I'm refocusing this newsletter on media that supports — or threatens — American democracy

The 2024 election looms, and I want to do my part

It’s less than six months until an extremely consequential presidential election.

We all need to do what we can to make sure American democracy survives in 2025 and beyond. For journalism, that means making sure voters know what the likely consequences of the election are. Given that many Americans seem misinformed or under-informed right now, there’s work to be done.

My part is inspired by Jay Rosen of NYU who coined the memorable expression “not the odds, but the stakes” to describe what the news media should be focusing on right now. In other words, focus not on the horserace, not on the polls, not on speculation; but on real information and on the huge consequences of the election.

So over the next weeks and months, I’m going to concentrate here on pointing out journalism that does that well. And while I’d like to stay positive, I think it’s also important to identify the journalism that fails to perform that duty or live up to that mission.

Let’s start with some good stuff.

Pure reporting. Jodi Kantor, investigative reporter for the New York Times, broke the story this week that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s home featured what amounted to an insurrectionist symbol — an upside-down American flag — in mid-January, 2021, just before the 2021 inauguration and shortly after the violent assault on the Capitol. I’ve heard some complaining that this piece should have — and could have — been reported years ago. Maybe that’s the case. But, to the Times’s credit, it is out there now, and the story states that photographs were “recently obtained” by the Times, which then followed up with interviews with Alito’s neighbors in Alexandria, Va.

Donald Trump greets Justice Samuel Alito as he departs from a ceremony to swear in Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on Tuesday, July 23, 2019 / Getty Images

“Judicial experts said in interviews that the flag was a clear violation of ethics rules,” according to the piece. That’s putting it mildly, especially considering that the court soon will rule on two major cases, including whether former president Donald Trump has immunity for his post-election behavior in trying to overturn the results of the election. Alito (who excused the flag by blaming his wife’s dispute with a neighbor) should at the very least recuse himself from those cases; he should be disciplined — as, of course, should Clarence Thomas for his appalling misdeeds. In fact, neither of them deserves to be on the court.

---

---

As journalist and author Mark Jacob posted: “When I was an editor at the Chicago Tribune, I would’ve been in trouble if I’d let my wife put a political bumper sticker on our car. But a Supreme Court justice’s home can fly a flag of insurrection and he’s still allowed to rule on whether the head insurrectionist has immunity.” (Mark writes the perceptive Stop the Presses newsletter here on Substack.)

Don’t hold your breath waiting for accountability. But do appreciate the reporting from Kantor, who also was one of the lead reporters in the dogged reporting that brought down Harvey Weinstein.

Powerful Commentary. The clear-thinking commentator Ruth Ben-Ghiat is always worth listening to and reading. She is a student of authoritarianism and the author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.” Her recent piece in The New Republic, “The Permanent Counterrevolution,” looks ahead to politics and government in a fascist America, basing it on the mind-blowing Heritage Foundation document, “Project 2025,” which she calls “a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name.” It’s part of a special issue of The New Republic that looks at all aspects of what Trump and his allies have planned, and how that could play out should he win another term. Editor Michael Tomasky, it’s clear, is taking “not the odds but the stakes” very seriously indeed.

Most stunning euphemism seen in a news story. In an interview with Bloomberg news, Wall Street bigwig and mega-donor Ken Griffin said he’s considering throwing his support behind Trump, after long opposing him. Why? Trump “will exude a level of strength” that will help stabilize the world in trying times. That’s hard to take at face value, given that Trump sounds increasingly like a dangerous maniac on the campaign trail, is the subject of dozens of indictments in four lawsuits, and is the very definition of a loose cannon. I wonder if Griffin’s change of heart, and that of others of his ilk, could have more to do with tax policy that favors the rich…

Thanks very much to all the subscribers to American Crisis, including many new ones in the past week. We’re about to hit the 9,000-subscriber mark. Your interest is deeply appreciated.

Please let me know when you see the media doing things right or wrong. I’m also interested in how you personally are trying to support American democracy — are you volunteering to be an election worker? working on a campaign? contributing to a candidate? subscribing to a news organization? talking to your friends and neighbors? You can let me know in the comments below, if you’re a paid subscriber, or on social media. I’m not hard to find and I’ll appreciate hearing from you.