Is We Learnin' Journamalism 101?

 

There was a revealing exchange yesterday between CNN's "media critic" Brian Stelter and the brilliant Russian-born The New Yorker staff writer Masha Gessen while discussing Russian state media's propaganda about their war against Ukraine, and how U.S. media is amplifying their lies using their old "both sides" paradigm. Courtesy of Crooks & Liars TV, here's an excerpt of the exchange after Stelter has just finished repeating the Russian propaganda:

"GESSEN: Brian, what we are doing right now is exactly what Russian propagandists want you to do. Which is amplifying ridiculous messages. Do you not understand?

STELTER: Tell me more.

GESSEN: You know, everything that we hear from Russian official sources, everything that is on Russian TV is a lie, right? This has been documented over and over again. I really don't see why we would go on broadly watched CNN program and try to engage with these lies.  (our emphasis)

Then Stelter attempts to school Gessen in both sides journalism 101, and she's not having it:

STELTER: I think that's really, really interesting and it's exactly what news rooms are wrestling with, including the CNNs of the world, where, you know, think about journalism school 101, right, Masha, you are taught to present both sides, ask for comment, try to be very careful not to jump to conclusions, and yet in this particular situation, in a 21st century information war, where propaganda seems to win the day, some of those journalism 101 rules may have to be revisited. What would you say?

We'd say you're about to get hit with a haymaker dude: 

GESSEN: I would say that those are not journalism 101 rules. I think journalism 101 rules are to begin with evaluating your sources and you don't go back over and over again to somebody who has been lying to you.

That is the classic both sidism and classic false equivalency. There is no equivalence between the Ukrainian information sources and Russian information sources. The Ukrainian information sources by and large in the more than 50 days this have war have proven to be largely reliable.

Russia information sources over more than 50 days this have war, and preceding it have proven to be profoundly consistently false. Setting them side-by-side is completely irresponsible. This is not journalism 101, it's the exact opposite of it."  (our emphasis)

Would that our broken Beltway media follow Gessen's critique and be unwilling to share Russian state propaganda, if only to "analyze" it. 

BONUS:   Examples of malpractice abound --

 

On Jan. 6 Rick Scott endorsed the coup and voted to overturn the election

Today the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” paper profiles him as a GOP hero and doesn’t mention his coup vote once. It’s about how he wakes up at 4:30am and works really hard

The media is rooting for fascism pic.twitter.com/sXOnI72mI3

— Matt Negrin, HOST OF HARDBALL AT 7PM ON MSNBC (@MattNegrin) April 18, 2022

 

A new high in amoral political analysis. https://t.co/vFaFJmIlCN

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) April 18, 2022

(illustration: Outside The Beltway)

 

How The Media Helps Republicans -- And Helped Elect Trump

There's an important study out by the Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard that confirms what many of us saw as indisputable:  the media failed us terribly in the 2016 election.  There's a lot of data on how the media handled both Hillary Clinton and neo- fascist shitgibbon Donald "Rump" Trump, but some of the general conclusions are worth a lengthy excerpt (the entire study is worth a read):

The real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative. As scholar Michael Robinson noted, the news media seem to have taken some motherly advice and turned it upside down. “If you don’t have anything bad to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.” A New York Times columnist recently asserted that “the internet is distorting our collective grasp on the truth.” There’s a degree of accuracy in that claim but the problem goes beyond the internet and the talk shows. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right. 

It’s a version of politics that rewards a particular brand of politics. When everything and everybody is portrayed as deeply flawed, there’s no sense making distinctions on that score, which works to the advantage of those who are more deeply flawed. Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlines, which instead give voice to those who are skilled in the art of destruction. The car wreck that was the 2016 election had many drivers. Journalists were not alone in the car, but their fingerprints were all over the wheel. [snip] 

False equivalencies abound in today’s reporting. When journalists can’t, or won’t, distinguish between allegations directed at the Trump Foundation and those directed at the Clinton Foundation, there’s something seriously amiss. And false equivalencies are developing on a grand scale as a result of relentlessly negative news. If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans. The press historically has helped citizens recognize the difference between the earnest politician and the pretender. Today’s news coverage blurs the distinction. [snip] 

An irony of the press’s critical tendency is that it helps the right wing. Although conservatives claim that the press has a liberal bias, the media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces the right wing’s anti-government message. For years on end, journalists have told news audiences that political leaders are not to be trusted and that government is inept. And when journalists turn their eye to society, they highlight the problems and not the success stories. The news creates a seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety— sitting there waiting to be tapped by those who have a stake in directing the public’s wrath at government.

There's nothing more corrosive than cynicism in politics and nothing that better characterizes the "business model" of the Republican Party over the past 40 years than its creating, nourishing, and benefiting from that cynicism.

In another long read excerpt, Rick Perlstein amplifies the finding with specifics:

Trump boogied his way to Pennsylvania Avenue to the tune of the extraordinary finding by a Washington Post-ABC News poll that “corruption in government” was listed by 17 percent of voters as the most important issue in the presidential election, second only to the economy, and ahead of terrorism and health care—and that voters trusted Trump over Clinton to be better on the issue by a margin of 48 to 39 percent, her worst deficit on any issue. This is the part of my article where rhetorical conventions demand I provide a thumbnail sketch of all the reasons why it’s factually absurd that anyone would believe that Donald Trump is less corrupt than Hillary Clinton. I have better things to do with my time than belabor the obvious.

Yet somehow, the great mass of Americans believed Clinton was the crook. Might it have something to do with the myriad articles like, say, “Smoke Surrounds the Clinton Foundation,” by The Los Angeles Times’s top pundit Doyle McManus? This piece, all too typically, despite endeavoring to debunk Trump claims of Clinton corruption, repeated charges like “Doug Band, who helped create the Clinton Global Initiative, sought access to State Department officials for Clinton Foundation donors”—even though donors did not get that access). And that donors harbored the “assumption” that they would “move to the head of the line”—even though they never did. 

And what were pundits like McManus smoking? The vapors from a cunning long-term disinformation campaign run by the man Donald Trump appointed as his chief White House political strategist. Steve Bannon chartered a nonprofit “Government Accountability Institute,” whose president, Peter Schweizer, hacked out an insinuation-laden tome, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, then offered its “findings” on an exclusive pre-publication basis to the Times, which shamefully accepted the deal—with, predictably, the public’s perceptions of Clinton’s trustworthiness cratering in tandem with our national Newspaper of Record’s serial laundering of Steve Bannon’s filth.

So, here we are with Rump and the Republicans in charge of the government they so want to break even further.  Thank a "journalist!"

BONUS:  Driftglass has a good read on how the media ignored the successes of the Obama Administration in the manufacturing sector.

(h/t LGM)

Howls From The Fever Swamps

A day after glancing at the Sunday gabfests and ending up discouraged that we'll ever get past our broken media's insistence on portraying right-wing Rethuglicans as "reasonable," we read this disturbing article by Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker* that explores the demented platform of the Texas Republican Party in all of its raging, bigoted sociopathy.  Ideas that once were considered too nutty are now mainstream policy for one of the parties.  These "ideas" are so reactionary they reflect thinking from the early 19th century in economic, social and political terms.  This is the State and the party that elected Ted "Tailgunner Ted" Cruz to the Senate, and former Presidential candidate Rick "Hair" Perry as its Governor, so it's not just some crazy missive from a cult compound in Nowhereville ( *cough* Cliven Bundy ).  It's from the majority party of the second largest State in the Union (which they seem to want to dissolve).

The article, if not the platform itself, should be mandatory reading in the Beltway media circles.  Not that they have the spine to call this insanity what it is, but perhaps it will wake some of them up.

And, lest you think we exaggerate, here is but a tiny fraction of the complete nuttery on display in the platform (summarized by Hertzberg with commentary):

• That the Texas Legislature should nullify—indeed, “ignore, oppose, refuse, and nullify”—federal laws it doesn’t like. (Unmentioned is the fact that, beginning in 1809, the Supreme Court has steadfastedly rejected state nullification of federal laws.)
• That when it comes to “unelected bureaucrats”—i.e., pretty much the entire federal work force above the janitorial level—Congress should “defund and abolish these positions.”
• That the Seventeenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1913, be repealed, so that “the appointment of United States Senators” can again be made by state legislators, not by voters. (Admittedly, the Texas Legislature could hardly do worse.)
• That all federal “enforcement activities” within the borders of Texas—including, presumably, the activities of F.B.I. agents, Justice Department prosecutors, air marshals, immigration officers, agricultural inspectors, and tax auditors—“must be conducted under the auspices of the county sheriff with jurisdiction in that county.”

Also, directly quoting the platform:

Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.

There's lots more on wimmenfolk, guns and God's glory. Yee-haw!

(* h/t to Charles P. Pierce at Esquire.com)

Asymmetric Quote of the Day

"Republicans have become a radical insurgency—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of their political opposition. The evidence of this asymmetry is overwhelming." -- Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann, discussing the blatant dishonesty of the Beltway media's "blame both sides" / "false equivalency" story line.  Read Mann's article here, and understand how extremist Republican obstruction is harming the U.S. with the tacit complicity of our broken media.

(h/t to Daily Kos)

Poll: Rethuglicans More Extreme

For those in the Beltway media that push the "both sides are to blame" argument in politics, a new Pew Research poll shows that the American public knows the situation better:  54 percent believe the Republicans are more extreme (vs. 35 percent saying Democrats), and 52 percent believe the Democrats are more willing to compromise (vs. 27 percent saying Republicans).

That won't change the Beltway media's narrative, however.  Their careers depend on access to politicians in both parties, not calling it like it is.  Wouldn't want to offend any extreme obstructionists, would they?

False Equivalence Tweet of the Day

Democrats: 1+1= 2Republicans: 1+1= 3Media: 1+1= 2.5

— National Park Guy (@NatPkGuy) February 23, 2013

Sums it up perfectly and succinctly.

(h/t to Rising Hegemon)

Cartoon and Quote Combo of the Day

(click to enlarge)

And, from the esteemed Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, this assessment of how weird Willard's craven antics regarding the tragedy in Libya will be viewed by the press:

"...now Romney has really ensured that everyone in the news media, the GOP propaganda organs aside, is going to view him with distaste and alarm — as well they should. Romney could still win, but he has just made it even harder for anyone to consider him suitable for the job."

Hopefully that will be the case, but we remain pessimistic about the media's willingness to put objectivity over false equivalence.

Rethugs and Their Media Enablers

There was an interesting Kaplan Daily book review of the Thomas Mann/ Norman Ornstein book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks", yesterday (no link). Written by Kaplan Daily Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser, the review mostly concurred in Mann's and Ornstein's accurate contention that the Rethuglican Party has, through its extremism, become "the problem" in modern American politics. (We ran this snippet by Mann and Ornstein from a piece which was published in last Sunday's Kaplan Daily.) Given his role at the Kaplan Daily (o.k., Washington Post), could we view this admission by Kaiser as a hopeful sign that the "mainstream media" is finally noting what has been going on with the right wing in this country for the past 30 years:

"Mann and Ornstein rightly blame the news media for doing a mediocre job covering the most important political story of the last three decades: the transformation of the Republican Party. They are critical of the conventions of mainstream journalism that lead to the evenhandedness they have now abandoned themselves. They see a 'reflexive tendency of many in the mainstream press to use false equivalence to explain outcomes,' when Republican obstructionism and Republican rejection of science and basic facts have no Democratic equivalents. It’s much easier to write stories “that convey an impression that the two sides are equally implicated.”

O.K., Mr. Kaiser. Now that you've agreed that the media, by not doing its job competently, is complicit in the Rethug's ability to get away with promoting the most extremist positions -- and lying 24/7 to the American people -- what are you going to do about it in your capacity at the Post?

Both Sides Don't Do It

Political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann have studied the American political scene for many years, and they're debunking the lazy, cynical, Village media-promoted theme that, in politics, both Democrats and Rethuglicans are equally to blame for gridlock, rancor, and the corruption of money in politics. Some choice excerpts:

"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition...'Both sides do it' or 'There is plenty of blame to go around' are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias...Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies."

As the title of the article says, "let's just say it: the Republicans are the problem."

BONUS: Along the same lines, read David Atkins' piece, which expands on the Ornstein/Mann analysis. Here's a taste:

"It would seem that the last three years should be all the political evidence one needs that the forbearance approach of the center-left doesn't work. Forget whether the policies are good or not for a moment: politically speaking, if forbearance and reasonableness were virtues in politics, President Obama would be a saint. He's bent farther over backwards to compromise with these people than Gumbi. The result was an even more extremist right wing, an historic devastation for his party in the 2010 midterms, an intransigently conservative Supreme Court, and an apoplectic 2012 campaign. Forbearance hasn't worked--and that's just the politics of it."