Trump, it had long-reaching consequences for press freedom. There have always been rumblings about how reporters can be shut out of the loop if they're critical of the administration, but Trump made that rumor into fact.
CNN sued and a judge ruled WH had to reinstate his press pass. More worrisome is the judge's ruling in the Times case involving Project Veritas.
And much great, important reporting resulted. </sarcasm>
You had a historically unfit candidate being elected POTUS — without a majority of the vote — who ended up causing a couple of hundred thousand unnecessary deaths and an unknown number of people permanently harmed. The media have been consistently silent as to his unfitness as well as that he literally killed said people for no good, acceptable reason.
But Acosta got back into the briefing room.
As for the judge’s ruling vis a vis the Times: the Times’ consistently harmful reporting should be magnitudes more concerning. While the decision is not good — and quite possibly a harbinger — whatever one fears from the state is not as bad as the harm the media do freely and by choice. Obviously, state pressures won’t fix that failing, but not will it make things worse.
No, because the Judge's sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution, not decide what people need or do not need to know. Remember the First Amendment? "Harmful reporting" is protected speech.
I expect this to be resolved on the appellate level.
My primary problem is that since the victim here has done so much real harm, I can’t care too much. Now, in different circumstances, sure. Not the Times, though.
Too, their endemic crappy reporting has made them maybe appear less important allowing the judge to, uh, misrule here.
Um no. You trust the state over free journalism? As much as I bash the press for the shit job they do we need the—but to do their jobs properly. I certainly didn’t trust the state under Trump and there are always those bureaucrats itching to go a step too far no matter what party they belong to. It’s human nature. Acosta continually pushed back on the Trump admin which is why they took his press pass away.
It's a question that is as old as the Constitution and not a matter if which one you trust. It's what the Constitution says. What that judge said was unconstitutional, and that is why we have appellate courts.
No, I’m saying state messing around with a mainstream media that’s been complicit in the nation going to hell is less of a problem than the media would like you to think. That’s all. Problem, sure, but for me less of a problem than actual harm caused by the victims here. Query, too, how *we’d* be hurt as a practical matter.
Yes. It flies in the face of the 1st Amendment.
I’m not sure that’s quite accurate. Too, the question who are the harmed journalists here? And given Biden’s privacy issue (emphasis on issue, not right), maybe the Times’ claiming a right to publish other journalists’ materials is questionable. (I know; PV. Not sure they’re not essentially reporters here.)
It's not about harmed journalists, but whether the eights of the people to a free press have been harmed.
Being kicked out of any press briefing is meaningless because press briefings are empty shows. Mainstream reporting is based on nurturing sources then “reporting” the sources’ self-serving BS. Press briefings are even worse. Mainstream reporting is less honestly reporting, more putting on a show of reporting, giving the impression that the audience is being informed when they’re actually doing the opposite.
If conducted properly they provide an opportunity to ask questions about the admin’s thinking. But this WH press corps just waste time with inane questions.
Give me three important stories that broke from press briefings.
“If conducted properly” is doing some huge heavy lifting there.
JFC I didn’t say important stories were broken. I said the press briefings offer an opportunity for journalists to ask good questions to prove deeper into the thinking/positions of an administration. That this particular crop fails isn’t the fault of the briefing.
They have no incentive to change. As a norm, the mainstream produces establishment propaganda. The problem the past couple of decades is that the leadership is opposed to the good of the nation. The wealth they can net is greater for hollowing out the economy. Their media are what they are and change is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
That leaves two things we can do.
One is to be aware that the mainstream is harmful and to be avoided. The other is to get the word out. I’d dare say that getting no news is better than getting it from the mainstream media — or social networks for that matter. Create a trusted media diet and rely on that. And spread the word.
I don't think the mainstream is as evil as you do. And you have to bear in mind that alternatives can be, and mostly are, as biased as you've ever seen. If you read only what you agree with, you're no better than the average reader of the Daily Caller.
I regularly read the Washington Post and strongly disagree with much of their reporting. It’s coverage of Biden is unbalanced, being unfairly negative. They hype any problem is a crisis, usually one that will doom his presidency but mostly ignore the very good economic news because the prefer to obsess about inflation.
Unfairly negative media coverage of Democrats has helped damage our democracy. Post election media analyses showed that the coverage of Hillary in 2015 - 2016 was not only more negative overall than the coverage of Trump, it ignored her well though out policy proposals to obsess about Republican-created “scandals”.
The media also gave Gore more negative coverage than they did Bush.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-nov-01-mn-45223-story.html
I don’t think the media is evil but that doesn’t change the fact that they have done a lot of damage to our democracy. That is what this site is trying to make everyone see.
I actually read what I don’t necessarily agree with. It’s a matter of trust, not having beliefs reinforced.
As I’ve noted, in no particular order, the mainstream has actively supported the GOP since the 80s (previously shitting on Carter for the wrong reasons); failed on economic and financial reporting; in 2015 refused to report that Trump was historically unfit for office and still refuse to call him a killer re refusing to respond competently to Covid; the foreign policy blob wouldn’t exist without the mainstream willing to promote them; essentially ignoring GOP attack on the vote; and contributing to polarization.
As I’ve noted, my belief is that mainstream reporting has been actual harmful and not informative on important issues.
You are right that the media coverage has too often been harmful to our democracy. Read this article about how the media gave Gore more negative media coverage than it did Bush. One thing that jumped out at me was a this:
“ One way Gore suffered was by not performing up to press expectations during the presidential debates, the report found.”
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-nov-01-mn-45223-story.html
Clearly press’s own expectations, not actual performance, made them cover Gore more negatively. So if one candidate is far less qualified he or she can perform badly but meet the media’s low expectations in comparison to a far more qualified candidate like Gore if they don’t perform perfectly. Talk about having a blatant double standard!
The article also describes another way the press’s bias drives their warped coverage — their excuse for not writing about policy is they think no one will read them.
The article also includes the common but completely idiotic excuse that Bush and Gore were “two somewhat flawed candidates”, a variation on the “not a perfect candidate” line. That makes me want to scream! In what universe are there candidates who aren’t flawed? What human isn’t?
My problem is what you’re referring to is the rule with too few exceptions that matter. But agreed. Gore coverage was snippy and infused with disdain for him while Bush was fully acceptable. Now, we’re one bother with anyone’s actual record, Gore had an adequate one, Bush really none. Failed businesses, front man for the Rangers and governor in a state where the governor has little power.
Exactly.
I agree with you 100%.
Serious question: will we know if it is time to leave the country?
I’m too old to worry about it but I am concerned for my kids and grandkids. My son’s wife is from the EU and he speaks German and Spanish so that wouldn’t be too hard for them to do. I’m not sure how easy it is for Americans to emigrate to other countries unless they already have a job.
Or money.
I have no desire to move elsewhere. This is my country and I am willing to fight for it election by election.
ASI thought was clear enough, if you haven’t been inspired to leave the last couple of decades, I doubt that the next couple of years will be significantly worse such as one would feel compelled to leave.
a great thing about this nation, and where actually exceptional is that repression and oppression, relatively speaking, is inflected relatively gently -- like, you can keep more people down for longer with honey than you can with vinegar. Approximately one-quarter of full time workers don't get a living wage? Give then easy credit instead of mandating paying full time workers living wages. (Spoiler: $15/hour is not a living wage in most parts of the country.)
But with that comes a reasonable amount of freedom for people to do for themselves up to a point. It's hard, I know. Then again, a couple of decades of electing shit was not forced on voters; it's what they kept choosing.
Anyway, back to the relative freedom: On a day to day basis, I don't know that things will be especially worse under the coming de jure one party state.
OTOH, if one believes that a state should serve its people, not just an elite, well, we've been failing at that since at least the 80s, maybe longer. So if you weren't compelled by that to move (or figure out where to move to), well, you probably shouldn't be worried now :)
I thought we were "turning it around" with Clinton and Obama.
And then people voted for Bush and Trump who undid all that progress that they could.
Yet… weren’t those precise elections - 2000 & 2016 … - the most debated and controversial in our county’s history? ( Brooks Brothers riot / ‘Meddling’… not exactly decisive ) Actually heard 2000 described as ‘the fork in the road’…
Yeah, no, didn’t happen. We hoped it did and hoping, dropped the ball.
The main stream media's narrative is intentional. The owners of the media are fans of the super wealthy, namely right wing players who own everything. In a year when we saw an actual insurrection take place at the Capitol, think about that for a second, we did not and still do not have daily headlines calling for the heads of those in power who planned it. The evidence is more clear every day. In a year when storms and wild fires got more severe than ever, we did not see headlines clamoring for immediate climate response, reporting on the environmental precipice the world finds itself. In a year when the continuing pandemic continued to kill American citizens at an alarming rate, where were the headlines calling for the nonsensical partisan bullshit to stop and mandates to be passed. These headlines aren't there because the media owners don't want that. There goal is to put their crony Republican criminals back in power. It's better for them financially. The Fourth Estate is dead, at least the MSM. Plain and simple.
But Rs will always claim ‘liberal bias’ no matter what. A ruse?
Yeah, it’s called propaganda… 🥱
Why the snark?
I suspect many would have expected The New York Times to make the top 3, but everybody at The Times spent the year at a diner in Ashtabula, asking old white men what they think of Kamala Harris.
Discovering twitter.com/dougjballoon was a highlight of my year, along with this newsletter.
And I emailed E.J. Dionne, and thanked him. He's one of the few DC pundits who has been a reporter and still reports. I append the email here because even he won't go there:
Your newest column is why I cite you as the best writer on politics in DC today.
But I am curious:
"Let’s stipulate: A media ecosystem divided between a mainstream that takes pride in nonpartisan toughness on incumbents and a powerful right-wing communications network makes life harder for Democrats. But there is little chance of changing the media narrative unless Democrats themselves shift the broader conversation."
Now, you were yourself a top political reporter before going into columns and academe (confession: I once was a very mediocre newspaper reporter and editor, later wrote a lot of columns, and am a history professor--and, dare I say, old pal of mutual friend Heather Richardson). And one of the things I realized about myself as a reporter was that I was lazy. I really didn't want to have to dig.
You were different, but that paragraph presents a problem for me. Namely, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of those assigned to report on politics in DC who actually report, as opposed to reciting horse race results. To put it another way, I sure learned a lot about what Joe Manchin was saying and doing each day, but it took a lot of digging for me to find out what actually was in the bill.
The problem is not merely the right-wing ecosystem. It is that the rest of those who cover politics in DC--and I hate to say they cover it--allow the right-wing ecosystem to affect and even drive their narrative, and they are more interested in clicks and fire than in illumination. And more of those in your position need to call them out, for the sake of democracy.
Thanks again for great work.
Great letter. Also, I absolutely love Professor Richardson and subscribe to her Substack column. I feel like I'm getting a personalized mini Master Class in History every day when she weaves current stories with historical happenings. The context she provides is invaluable. I'm still kicking myself for not getting a second major in History when I graduated college in nineteen mumble mumble.
I'd meant to delete the name-dropping! But Heather is great. I'm a much less able and important history professor, and in your case, it's never too late! :)
No need to delete! I think it 's cool. I'm sure that you're a wonderful history professor and your students are very lucky to have you teach them.
My dream job would be biographer.
I think you might just pursue that dream job.
The New York Times treatment of all things Clinton was a major reason for me finally canceling a decades long subscription. I get your point.
I would just like some indication these so called news organizations know how badly they screwed up. Or will they continue to write their own epitaphs?
Don’t hold your breath. The august NY Times has never even acknowledged that they spent a lot of time in the 90s pushing right wing smears of the Clinton’s, let alone apologized for it. Even after years of right wing investigations by Congress, a Special Prosecutor and an Independent Counsel who spent millions of our tax dollars and had the full cooperation of the Clinton-hating head of the FBI Louie Freeh could find no proof for the accusations of corruption the Times had constantly flogged, the Times did not acknowledge that they had allowed themselves to be played by right wing operatives. Instead they allowed the manipulation to continue, becoming a mouthpiece for Cheney’s and Bush’s WMD lies.
They will continue to write their epitaphs by refusing to recognize the story in front of them: Republicans are determined to dismantle the federal government by any means necessary.
HOW CAN THEY MISS IT?????
They aren't missing it. Many understand it's happening, but they are so wedded to the outdated—and counterproductive—notion of "objectivity" that they couch it in weak terms or use bothersidism so as not to seem biased. But you can't stay on the sidelines when our democracy is at stake. You have to take a side and get in the fight.
We need many inside truthtellers like Howard Beale to scream from the rafters that ‘we in the msm are complicit in the country’s demise.’
I appreciate the ALL CAPS because I want to scream that out every time I read this column. I'm on WTAF 24/7. Meanwhile, do we call this a column or a newsletter? What kind of media is substack?
Newsletter, I think? My understanding is sub stack is a platform for writers/others to pontificate away from msm biases. Correct me if I’m wrong plse.
I think you're right. It just reads like a column to me. Column sounds more important than newsletter.
If this were a traditional newspaper, it would be a column. What Eric writes is no different from Margaret Sullivan's columns, or Jen Rubin's mini hits. I call them "mini" only because she publishes several every day. Her output is remarkable.
They are in bed with Republicans and they won't get out.
Today’s Washington Post has an excellent article by Margaret Sullivan on it’s main webpage (although it is still listed as under the Style section!) Here are some highlights:
“If American democracy is going to survive, the media must make this crucial shift”
“For the most part, news organizations are not making democracy-under-siege a central focus of the work they present to the public.”
“ We are losing our democracy day by day, and journalists are individually aware of this, but media outlets are not centering this as the story it should be,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of autocracy..”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/01/03/media-democracy-jan6-atlantic-npr/
A "friendly suggestion" to Ron DeSadist:
Don't bring your immunocompromised wife to a superspreader event.
That’s right up there w/ going to a CA restaurant (or empty beauty salon) - w/o a mask - amirite? 😐 /s
( Newsom / Pelosi reference- from abt 100 years ago…)
It wasn't that long ago but thank you for reminding everyone that there were two Democrats who did not act perfectly in public during a pandemic. Never mind the Republicans who deny the pandemic...
Yes and one of them wound up fighting a recall battle which we are very grateful that not only did he win but he slaughtered the Trump clone put up by the GOP.
The same Trump clone who continues to say that the recall election was rigged against him.
How much did that ‘event’ cost taxpayers? Gotta dig to find it for some reason. Interesting.
$276 million.
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/california-recall-elections-will-cost-276-million/103-60b467b4-ac53-4684-a9ea-5454cf8d1b3e
😳
I want to do a recount just to beat them again.
Haha! Love that phrase: ‘Democrats Who Did Not Act Perfectly!’ - yet another t-shirt…
And paid quite a (D) price under the msm microscope, if I recall…?
Yes but that's not reality. Democrats "paying the price" is what Press Run documents daily. The MSM's continued support of the big lie is going to destroy their industry and destroy the Republican Party. What the MSM sees is not what Americans are seeing with their own eyes. The story is that a rogue, cultish group has invaded the House of Representatives and is determined to destroy our government for their own benefit. I cannot think of a bigger story in the past year (actually, many years) except for the pandemic. A compliant press corp will not work forever.
Oops - I should have added the ‘snark’ /s symbol to everything I posted today :) My point was - (piggybacking on Joe B’s pointing out the R ‘immunocompromised’ issue) - that the news focus continues to be very ‘selective’. While these side items are not The Big 3 that Eric has detailed (appreciate the Christie book sales follow up) - it’s no different than going after Joe this weekend for ‘excessive trips to Delaware’ that cost 1.3 million - vs TFG spending 30+million in trips ‘home’… & same exact deal as the $600 KH cookware… /s… ( and I actually just called a $276 million ginned up circus -a side item )?????! Wow.
Remember all those trips to the ranch Bush bought so he could pretend to be a cowboy?
Definitely missed the sarcasm; I apologize that I jumped on the comment. I think it is different than going after Biden for his "excessive trips to Delaware" vs. fawning over cult members and fluffing them up. In almost every case, the Democrat is the impediment to cooperative government while the Republicans do everything they accuse the Democrats of.
As an Old Testament guy, I would have to support him bring her to one.
Insanity - doing the same thing over, over, expecting a new result. Lousy reporting invites great critics like Eric, Sullivan, Ruben to cheer us on and remind us all to keep beating the outrage drum until msm wakes up to their complicity and duplicity with the powers that be in order to maintain access, profits. Just as the maga crowd cares and knows nothing about the Constitution the press seems to care about nothing but clicks and profits.
Insanity is doing the same thing IN THE SAME WAY and expecting a different result, is the proper quote FAI — it’s comparable to the same mistake when stated “money is the root of all evil” when IT’S THE LOVE OF money that is… why does this not become common knowledge?
I know our issues with the press or mainstream media would be much less if the right leaning media was slightly more fair. Specifically Fox and a lot of the radio. I get why MSNBC may grill Buttigieg on the supply chain issues or bring up inflation when talking with other officials. It's fair to bring up those points.
But then you have Fox which is just right wing, and really far right wing, propaganda. If Biden had done what Trump did in 2020 regarding Covid, I would expect the media to go after Biden. Yet we saw Fox just spread the propaganda and offer no criticisms.
And that creates our frustrations, since the right wing media is just pure propaganda at this point, the rest of media just ends up overcompensating in desperately trying to be fair.
Eric - I admire that you could choose only 3 media fails for 2021. I am pretty much stumped thinking about anything the press did right in 2021.
They covered Betty White pretty well.
LMAO that a buddy sent me this to start off the New Year!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXZbAE7Zbhk
Well said and right on.