I am ever grateful to you, Dana Milbank, Soledad O'Brien and others for being the 21st Century Muckrakers we so badly need. Muckraking the media is sort of a new twist but one that is desperately needed. In the Progressive Era, muckrakers called out the dirty alliance between politicians and big business. In the 21st Century the underlying issue is the same but now it is writers calling out writers who are part of that machine. The pen really is mightier than the sword and I so appreciate what you are doing - it's our only hope.
It is often said that reporters, pundits are cowed by Republican claims of liberal bias, but I suspect the imbalance in the media is the result of something closer to home, the executive offices. For too many industries, corporate governance has adopted a "cutthroat capitalism" a la Jack Welch, whereby nothing matters except the bottom line.
A new book, "Flying Blind" by Peter Robison details how Boeing went from a company well served by the engineers in charge, to one run by the bean counters, so safety, training, etc were secondary to profits. This is one example of how craven and venal corporate governance has become in so many industries, including the media.
And of course, corporate executives love the tax cuts they get from Republicans, so are happy to have Republicans in control of Congress and the White House (they now control the Supreme Court, so that battle is over). Democracy be damned. (Remember that corporate interests are one of the legs of fascism.)
So I think it matters that we diagnose the obvious tilted playing field in today's media as a problem inside the house. Better messaging from Democrats is often cited as a way to untilt the field, but the problem is not the message. For starters, Democrats need to be more vocal in pointing out the lack of a level playing field directly by pointing fingers at the media outlets themselves.
Are you aware of journalists in the mainstream media complaining that their owners are pressuring them to write stories they want? I know there were complaints from some at the Wall Street Journal after Murdoch bought it but I have not heard about those kinds of complaints from mainstream journalists. I would expect that if someone like Bezos was interfering with content. Of course they could just be self-censoring to please the execs.
I'm wondering what will change in WaPo's editorial department following Fred Hiatt's recent death. The paper, and the op-eds, have become more right wing since Sally Buzbee became the new executive editor last January.
I email CNN and other msm all the time complaining about their twisted coverage and that real news is being controlled from the executive rich ranks. It’s like pissing into the wind but it makes me feel better that someone, even if it’s just little me, is giving them holy hell.
All you're doing is telling them you're watching, which is what they want. Quality isn't so important to outlets like CNN, which they have already made obvious. Keeping Andrew Cuomo on the air until last week was the final straw. It's all about the ratings/Benjamins.
I’m aware and I don’t care. Its more important that some of us speak directly to them about our disapproval. The news isn’t going away and I don’t want it too. I want them to know I and others are onto their scam behavior.
I'm sure a huge element is reporters producing what their employers want. And given the state of private sector leadership, well, that's some lousy judgment to skew reporting for.
And I second the references to Welch, an OG parasite that left GE in awful condition -- essentially destroyed the company -- and "Flying Blind". What Boeing did to itself with the McDonnell-Douglas merger is beyond amazing, a black comedy of self-destruction (were one to overlook the cost in lives lost).
I work in media and this is an oversimplification. There are some places with ham fisted publishers (Pittsburgh Press, WSJ etc) but for the most part there is no edict from on high that says “you must cover the Dems this way to make profit.” Instead you have editors like Baquet who avoid the word “lies,” a sheep mentality press corps who are out of touch with most of the Americans they cover/report for; a conservative tilt among reporters and editors; and a desperate need for eyeballs resulting in the most sensational and misleading headlines meant solely as clickbait. They loved TFG because he paid them attention; Biden does not. I think the political press corps is petty, mean spirited, arrogant, lazy, and lacking in imagination. Not every one of them, but most.
I think saying it's corporate ownership and a dictate coming down from on high isn't quite right. I think journalists have their own biases and the bothersiderism is so ingrained in them they refuse and often can't recognize it. It's why there is so much push back to the small but growing chorus of critics within the media like Eric, along with observations from the rest of us in the peanut gallery. Haberman got snappy with someone on Twitter yesterday and I saw a snarky response to complaints about Kamala's coverage with "but look we called Dan Quayle an idiot" nonsense and "it's our job to give mocking coverage to the Veep." This coming from a reporter I like—NYT's Nick Confessore. To call these reporters thin skinned is kind.
That mocking coverage of Dan Quayle allowed them to ignore the fact that he was Bush’s point man on doing corporate America’s bidding on deregulation. From 1992:
Treating him as an entertainingly clown allowed him to do just that — leave no fingerprints. He and his competitiveness council allies:
“…have changed or tried to change regulations on federal rules relating to commercial aircraft noise, bank liability on property loans, housing accessibility for the disabled, clothing makers' right to work at home, disclosure requirements on pensions, protection of underground water from landfill runoff, reporting requirements for child-care facilities located in religious institutions, and fees for real estate settlements.”
The media let that go on under the radar which kept push back by the public to a minimum.
If reporters were getting unwanted dictates from on high they would complain about it (anonymously) to others in the media they way that WSJ journalists have done. Reporters at Fox did the same during the Bush administration which is how we found out that Fox was getting daily talking points from Rove that Ailes was forcing anchors to use.
Yes. The WSJ complaints really ramped up when the new EIC/Publisher was installed. He is trying to make the news coverage follow the tone/sentiments of the op/ed page.
Oh absolutely. You recognize it and tend to absorb it. The best owners are hands off when it comes to content but you definitely get where your editor and publisher stands. Watch the Showrime series on the NYT from 2016/17. I think much of the crap coverage in Wapo is this and the reporters and not Bezos. Definitely a difference since Marty Baron left. But they have been doing some superb reporting as well and we have David Farenthold (sure I’m mangling his name). He is awesome.
I was thrilled that Milbank wrote that column and went so far in his criticism he actually wrote “ My colleagues in the media are serving as accessories to the murder of democracy” !!
I am glad that his column hasn’t been swept under the rug they way previous media criticism has been, although the findings from the study he referenced should be getting far more attention. The media loves holding everyone’s feet to the fire but their own.
We should be discussing how this kind of media treatment of Democrats has been going on for decades, badly damaging public perception of them. Multiple studies found deep bias in the 2016 media coverage of Hillary Clinton compared to that for Trump. For example:
“Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.”
Going back further to post-election media analyses of the 2000 election:
“A new study by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism underscores this. Examining 2,400 newspaper, TV, and Internet stories in five different weeks between February and June, researchers found that a whopping 76 percent of the coverage included one of two themes: that Gore lies and exaggerates or is marred by scandal.”
Wait a minute. What core issues? That blowhard’s issues were the fact that he is rotten to the core, filled with hate and petty. If they want to call those core issues I agree.
People they polled could name Trump’s stands on trade, immigration and taxes but few could name any of Hillary’s. (And yes Trump’s stand on those issues were filled with hate, not to mention ignorant.) Her top issues was jobs (and the things we need to do like make education affordable) and she spoke about that more than either Trump or Bernie. People didn’t know that because the media just focused on her “scandals”. When they did bother to cover a speech about things she proposed, they did it to distort what she actually said to make her look uncaring about working class people.
I have a feeling of pride that I have followed and supported Eric's work, work that set the stage for Dana Milbank to finally say, in clear language, that we must act on this media crisis. Keep going, Eric. Milbank did not mention you but I am certain he knows all about what you have been doing. Others will follow.
CJR published its email this morning and it derides Milbank's analysis by claiming first that we who found truth in it are merely gullible rubes, and then it goes on to quote a couple of people who have pooh-poohed it. Since they apparently couldn't, or wouldn't, explain what was so sorely lacking in Milbank's analysis, I took it with a large grain of salt.
Long before summer, it was obvious that the media was making an unspoken demand of Biden - to be the perfect president, and to be adored, It also wanted a tweeting, yapping, gaffe-producing head of state to easily write stories about, and what they got was a rather serious-minded man who put his nose to the grindstone and began actually doing his job. (Part of the press' frustration spilled over into its highly negative coverage of Kamala Harris, our first female vice president and first person of color to hold the office, but I digress).
Biden's low point was when the press lynched him last August for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which actually went very well, all things considered. Even now, stories of the people who were "left behind" are still being published, like yesterday in the Washington Post, who ran a story about how "thousands" had requested help to leave the country and "got no response."
Biden is being held to impossible standards so that the media has stories to tell. The damage that's being done is incalculable. We wanted a good president, and we elected one. But good is not good enough.
The guild never reacts well when it is collectively criticized, no matter the worth and substance of the criticism. It's always junior high school for too many "journalists."
Looks like all of us rubes have been wrong in calling the msm to task; poor journalists have thin skins relative to the crap they say about the Ds. I happily own the moniker.
Yet again: It's more than bashing Biden. It's the need to bash everything Democrat. And bad enough as that is as it requires BSing way more any respectable reporter should, it also includes lying to cover up and promote the GOP.
And just to add a few tidbits to Eric's post: Overlooked was the mainstream's visceral attack on Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan which was a) awesome that it even happened; b) went as well as possible; but c) overlooks that only the occupation ended, financial warfare is now the means of attack.
As for GOP support, refusing to call Trump and his Mini Me's literal killers for their response to Covid.
I was hard on Milbank for his coverage of Hillary Clinton, but he has clearly repented (unlike his old buddy Chris Cillizza, who also could be rated a target of this article, as I think about it). Milbank also didn't put up with Lizza's sucking up to his bosses, and even pointed out that Politico was sold to a right-winger, and it was at about that time that there was a turn in the coverage. Steve Inskeep also tried to defend NPR against criticism and let's just say it didn't go well.
More people are realizing the truth of what Eric says.
With a few exceptions, I believe that much of the political press write conventional wisdom stories for the benefit/admiration of each other. “Good point, Joe, I was just saying that the other day to Peggy!”
As Carlin said, “It’s a club and you ain’t in it.”
A large part of the MSM is positioning itself for an authoritarian America. I do believe they fear the imprisonment and worse that could be coming if Trump or a Trump wannabe is elected in 2024. If that sounds crazy then consider what has happened since the insurrection almost a year ago. Except for the dupes that actually followed Trump's insane rhetoric and climbed the Capitol walls, assaulted and killed police, no elected person in the GOP who was obviously involved has been prosecuted. Steve Bannon was arrested and his lawyers are now angling for a postponement of trial until October, just before a possible House flip. Mark Meadows decided he's not going to cooperate. The DOJ's snail like pace does not mirror the level of concern the demise of our democracy demands. Add to that redistricting, voter suppression laws, Republican state legislatures that are now positioned to ignore the popular vote and elect Republicans over the will of the people and of course the now politicized Supreme Court that's in the process of shredding Roe V. Wade and it's clear to see the safer side the press want to remain with. I applaud Dana Milbank's piece but from where I sit, regardless of the tremendous job Biden and the Democrats have done, those of us for a free and fair America are losing the fight. The Press should be on our side. This is not a battle between Conservative and Liberal. It's a coup that was born decades ago with dark money with the ultimate goal of destroying democracy enabling the super wealthy to run and own everything. Donald Trump simply accelerated the process. Much to the surprise of many, the Press has played along, looking out for their own best interest and survival. Thank goodness for Eric Bohlert and other progressive journalist including Milbank. Without peaceful but irrepressible protests from the majority of folks in this country who want a progressive future, it's quite possible that the next two elections may be the last.
I would think that if they really feared imprisonment and worse if an authoritarian gets elected in 2024 they would not be working so hard to damage Biden and weaken the Democrats with their constant negative coverage. That is what I can’t wrap my head around — the mainstream media clearly fears that we may well lose our democracy but they keep hammering nails in its coffin.
Journalists will go along to get along. Some will be prosecuted or find themselves unemployable. There will be some pushback, but for the most part the press and it's corporate owners (I rarely say that) will toe the line, like in Poland, Hungary, Turkey, etc. They don't see themselves as writing stories to "damage Biden or democracy." They see themselves as "doing their jobs." It's like they are looking into a funhouse mirror; they see their "normal" selves reflected but we see a distortion.
They're likely to keep their jobs no matter who wins or loses. They don't care because the biggest threat to their livelihood is people who are no longer reading or watching news. CNN, for example, lost 75 percent of their audience in the past year. No wonder they were reluctant to fire Chris Cuomo.
Like the proverbial ‘frogs slowly being boiled to death’. Once the msm is inside the media world bubble they adapt, suffer from amnesia, and have no clue as they too are simmering slowly in the autocratic pot.
I feel like a paranoid crackpot sometimes, but I'm reminded of that horrifying article in this month's issue of the Atlantic, and that a breakdown of a large survey of Republicans shows that 21 million of them stand ready to participate in an armed takeover of the country.
This actually ties in with human history in that the pandemic provides the angry, terrified people necessary to keep the country so vulnerable to political extremism. It explains why MAGA states like Texas literally banned such things as mask mandates and their Trumpian governors discourage vaccination and forced schools to open even when parents objected.
Nice to see conventional wisdom under the bright light of day. Holding power to account is sometimes the result of good reporting but one should precede the other. Too often, the 'everything's a nail' gets in the way of fairness and accuracy.
I've read through a bunch of these comments and the general debate is over who is responsible for this bothsideism/Dem bashing - is it paper's owners, the editors or the reporters themselves? To me that's not the major issue. The major issue is that ONLY way to fight the creep of authoritarianism is through the media and so the issue is now how to get enough reporters in enough places on board with that to avert disaster.
These are very scary times. If MSM reporters continue to legitimize TFG and his minions and continue to paint a picture of the Democratic Party as being in disarray and not doing what's needed, the MAGA hat wearing, gun toting troglodytes will inherit the earth and that's just not good.
This is why I am grateful to our 21st Century Muckrakers and I hope they inspire a groundswell of more of the same.
"If they’re so desperate to play up conflict for clicks, I asked Milbank, why don’t they play up the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism? It seems to me that’s a great story."
That's the question and has been for years. It's also why I'm not so sure the million-dollar media's innocent justifications are legitimate.
I suspect that whatever else the mainstream media is doing to maintain their "fair-and-balanced-both-sides" narrative, somewhere beneath their surface rationalizations is the awareness that telling the truth about 30-40% of their audience would be a financial disaster.
Eric - Thank you for the important work you are doing to protect our democracy! I hope that you will also cover the news of a open letter to the media released today by 70 advocacy, civic and labor groups representing 1.4M Americans. It cites Milbank's data and oped. Thanks for your consideration! https://bit.ly/OpenLetterToTheMediaFromGroups
I am ever grateful to you, Dana Milbank, Soledad O'Brien and others for being the 21st Century Muckrakers we so badly need. Muckraking the media is sort of a new twist but one that is desperately needed. In the Progressive Era, muckrakers called out the dirty alliance between politicians and big business. In the 21st Century the underlying issue is the same but now it is writers calling out writers who are part of that machine. The pen really is mightier than the sword and I so appreciate what you are doing - it's our only hope.
Thanks!
It is often said that reporters, pundits are cowed by Republican claims of liberal bias, but I suspect the imbalance in the media is the result of something closer to home, the executive offices. For too many industries, corporate governance has adopted a "cutthroat capitalism" a la Jack Welch, whereby nothing matters except the bottom line.
A new book, "Flying Blind" by Peter Robison details how Boeing went from a company well served by the engineers in charge, to one run by the bean counters, so safety, training, etc were secondary to profits. This is one example of how craven and venal corporate governance has become in so many industries, including the media.
And of course, corporate executives love the tax cuts they get from Republicans, so are happy to have Republicans in control of Congress and the White House (they now control the Supreme Court, so that battle is over). Democracy be damned. (Remember that corporate interests are one of the legs of fascism.)
So I think it matters that we diagnose the obvious tilted playing field in today's media as a problem inside the house. Better messaging from Democrats is often cited as a way to untilt the field, but the problem is not the message. For starters, Democrats need to be more vocal in pointing out the lack of a level playing field directly by pointing fingers at the media outlets themselves.
Excellent point
Are you aware of journalists in the mainstream media complaining that their owners are pressuring them to write stories they want? I know there were complaints from some at the Wall Street Journal after Murdoch bought it but I have not heard about those kinds of complaints from mainstream journalists. I would expect that if someone like Bezos was interfering with content. Of course they could just be self-censoring to please the execs.
As a long-time Silicon Valley worker, I can tell you that none of us needed to be told what the boss thinks. We all knew.
I suspect that the working journalists know what their hedge-fund owners believe/want.
It doesn’t have to be stated, it’s in the air.
I'm wondering what will change in WaPo's editorial department following Fred Hiatt's recent death. The paper, and the op-eds, have become more right wing since Sally Buzbee became the new executive editor last January.
He’s characterized as a hero in the news biz. Accurate or not?
NOT!
Hiatt was a chickenhawk who loved to beat the drums for war. He made sure the Post joined in with Judith Miller to lie us into war in Iraq.
My son's blood is on Hiatt's hands just as it is on Judith Miller's. They will never wash the blood off of their filthy hands.
I email CNN and other msm all the time complaining about their twisted coverage and that real news is being controlled from the executive rich ranks. It’s like pissing into the wind but it makes me feel better that someone, even if it’s just little me, is giving them holy hell.
All you're doing is telling them you're watching, which is what they want. Quality isn't so important to outlets like CNN, which they have already made obvious. Keeping Andrew Cuomo on the air until last week was the final straw. It's all about the ratings/Benjamins.
I’m aware and I don’t care. Its more important that some of us speak directly to them about our disapproval. The news isn’t going away and I don’t want it too. I want them to know I and others are onto their scam behavior.
When the independent news side of the industry was handed over to the bean counters, all bets were off.
I'm sure a huge element is reporters producing what their employers want. And given the state of private sector leadership, well, that's some lousy judgment to skew reporting for.
And I second the references to Welch, an OG parasite that left GE in awful condition -- essentially destroyed the company -- and "Flying Blind". What Boeing did to itself with the McDonnell-Douglas merger is beyond amazing, a black comedy of self-destruction (were one to overlook the cost in lives lost).
I work in media and this is an oversimplification. There are some places with ham fisted publishers (Pittsburgh Press, WSJ etc) but for the most part there is no edict from on high that says “you must cover the Dems this way to make profit.” Instead you have editors like Baquet who avoid the word “lies,” a sheep mentality press corps who are out of touch with most of the Americans they cover/report for; a conservative tilt among reporters and editors; and a desperate need for eyeballs resulting in the most sensational and misleading headlines meant solely as clickbait. They loved TFG because he paid them attention; Biden does not. I think the political press corps is petty, mean spirited, arrogant, lazy, and lacking in imagination. Not every one of them, but most.
Can it not be both?
I think saying it's corporate ownership and a dictate coming down from on high isn't quite right. I think journalists have their own biases and the bothersiderism is so ingrained in them they refuse and often can't recognize it. It's why there is so much push back to the small but growing chorus of critics within the media like Eric, along with observations from the rest of us in the peanut gallery. Haberman got snappy with someone on Twitter yesterday and I saw a snarky response to complaints about Kamala's coverage with "but look we called Dan Quayle an idiot" nonsense and "it's our job to give mocking coverage to the Veep." This coming from a reporter I like—NYT's Nick Confessore. To call these reporters thin skinned is kind.
That mocking coverage of Dan Quayle allowed them to ignore the fact that he was Bush’s point man on doing corporate America’s bidding on deregulation. From 1992:
“ QUAYLE'S QUEST: CURB RULES, LEAVE 'NO FINGERPRINTS'”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/01/09/quayles-quest-curb-rules-leave-no-fingerprints/028d944b-cda0-45dd-a7eb-ec25e03b91c1/
Treating him as an entertainingly clown allowed him to do just that — leave no fingerprints. He and his competitiveness council allies:
“…have changed or tried to change regulations on federal rules relating to commercial aircraft noise, bank liability on property loans, housing accessibility for the disabled, clothing makers' right to work at home, disclosure requirements on pensions, protection of underground water from landfill runoff, reporting requirements for child-care facilities located in religious institutions, and fees for real estate settlements.”
The media let that go on under the radar which kept push back by the public to a minimum.
If reporters were getting unwanted dictates from on high they would complain about it (anonymously) to others in the media they way that WSJ journalists have done. Reporters at Fox did the same during the Bush administration which is how we found out that Fox was getting daily talking points from Rove that Ailes was forcing anchors to use.
Yes. The WSJ complaints really ramped up when the new EIC/Publisher was installed. He is trying to make the news coverage follow the tone/sentiments of the op/ed page.
What’s the diff?
It’s about choice rather than edict. The media does not like Biden and reporters take out their frustrations via their negative narrative spin.
Not saying it’s explicit but there’s always some consideration of an employer’s desires.
Oh absolutely. You recognize it and tend to absorb it. The best owners are hands off when it comes to content but you definitely get where your editor and publisher stands. Watch the Showrime series on the NYT from 2016/17. I think much of the crap coverage in Wapo is this and the reporters and not Bezos. Definitely a difference since Marty Baron left. But they have been doing some superb reporting as well and we have David Farenthold (sure I’m mangling his name). He is awesome.
Damn STRAIGHT!
I was thrilled that Milbank wrote that column and went so far in his criticism he actually wrote “ My colleagues in the media are serving as accessories to the murder of democracy” !!
I am glad that his column hasn’t been swept under the rug they way previous media criticism has been, although the findings from the study he referenced should be getting far more attention. The media loves holding everyone’s feet to the fire but their own.
We should be discussing how this kind of media treatment of Democrats has been going on for decades, badly damaging public perception of them. Multiple studies found deep bias in the 2016 media coverage of Hillary Clinton compared to that for Trump. For example:
“Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.”
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
Going back further to post-election media analyses of the 2000 election:
“A new study by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism underscores this. Examining 2,400 newspaper, TV, and Internet stories in five different weeks between February and June, researchers found that a whopping 76 percent of the coverage included one of two themes: that Gore lies and exaggerates or is marred by scandal.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/diversity-discrimination/media-matters-jamison-foser-2
Other polls showed that the perception of Gore as a liar cost him a lot of votes.
Wait a minute. What core issues? That blowhard’s issues were the fact that he is rotten to the core, filled with hate and petty. If they want to call those core issues I agree.
People they polled could name Trump’s stands on trade, immigration and taxes but few could name any of Hillary’s. (And yes Trump’s stand on those issues were filled with hate, not to mention ignorant.) Her top issues was jobs (and the things we need to do like make education affordable) and she spoke about that more than either Trump or Bernie. People didn’t know that because the media just focused on her “scandals”. When they did bother to cover a speech about things she proposed, they did it to distort what she actually said to make her look uncaring about working class people.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/15/16306158/hillary-clinton-hall-of-mirrors
That example is proof of deliberate malice towards her.
I have a feeling of pride that I have followed and supported Eric's work, work that set the stage for Dana Milbank to finally say, in clear language, that we must act on this media crisis. Keep going, Eric. Milbank did not mention you but I am certain he knows all about what you have been doing. Others will follow.
I’m just happy more writers are spreading an important message
Agreed! They certainly don't listen to us, so thank goodness for you, Froomkin, Rubin, Sullivan, etc.
I made sure to tout PressRun in the comments section of Milbank's column. Spread the word!
Hear, hear.
Thanks...
The chryon on MSNBC right now: Dems struggle with messaging for 2022 midterms.
Are they struggling with messaging, or is the media saying that they're struggling with messaging? I would argue that it is the latter.
CJR published its email this morning and it derides Milbank's analysis by claiming first that we who found truth in it are merely gullible rubes, and then it goes on to quote a couple of people who have pooh-poohed it. Since they apparently couldn't, or wouldn't, explain what was so sorely lacking in Milbank's analysis, I took it with a large grain of salt.
Long before summer, it was obvious that the media was making an unspoken demand of Biden - to be the perfect president, and to be adored, It also wanted a tweeting, yapping, gaffe-producing head of state to easily write stories about, and what they got was a rather serious-minded man who put his nose to the grindstone and began actually doing his job. (Part of the press' frustration spilled over into its highly negative coverage of Kamala Harris, our first female vice president and first person of color to hold the office, but I digress).
Biden's low point was when the press lynched him last August for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which actually went very well, all things considered. Even now, stories of the people who were "left behind" are still being published, like yesterday in the Washington Post, who ran a story about how "thousands" had requested help to leave the country and "got no response."
Biden is being held to impossible standards so that the media has stories to tell. The damage that's being done is incalculable. We wanted a good president, and we elected one. But good is not good enough.
The guild never reacts well when it is collectively criticized, no matter the worth and substance of the criticism. It's always junior high school for too many "journalists."
No, this is the new editor who took over. I’ve noticed a change.
Looks like all of us rubes have been wrong in calling the msm to task; poor journalists have thin skins relative to the crap they say about the Ds. I happily own the moniker.
Yet again: It's more than bashing Biden. It's the need to bash everything Democrat. And bad enough as that is as it requires BSing way more any respectable reporter should, it also includes lying to cover up and promote the GOP.
And just to add a few tidbits to Eric's post: Overlooked was the mainstream's visceral attack on Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan which was a) awesome that it even happened; b) went as well as possible; but c) overlooks that only the occupation ended, financial warfare is now the means of attack.
As for GOP support, refusing to call Trump and his Mini Me's literal killers for their response to Covid.
I was hard on Milbank for his coverage of Hillary Clinton, but he has clearly repented (unlike his old buddy Chris Cillizza, who also could be rated a target of this article, as I think about it). Milbank also didn't put up with Lizza's sucking up to his bosses, and even pointed out that Politico was sold to a right-winger, and it was at about that time that there was a turn in the coverage. Steve Inskeep also tried to defend NPR against criticism and let's just say it didn't go well.
More people are realizing the truth of what Eric says.
With a few exceptions, I believe that much of the political press write conventional wisdom stories for the benefit/admiration of each other. “Good point, Joe, I was just saying that the other day to Peggy!”
As Carlin said, “It’s a club and you ain’t in it.”
A large part of the MSM is positioning itself for an authoritarian America. I do believe they fear the imprisonment and worse that could be coming if Trump or a Trump wannabe is elected in 2024. If that sounds crazy then consider what has happened since the insurrection almost a year ago. Except for the dupes that actually followed Trump's insane rhetoric and climbed the Capitol walls, assaulted and killed police, no elected person in the GOP who was obviously involved has been prosecuted. Steve Bannon was arrested and his lawyers are now angling for a postponement of trial until October, just before a possible House flip. Mark Meadows decided he's not going to cooperate. The DOJ's snail like pace does not mirror the level of concern the demise of our democracy demands. Add to that redistricting, voter suppression laws, Republican state legislatures that are now positioned to ignore the popular vote and elect Republicans over the will of the people and of course the now politicized Supreme Court that's in the process of shredding Roe V. Wade and it's clear to see the safer side the press want to remain with. I applaud Dana Milbank's piece but from where I sit, regardless of the tremendous job Biden and the Democrats have done, those of us for a free and fair America are losing the fight. The Press should be on our side. This is not a battle between Conservative and Liberal. It's a coup that was born decades ago with dark money with the ultimate goal of destroying democracy enabling the super wealthy to run and own everything. Donald Trump simply accelerated the process. Much to the surprise of many, the Press has played along, looking out for their own best interest and survival. Thank goodness for Eric Bohlert and other progressive journalist including Milbank. Without peaceful but irrepressible protests from the majority of folks in this country who want a progressive future, it's quite possible that the next two elections may be the last.
I would think that if they really feared imprisonment and worse if an authoritarian gets elected in 2024 they would not be working so hard to damage Biden and weaken the Democrats with their constant negative coverage. That is what I can’t wrap my head around — the mainstream media clearly fears that we may well lose our democracy but they keep hammering nails in its coffin.
Journalists will go along to get along. Some will be prosecuted or find themselves unemployable. There will be some pushback, but for the most part the press and it's corporate owners (I rarely say that) will toe the line, like in Poland, Hungary, Turkey, etc. They don't see themselves as writing stories to "damage Biden or democracy." They see themselves as "doing their jobs." It's like they are looking into a funhouse mirror; they see their "normal" selves reflected but we see a distortion.
They're likely to keep their jobs no matter who wins or loses. They don't care because the biggest threat to their livelihood is people who are no longer reading or watching news. CNN, for example, lost 75 percent of their audience in the past year. No wonder they were reluctant to fire Chris Cuomo.
Like the proverbial ‘frogs slowly being boiled to death’. Once the msm is inside the media world bubble they adapt, suffer from amnesia, and have no clue as they too are simmering slowly in the autocratic pot.
You would think. However, given the potential that the Reps will take control, that's their motivation. Hope I'm wrong.
I feel like a paranoid crackpot sometimes, but I'm reminded of that horrifying article in this month's issue of the Atlantic, and that a breakdown of a large survey of Republicans shows that 21 million of them stand ready to participate in an armed takeover of the country.
This actually ties in with human history in that the pandemic provides the angry, terrified people necessary to keep the country so vulnerable to political extremism. It explains why MAGA states like Texas literally banned such things as mask mandates and their Trumpian governors discourage vaccination and forced schools to open even when parents objected.
Nice to see conventional wisdom under the bright light of day. Holding power to account is sometimes the result of good reporting but one should precede the other. Too often, the 'everything's a nail' gets in the way of fairness and accuracy.
I've read through a bunch of these comments and the general debate is over who is responsible for this bothsideism/Dem bashing - is it paper's owners, the editors or the reporters themselves? To me that's not the major issue. The major issue is that ONLY way to fight the creep of authoritarianism is through the media and so the issue is now how to get enough reporters in enough places on board with that to avert disaster.
These are very scary times. If MSM reporters continue to legitimize TFG and his minions and continue to paint a picture of the Democratic Party as being in disarray and not doing what's needed, the MAGA hat wearing, gun toting troglodytes will inherit the earth and that's just not good.
This is why I am grateful to our 21st Century Muckrakers and I hope they inspire a groundswell of more of the same.
"If they’re so desperate to play up conflict for clicks, I asked Milbank, why don’t they play up the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism? It seems to me that’s a great story."
That's the question and has been for years. It's also why I'm not so sure the million-dollar media's innocent justifications are legitimate.
"Democracy Dies In Clickbaits!"
Write on, Eric!👍
I suspect that whatever else the mainstream media is doing to maintain their "fair-and-balanced-both-sides" narrative, somewhere beneath their surface rationalizations is the awareness that telling the truth about 30-40% of their audience would be a financial disaster.
Eric - Thank you for the important work you are doing to protect our democracy! I hope that you will also cover the news of a open letter to the media released today by 70 advocacy, civic and labor groups representing 1.4M Americans. It cites Milbank's data and oped. Thanks for your consideration! https://bit.ly/OpenLetterToTheMediaFromGroups