Love your thought about focusing on the promises. It seems to me we often get distracted from the followup--'oh, there is a new regulation or law, it's been six months, how is it being enforced? What does that mean for people?' We often are chasing the next news item. Implementing stuff is often not very interesting material for stories.
Thanks for this, Dick. It’s up to main stream journalists to decide whether to provide coverage that challenges or turbo charges the worst of what lies ahead. The Founding Fathers created a system that assumed the former - let’s hope they were right.
Start by contrasting how the last two administrations were covered. During Trump’s first term there seemed to be a real attempt to search for the negative, I recall headlines screening “Trump fires US attorneys”, well actually they serve at the pleasure of the president, and routinely submit their resignations at the start of a new administration. Or the headlines about the incoming EPA administrator changing the locks on his office door & having it swept for bugs - that’s news worthy? Y’all were frothing at the mouth when the Russia thing blew up, but lost interest when it appeared to be dirty tricks by his political opponents aided by the 3-letter agencies, ignoring a political scandal bigger than Watergate. And then there is the matter of “lies” - as soon as humans began to string sounds together to form words and communicate hyperbole & exaggeration became the norm, it’s part of human discourse. When I said “for the 100th time clean up your room” to my son when I had actually asked him to do so 27 times was I lying? Trump isn’t an attorney nor a seasoned politician used to carefully parsing words, he is raw, unfiltered & crude, saying whatever comes to mind. When he says something blatantly false with an attempt to deceive by all means call him on it, but the lie counters & fact checkers - come on, that was more of an organized effort to destroy Trump’ credibility than “journalism”.
Let’s look at how the Biden administration was covered. Y’all seemed to be willfully blind to the president’s diminished capabilities, whether it’s was his staff major policy misstatements, the aimless wandering & blank stares and the increasingly constrained access to the president by the media - we’re you scared any criticism would help Trump? You shouldn’t care! You didn’t have much interest covering the unraveling of the southern border either, and the blatant lies from the administration that it was “under control”. When evidence surfaced revealing an extensive influence peddling operation involving the presidents son and family combined with efforts in the government to cover it up and the increasingly questionable denials from the president refused to take the bait and dig in. When Matt Tiabbi broke the Twitter files, giving credence to ongoing suspicion of government censorship of citizens protected speech on social media you weren’t too interested in that either.
The founding fathers afforded the press special enumerated protection in the 1st ammendment to the constitution because they saw the press serving as a watchdog over government excess. One could say that the press is the peoples first line of defense against government excess, with the 2nd ammendment being the second & last line of defense. By aligning yourselves with the political parties and no longer being neutral chroniclers of events you fail your responsibilities under the 1st ammendment ultimately bringing us closer to the horrors of a 2nd ammendment solution. And maybe the reality is that you were never neutral chroniclers of events, it’s just that the internet has made information ubiquitous and the shroud has been pulled back exposing previously unseen ethical lapses. The world has changed, deal with it.
So back to how you should cover this (or any) administration.
1) Out of the infinite amount of stuff you could cover, does whatever event warrant being covered?
2) Be a neutral chronicler of events, the rigor of your coverage must be independent of the administration or person involved being a (D) or ( R). I shouldn’t be able to tell the political leanings of the writer from reading a news article. Save this for editorials.
3) Have no agenda other than the truth
4) Tell the story honestly, don’t grab a sound bite and wrap your preferred agenda around it. Indeed, you should have no agenda.
5) When something turns out well, give praise, when it turns out poorly criticize freely
Dick, you wrote, on the WaPo's 2017-2021 cataloguing of Trump's false and misleading claims: "I don’t see any value in repeating that exercise, not because Trump has reformed, but because the point has been made, and even most of Trump’s supporters get it."
Couldn't disagree more strongly. This is at the heart of journalistic work, and if we concede that a flood of lies aren't worth highlighting and tracking, well, that is an abandonment of a critical role of journalists in a democracy increasingly in peril. And, arguably, one put in peril by those very lies and misrepresentations.
Bill, First, thanks for reading. Not saying we should abandon telling readers when Trump lies, just that putting effort into cataloging and centering it no longer feels useful.
Do you disagree with my main point that instead highlighting his report card on what he pledged to his voters is a better frame?
It’s a great frame, absolutely, and will require sorting through quite a lot of statements and promises made throughout the campaign beyond the web site lists — and that likely fail various tests of specificity, consistency and internal logic. The promise to cut energy costs in half in a year or 18 months is a good example of your suggested frame, for sure. The caveat here springs from where we started and why both frames are needed: He’s likely to continue to offer misrepresentations about who’s to blame for energy prices not dropping by half, if they don’t, and for other promises that don’t materialize in full. (My bet is on those pesky Greenlanders ;)
Separately, I think your “Reichstag Fire moment” warning will be prescient, particularly as it relates to the border.
Thanks, Dick, for this piece and the steady stream of important things to think about.
As a non-duopoly, third-party voter, as well as a member of the media, I agree with rhetoric vs reality. I expect most areas will remain more rhetoric, but keep an eye on immigration as long as Stephen Miller has even half of Trump's ear.
That said, re the Founding Fathers, etc.? Our current constitution is anachronistic, and while I accept that it's the current governance document of the USofA, like David Lazare and many others I most certainly don't venerate it.
Love your thought about focusing on the promises. It seems to me we often get distracted from the followup--'oh, there is a new regulation or law, it's been six months, how is it being enforced? What does that mean for people?' We often are chasing the next news item. Implementing stuff is often not very interesting material for stories.
Thanks for this, Dick. It’s up to main stream journalists to decide whether to provide coverage that challenges or turbo charges the worst of what lies ahead. The Founding Fathers created a system that assumed the former - let’s hope they were right.
Start by contrasting how the last two administrations were covered. During Trump’s first term there seemed to be a real attempt to search for the negative, I recall headlines screening “Trump fires US attorneys”, well actually they serve at the pleasure of the president, and routinely submit their resignations at the start of a new administration. Or the headlines about the incoming EPA administrator changing the locks on his office door & having it swept for bugs - that’s news worthy? Y’all were frothing at the mouth when the Russia thing blew up, but lost interest when it appeared to be dirty tricks by his political opponents aided by the 3-letter agencies, ignoring a political scandal bigger than Watergate. And then there is the matter of “lies” - as soon as humans began to string sounds together to form words and communicate hyperbole & exaggeration became the norm, it’s part of human discourse. When I said “for the 100th time clean up your room” to my son when I had actually asked him to do so 27 times was I lying? Trump isn’t an attorney nor a seasoned politician used to carefully parsing words, he is raw, unfiltered & crude, saying whatever comes to mind. When he says something blatantly false with an attempt to deceive by all means call him on it, but the lie counters & fact checkers - come on, that was more of an organized effort to destroy Trump’ credibility than “journalism”.
Let’s look at how the Biden administration was covered. Y’all seemed to be willfully blind to the president’s diminished capabilities, whether it’s was his staff major policy misstatements, the aimless wandering & blank stares and the increasingly constrained access to the president by the media - we’re you scared any criticism would help Trump? You shouldn’t care! You didn’t have much interest covering the unraveling of the southern border either, and the blatant lies from the administration that it was “under control”. When evidence surfaced revealing an extensive influence peddling operation involving the presidents son and family combined with efforts in the government to cover it up and the increasingly questionable denials from the president refused to take the bait and dig in. When Matt Tiabbi broke the Twitter files, giving credence to ongoing suspicion of government censorship of citizens protected speech on social media you weren’t too interested in that either.
The founding fathers afforded the press special enumerated protection in the 1st ammendment to the constitution because they saw the press serving as a watchdog over government excess. One could say that the press is the peoples first line of defense against government excess, with the 2nd ammendment being the second & last line of defense. By aligning yourselves with the political parties and no longer being neutral chroniclers of events you fail your responsibilities under the 1st ammendment ultimately bringing us closer to the horrors of a 2nd ammendment solution. And maybe the reality is that you were never neutral chroniclers of events, it’s just that the internet has made information ubiquitous and the shroud has been pulled back exposing previously unseen ethical lapses. The world has changed, deal with it.
So back to how you should cover this (or any) administration.
1) Out of the infinite amount of stuff you could cover, does whatever event warrant being covered?
2) Be a neutral chronicler of events, the rigor of your coverage must be independent of the administration or person involved being a (D) or ( R). I shouldn’t be able to tell the political leanings of the writer from reading a news article. Save this for editorials.
3) Have no agenda other than the truth
4) Tell the story honestly, don’t grab a sound bite and wrap your preferred agenda around it. Indeed, you should have no agenda.
5) When something turns out well, give praise, when it turns out poorly criticize freely
Revolutionary vs performative
Dick, you wrote, on the WaPo's 2017-2021 cataloguing of Trump's false and misleading claims: "I don’t see any value in repeating that exercise, not because Trump has reformed, but because the point has been made, and even most of Trump’s supporters get it."
Couldn't disagree more strongly. This is at the heart of journalistic work, and if we concede that a flood of lies aren't worth highlighting and tracking, well, that is an abandonment of a critical role of journalists in a democracy increasingly in peril. And, arguably, one put in peril by those very lies and misrepresentations.
Bill, First, thanks for reading. Not saying we should abandon telling readers when Trump lies, just that putting effort into cataloging and centering it no longer feels useful.
Do you disagree with my main point that instead highlighting his report card on what he pledged to his voters is a better frame?
It’s a great frame, absolutely, and will require sorting through quite a lot of statements and promises made throughout the campaign beyond the web site lists — and that likely fail various tests of specificity, consistency and internal logic. The promise to cut energy costs in half in a year or 18 months is a good example of your suggested frame, for sure. The caveat here springs from where we started and why both frames are needed: He’s likely to continue to offer misrepresentations about who’s to blame for energy prices not dropping by half, if they don’t, and for other promises that don’t materialize in full. (My bet is on those pesky Greenlanders ;)
Separately, I think your “Reichstag Fire moment” warning will be prescient, particularly as it relates to the border.
Thanks, Dick, for this piece and the steady stream of important things to think about.
As a non-duopoly, third-party voter, as well as a member of the media, I agree with rhetoric vs reality. I expect most areas will remain more rhetoric, but keep an eye on immigration as long as Stephen Miller has even half of Trump's ear.
That said, re the Founding Fathers, etc.? Our current constitution is anachronistic, and while I accept that it's the current governance document of the USofA, like David Lazare and many others I most certainly don't venerate it.