I love this -- the pithy political analysis, the clear-headed encapsulation of the press's mission moving forward. Best piece I've read post-election. Thanks!
I think one can argue DOES he really hate the press? The press made him from a relatively young age and he is a master of the give-and-take. Without the "bad guy," he can't be the good guy. The press even helped him become the GOP nominee in 2016 among a cluttered field. He kept getting the most mic time and prime podium spots in GOP debates. New York Times subscribership soared when Trump was a hot keyword. He was (is?) ratings gold. He's probably just playing the game, and a four-year war with the First Amendment likely won't be Priority 1. Maybe we can pearl-clutch less about Trump's verbal diarrhea and focus on the midterms next. Think future, not past.
Thanks for reading. Certainly hope you are right. But when someone threatens to kill you, preparing to defend yourself even as you go about your business hardly qualifies as "pearl clutching," at least in my book.
And let's not forget that Gianforte (okay, not Trump himself, but a reasonable facsimile?) slugged a reporter in public and it won him TWO elections as governor (he was re-elected the other night).
Your thought-provoking post makes two contradictory but revealing remarks. You say, “The press … did a generally decent job of describing both the stakes and the odds.” Under the subhead, “How did we get here?” you add, “For more than forty years, we have become an ever-more winner-take-all society, one in which the gap between the winners and losers has widened, particularly with respect to income, wealth, education and the advantages that accrue to all three.” So, the press missed how 40-years of middle- and working-class angst would determine the outcome. But it was good at stakes, odds, and the horse race coverage under which both parties have won and held power by exploiting wedge issues rather solving problems. You focus on the national election, but I think press soul-search should consider what democracy means in the 39 of 50 states that political insiders call “trifectas” – places where either Red or Blue office holders control the executive and both houses of the legislature. The National Council of State Legislatures currently tallies 23 Red and 16 Blue trifectas. That could change after all the states finish counting votes. And we’ll soon learn whether one party rule will go nationwide should the GOP win the last few competitive House seats to create a Trump trifecta. So, when you challenge the press “to look this situation hard in the face," I hope that includes considering whether American democracy is the frog in the pot that's come to a boil by electing a President who promises to “fit it” -- the “it” being the 40-year gestalt that has occurred on our watch.
Great analysis. One important quibble (is that phrase an oxymoron? 😁):
In my experience, the journalism profession was among the worst and most monotonically consistent economic losers among American industries/professions throughout the past 40 years. The average journalist’s economic prospects probably peaked somewhere around 1980 and it’s been all downhill from there. Stories about major outlets slashing editorial staffs were endemic throughout those decades — not only in or around recessions, but even in times of general economic expansion.
A personal incident neatly encapsulates the situation. Circa 1990 I turned down not one but TWO promising job offers from different news outlets because both positions involved pay reductions despite carrying greater responsibilities and/or better-regarded employers (one would have reported to Fred Bleakley) than the job I held. It’s not like I was an early-career aspirant for whom salary should be a minor factor: I was in my mid-30s with about a decade of experience after journalism grad school and was a mid-level editor at The Journal of Commerce daily newspaper.
Those offers crystalized my understanding that, as far as its practitioners’ economic situation, journalism wasn’t a profession but a hobby.
In what other profession or business do advancement opportunities for mid-career professionals regularly require pay cuts? For Wall Street, the industry I covered for much of my career, such a thought would instantly spur chuckles followed by disbelief.
I had already begun viewing journalism as other than a proper career after witnessing the monotonic downturn of news businesses over the preceding decade; my personal encounter clinched it. And I was a BUSINESS journalist — a category that was and is economically privileged relative to the wider journalism profession.
And the dominance of / requirement for elite education had already become entrenched in journalism well before 1980. Woodstein/Watergate might have been the final driver, but the trend away from hiring working-class (i.e., non-degreed, or even non-Ivy-degreed) people in significant newsroom roles was already evident by the 1940s, as reflected in classic films such as Teacher’s Pet.
So, the facts would justify a statement close to the opposite of, “...most journalists are among the winners of the last 40-plus years, among the people against whom the rebellion has been mounted. It was during this same period that journalism went from a working class to a middle class profession, that it came to be dominated by people with elite education...”
Jon, Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I am afraid we need to disagree on when the transformation of newsrooms became as pervasive as you indicate. In any event, the leaders of many were still oriented toward the working class as late as 1970, at least in my understanding.
Moreover, while it is true that the industry as a whole has gotten smaller and poorer, most of those who remain in it have not. Those who remain employed mostly have good benefits and decent retirement plans, and college education is pervasive. I think that's why the nihilism that runs pretty deep in MAGA seems to me largely absent in newsrooms. Of course, no such generalization covers all cases.
One important step that we can take in the next month is to pass the PRESS Act to shield reporters. It passed the House in January but the senate has been sitting on it.
Reporters Committee urges Congress to pass PRESS Act
Yes. Very much so. It is co-sponsored by ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee Lindsay Graham, as well as Mike Lee (R). It passed the House unanimously. There seem to be a few like Tom COtton who oppose it.
NYT says "... it is opposed by a small clutch of conservative senators — most notably Tom Cotton, a hard-right Republican from Arkansas — attempting to keep the legislation bottled up in the Judiciary Committee."
I agree, Richard: the public's perception of journalists — especially national correspondents — is that they’re part of the elite — better educated, better paid than the average worker. That perception was strengthened by chain ownership of newspapers and TV stations in place of local owners in the 1970s. Trump seized on that perception.
In short, The smell of your own blood is a powerful incentive. Stop the navel gazing, handwringing, scapegoating and do the work. As Pogo famously said, “we have seen the enemy and he is us.”
Clear-eyed and completely on point. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us at this important moment.
I love this -- the pithy political analysis, the clear-headed encapsulation of the press's mission moving forward. Best piece I've read post-election. Thanks!
Seconding Paul’s assessment: best post-election piece I’ve read.
Thanks so much, Paul. Really appreciate that.
Stirring! Thank you in particular for “where to draw the line” - an essential roadmap for working journalists, and the rest of us.
I really like your “forty years of winner take all” analysis.
Well said (as always), Dick.
I think one can argue DOES he really hate the press? The press made him from a relatively young age and he is a master of the give-and-take. Without the "bad guy," he can't be the good guy. The press even helped him become the GOP nominee in 2016 among a cluttered field. He kept getting the most mic time and prime podium spots in GOP debates. New York Times subscribership soared when Trump was a hot keyword. He was (is?) ratings gold. He's probably just playing the game, and a four-year war with the First Amendment likely won't be Priority 1. Maybe we can pearl-clutch less about Trump's verbal diarrhea and focus on the midterms next. Think future, not past.
Thanks for reading. Certainly hope you are right. But when someone threatens to kill you, preparing to defend yourself even as you go about your business hardly qualifies as "pearl clutching," at least in my book.
And let's not forget that Gianforte (okay, not Trump himself, but a reasonable facsimile?) slugged a reporter in public and it won him TWO elections as governor (he was re-elected the other night).
Your thought-provoking post makes two contradictory but revealing remarks. You say, “The press … did a generally decent job of describing both the stakes and the odds.” Under the subhead, “How did we get here?” you add, “For more than forty years, we have become an ever-more winner-take-all society, one in which the gap between the winners and losers has widened, particularly with respect to income, wealth, education and the advantages that accrue to all three.” So, the press missed how 40-years of middle- and working-class angst would determine the outcome. But it was good at stakes, odds, and the horse race coverage under which both parties have won and held power by exploiting wedge issues rather solving problems. You focus on the national election, but I think press soul-search should consider what democracy means in the 39 of 50 states that political insiders call “trifectas” – places where either Red or Blue office holders control the executive and both houses of the legislature. The National Council of State Legislatures currently tallies 23 Red and 16 Blue trifectas. That could change after all the states finish counting votes. And we’ll soon learn whether one party rule will go nationwide should the GOP win the last few competitive House seats to create a Trump trifecta. So, when you challenge the press “to look this situation hard in the face," I hope that includes considering whether American democracy is the frog in the pot that's come to a boil by electing a President who promises to “fit it” -- the “it” being the 40-year gestalt that has occurred on our watch.
Great analysis. One important quibble (is that phrase an oxymoron? 😁):
In my experience, the journalism profession was among the worst and most monotonically consistent economic losers among American industries/professions throughout the past 40 years. The average journalist’s economic prospects probably peaked somewhere around 1980 and it’s been all downhill from there. Stories about major outlets slashing editorial staffs were endemic throughout those decades — not only in or around recessions, but even in times of general economic expansion.
A personal incident neatly encapsulates the situation. Circa 1990 I turned down not one but TWO promising job offers from different news outlets because both positions involved pay reductions despite carrying greater responsibilities and/or better-regarded employers (one would have reported to Fred Bleakley) than the job I held. It’s not like I was an early-career aspirant for whom salary should be a minor factor: I was in my mid-30s with about a decade of experience after journalism grad school and was a mid-level editor at The Journal of Commerce daily newspaper.
Those offers crystalized my understanding that, as far as its practitioners’ economic situation, journalism wasn’t a profession but a hobby.
In what other profession or business do advancement opportunities for mid-career professionals regularly require pay cuts? For Wall Street, the industry I covered for much of my career, such a thought would instantly spur chuckles followed by disbelief.
I had already begun viewing journalism as other than a proper career after witnessing the monotonic downturn of news businesses over the preceding decade; my personal encounter clinched it. And I was a BUSINESS journalist — a category that was and is economically privileged relative to the wider journalism profession.
And the dominance of / requirement for elite education had already become entrenched in journalism well before 1980. Woodstein/Watergate might have been the final driver, but the trend away from hiring working-class (i.e., non-degreed, or even non-Ivy-degreed) people in significant newsroom roles was already evident by the 1940s, as reflected in classic films such as Teacher’s Pet.
So, the facts would justify a statement close to the opposite of, “...most journalists are among the winners of the last 40-plus years, among the people against whom the rebellion has been mounted. It was during this same period that journalism went from a working class to a middle class profession, that it came to be dominated by people with elite education...”
Jon Jacobs
Jon, Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I am afraid we need to disagree on when the transformation of newsrooms became as pervasive as you indicate. In any event, the leaders of many were still oriented toward the working class as late as 1970, at least in my understanding.
Moreover, while it is true that the industry as a whole has gotten smaller and poorer, most of those who remain in it have not. Those who remain employed mostly have good benefits and decent retirement plans, and college education is pervasive. I think that's why the nihilism that runs pretty deep in MAGA seems to me largely absent in newsrooms. Of course, no such generalization covers all cases.
One important step that we can take in the next month is to pass the PRESS Act to shield reporters. It passed the House in January but the senate has been sitting on it.
Reporters Committee urges Congress to pass PRESS Act
https://www.rcfp.org/press-act-letters-house-senate/
Is there any reason to think 60 votes are obtainable for this?
Yes. Very much so. It is co-sponsored by ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee Lindsay Graham, as well as Mike Lee (R). It passed the House unanimously. There seem to be a few like Tom COtton who oppose it.
A Reporter’s Shield Law Is Vital to Prevent Abuses of Power
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/opinion/editorials/press-act-reporters-leaks-whistleblower.html
NYT says "... it is opposed by a small clutch of conservative senators — most notably Tom Cotton, a hard-right Republican from Arkansas — attempting to keep the legislation bottled up in the Judiciary Committee."
I agree, Richard: the public's perception of journalists — especially national correspondents — is that they’re part of the elite — better educated, better paid than the average worker. That perception was strengthened by chain ownership of newspapers and TV stations in place of local owners in the 1970s. Trump seized on that perception.
This from Mike Mechanic adds some numbers and, um, pithy language, to your point. Thanks Dick, good and important piece. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/11/why-donald-trump-won-election-white-house/
So do I.
In short, The smell of your own blood is a powerful incentive. Stop the navel gazing, handwringing, scapegoating and do the work. As Pogo famously said, “we have seen the enemy and he is us.”