A perfect example of what you’re talking about is a Newsweek story that ran several days after Smith’s brief was unsealed. The headline: “Jack Smith’s Trump Filing Could ‘Backfire’: Legal Analyst.” And who was this legal analyst? Well-known Trump toady and legal hack Jonathan Turley, who has never come across a Trump crime he couldn’t rationalize. That Newsweek would devote an entire story to the musings of this flunky is a measure of the depths to which this once respectable publication has fallen.
Sorry to say but the media is just not up to covering this election effectively, as you column ably points out. Here's another example: The Washington Post labeled GOP (and other) lies on Hurricane Helene relief "misinformation." Does the Washington Post not know the difference between misinformation and disinformation?
More importantly, why is this happening? Have journalism resources been so hollowed out that judgment, experience, and expertise have been significantly diminished? Has access become more important than the truth? Has the seemingly unending stream of shocking lies and crimes numbed journalists to what is news?
My take is that formulaic reporting has replaced judgment and instinct for what is the most important element of a story. An example: The lead of the reporting on the VP debate should have been Vance's evasion on the 2020 election. Instead, the media focused on style, quips, and expectations met or missed. The good news is the truth and sound analysis can be found on platforms such as Substack but unfortunately most Americans are not seeing it.
I generally agree, but Substack is a poor resource at scale. It silos information in myriad locations nearly all of which have substantial subscription costs, in return for which one generally gets the thinking of only one person. That situation inherently creates a boutique and highly fragmented information environment. Substack is valuable for certain writers and some well-off and highly engaged audiences, but it does not have wide usefulness and it contributes to trends making access to good information increasingly an elite prerogative.
Hi, Margaret—I’m writing about media NON-coverage of a story. At the start of last week, the New York City Bar issued an exhaustive report on Supreme Court ethics reform, urging Congress to enact enforceable standards that reflect rules applicable to all other Federal judges. The City Bar is the most influential association of attorneys in the country, with the possible exception of the American Bar Association, and their report makes a convincing case for the constitutionality of Congress’ authority to set higher standards for the Court than it has been willing, so far, to establish for itself. To date, I have seen virtually no coverage of the report, despite its wide distribution to media outlets and the fact that the justices are beginning their new term today. This is an important story because until now, the organized bar had declined to get involved in the ethics dispute between Congress and the Court.
If there is a better example—or even more succinctly—proof—that the main stream media has moved past the both sides horse race coverage we’ve all been gnashing our teeth about for years, I don’t know what it is. For reasons economic and inexplicable, the DC press has decided, consciously or not, to put their thumb on the scale for Trump and anti-democratic forces. It is to their everlasting shame. Thanks, Margaret, for continuing to fight the good fight. Everybody make sure you’re registered to vote.
Great article, thanks. I still think that most media are trying to maintain a "horse race" atmosphere because if they acknowledge how poor a candidate the failed insurrectionist is Harris will build an insurmountable lead and their easy stories and profit will disappear. Since I get the vast majority of my news here, the indictment was well covered but was more like a sermon to the choir than it should have been. The most important audience, however, is only 9 strong and we must hope that such legal training as they have will reassert itself when the outcome from Judge Chutkan's court is appealed.
"Readers, we’re a month out from this extraordinarily presidential election" - I think you meant to include "important" here.
Thank you! I will fix that! The corrected version won't show up in the version in your email, if that's where you saw it. But it will be in the online/web version.
Just a shout out for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is consistently doing reporting that helps provide me with insights into the political landscapes of Philly and the state. Growing up I lived in and just outside Philly for several years so even though I moved on long long ago , I've maintained an interest in the community and a connection to the paper,. I "consume" a lot of news from many different sources and IMO the Inquirer's doing a nice job.
The Washington Post has been my home paper for 50 years. I have been unhappy with their election coverage for months.
Today I will cancel my subscription. The proximate cause is The Editorial Board’s “Mr Smith’s timing is questionable. His case is not.”
There is hardly an argument or sentence or choice of priority in this article i don’t find execrable, but i will give just the silliest instance because it’s just plain sloppiness:
“Mr. Trump had earlier pressured Mr. Pence to refuse to certify the 2020 vote, encouraging his vice president not to look at the election “as a loss — just an intermission,” and urging him to focus on how Mr. Trump had given the Republican Party “a new lease on life.””
Trump did no such thing. The words in quotes are Pence’s words. (Page 13 of the motion) I don’t recall that Trump’s response to those particular words is recorded, but I doubt that “encouraging” would have described their tenor.
(Of course the attentive citizen would know that Trump would be likely to utter such graceful phrases extemporaneously.)
We note that the article does not end in an endorsement of Harris :
“…voters will have to confront the unpleasant yet undeniable truths about Mr Trump’s record and character, revealed once again in black and white.@
At the end of the day my guess is the editors are not letting the writers write the truth. They are the gatekeepers who have final say what gets printed in the papers. They vet the headlines and what needs to be highlighted. Substacks don’t have to submit to that castration
Another important column, Margaret. The key phrase: "And what editors seem to think of this development is 'we knew all this before.'" When I taught Journalism 101, I gave the definition of news as that which is important or interesting. When it comes to politics, too many reporters and editors forget the former and pursue only the latter. Is the latest -- almost assuredly wrong -- poll really more important than the facts dug up by Jack Smith?
20 hrs ago·edited 15 hrs agoLiked by Margaret Sullivan
If for good reason we fault journalism related to Trump, we will like what comes afterward even less. The rapt focus on him over the last decade has obscured the fact that Trump is a transient figure, if only because he is mortal. The real problem is the degradation of the Republican Party and of conservatism generally, which predated Trump and will outlast him.
Trump is not the issue. Of much greater concern are the changes in culture generally (especially the elimination of shame and the exaltation of lying, violence, and corruption) and in the Republican Party specifically to which he has so much contributed. These changes are highly partisan (for example, the way almost the entire Republican agenda has become lie-based) and both much larger and in some ways more subtle than Trump himself, all of which will make them more difficult for journalists to manage. (The conceptual leap is from seeing Trump with all his obvious odiousness as a threat to the country, to perceiving J.D. Vance, Tom Cotton, Mike Johnson, and the Heritage Foundation in the same light.) We do not right now have any realistic plans to address them, and mainstream journalism as now practiced is unlikely to be much help.
23 hrs ago·edited 23 hrs agoLiked by Margaret Sullivan
The NYT are just following their updated motto: All the News That's Fit for Trump. This is not new.
They invented and pushed Whitewater, smeared Gore with the mean girls. I remember a typically long article six months after the Supremes threw the election to Bush Jr. that if you read to the end showed that Gore won, but was written so badly it was the classic, Flat Earth, Opinions Differ.
The NYT fostered Clinton Cash. Off hand, I don't remember what they pulled with Obama.
They had the famous front page bottom article about finding the germ warfare trailer in Iraq. That was total BS.
For most of the oughts, they were climate denial curious. They'd have long articles on some renegade climate skeptic.
More relevant, in my experience, when they wrote about some topic with which I was familiar, usually some technology related topic, they were usually wrong.
A perfect example of what you’re talking about is a Newsweek story that ran several days after Smith’s brief was unsealed. The headline: “Jack Smith’s Trump Filing Could ‘Backfire’: Legal Analyst.” And who was this legal analyst? Well-known Trump toady and legal hack Jonathan Turley, who has never come across a Trump crime he couldn’t rationalize. That Newsweek would devote an entire story to the musings of this flunky is a measure of the depths to which this once respectable publication has fallen.
Sorry to say but the media is just not up to covering this election effectively, as you column ably points out. Here's another example: The Washington Post labeled GOP (and other) lies on Hurricane Helene relief "misinformation." Does the Washington Post not know the difference between misinformation and disinformation?
More importantly, why is this happening? Have journalism resources been so hollowed out that judgment, experience, and expertise have been significantly diminished? Has access become more important than the truth? Has the seemingly unending stream of shocking lies and crimes numbed journalists to what is news?
My take is that formulaic reporting has replaced judgment and instinct for what is the most important element of a story. An example: The lead of the reporting on the VP debate should have been Vance's evasion on the 2020 election. Instead, the media focused on style, quips, and expectations met or missed. The good news is the truth and sound analysis can be found on platforms such as Substack but unfortunately most Americans are not seeing it.
I generally agree, but Substack is a poor resource at scale. It silos information in myriad locations nearly all of which have substantial subscription costs, in return for which one generally gets the thinking of only one person. That situation inherently creates a boutique and highly fragmented information environment. Substack is valuable for certain writers and some well-off and highly engaged audiences, but it does not have wide usefulness and it contributes to trends making access to good information increasingly an elite prerogative.
Hi, Margaret—I’m writing about media NON-coverage of a story. At the start of last week, the New York City Bar issued an exhaustive report on Supreme Court ethics reform, urging Congress to enact enforceable standards that reflect rules applicable to all other Federal judges. The City Bar is the most influential association of attorneys in the country, with the possible exception of the American Bar Association, and their report makes a convincing case for the constitutionality of Congress’ authority to set higher standards for the Court than it has been willing, so far, to establish for itself. To date, I have seen virtually no coverage of the report, despite its wide distribution to media outlets and the fact that the justices are beginning their new term today. This is an important story because until now, the organized bar had declined to get involved in the ethics dispute between Congress and the Court.
No longer.
Thanks for letting me know about this.
If there is a better example—or even more succinctly—proof—that the main stream media has moved past the both sides horse race coverage we’ve all been gnashing our teeth about for years, I don’t know what it is. For reasons economic and inexplicable, the DC press has decided, consciously or not, to put their thumb on the scale for Trump and anti-democratic forces. It is to their everlasting shame. Thanks, Margaret, for continuing to fight the good fight. Everybody make sure you’re registered to vote.
❣️💙🌊❣️💙🌊🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Great article, thanks. I still think that most media are trying to maintain a "horse race" atmosphere because if they acknowledge how poor a candidate the failed insurrectionist is Harris will build an insurmountable lead and their easy stories and profit will disappear. Since I get the vast majority of my news here, the indictment was well covered but was more like a sermon to the choir than it should have been. The most important audience, however, is only 9 strong and we must hope that such legal training as they have will reassert itself when the outcome from Judge Chutkan's court is appealed.
"Readers, we’re a month out from this extraordinarily presidential election" - I think you meant to include "important" here.
Thank you! I will fix that! The corrected version won't show up in the version in your email, if that's where you saw it. But it will be in the online/web version.
Just a shout out for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is consistently doing reporting that helps provide me with insights into the political landscapes of Philly and the state. Growing up I lived in and just outside Philly for several years so even though I moved on long long ago , I've maintained an interest in the community and a connection to the paper,. I "consume" a lot of news from many different sources and IMO the Inquirer's doing a nice job.
The Washington Post has been my home paper for 50 years. I have been unhappy with their election coverage for months.
Today I will cancel my subscription. The proximate cause is The Editorial Board’s “Mr Smith’s timing is questionable. His case is not.”
There is hardly an argument or sentence or choice of priority in this article i don’t find execrable, but i will give just the silliest instance because it’s just plain sloppiness:
“Mr. Trump had earlier pressured Mr. Pence to refuse to certify the 2020 vote, encouraging his vice president not to look at the election “as a loss — just an intermission,” and urging him to focus on how Mr. Trump had given the Republican Party “a new lease on life.””
Trump did no such thing. The words in quotes are Pence’s words. (Page 13 of the motion) I don’t recall that Trump’s response to those particular words is recorded, but I doubt that “encouraging” would have described their tenor.
(Of course the attentive citizen would know that Trump would be likely to utter such graceful phrases extemporaneously.)
We note that the article does not end in an endorsement of Harris :
“…voters will have to confront the unpleasant yet undeniable truths about Mr Trump’s record and character, revealed once again in black and white.@
At the end of the day my guess is the editors are not letting the writers write the truth. They are the gatekeepers who have final say what gets printed in the papers. They vet the headlines and what needs to be highlighted. Substacks don’t have to submit to that castration
Another important column, Margaret. The key phrase: "And what editors seem to think of this development is 'we knew all this before.'" When I taught Journalism 101, I gave the definition of news as that which is important or interesting. When it comes to politics, too many reporters and editors forget the former and pursue only the latter. Is the latest -- almost assuredly wrong -- poll really more important than the facts dug up by Jack Smith?
If for good reason we fault journalism related to Trump, we will like what comes afterward even less. The rapt focus on him over the last decade has obscured the fact that Trump is a transient figure, if only because he is mortal. The real problem is the degradation of the Republican Party and of conservatism generally, which predated Trump and will outlast him.
Trump is not the issue. Of much greater concern are the changes in culture generally (especially the elimination of shame and the exaltation of lying, violence, and corruption) and in the Republican Party specifically to which he has so much contributed. These changes are highly partisan (for example, the way almost the entire Republican agenda has become lie-based) and both much larger and in some ways more subtle than Trump himself, all of which will make them more difficult for journalists to manage. (The conceptual leap is from seeing Trump with all his obvious odiousness as a threat to the country, to perceiving J.D. Vance, Tom Cotton, Mike Johnson, and the Heritage Foundation in the same light.) We do not right now have any realistic plans to address them, and mainstream journalism as now practiced is unlikely to be much help.
Keep up the good work, Margaret!
Sharing your frustration with lackadaisical news coverage of the “stakes”, I’ve learned how salmon feel on their quest to spawn.
Please know that I very much appreciate your work. Thank you.
Thanks. I was so beside myself about that Politico header that I couldn’t even figure out what “neigh” was meant to be.
The NYT are just following their updated motto: All the News That's Fit for Trump. This is not new.
They invented and pushed Whitewater, smeared Gore with the mean girls. I remember a typically long article six months after the Supremes threw the election to Bush Jr. that if you read to the end showed that Gore won, but was written so badly it was the classic, Flat Earth, Opinions Differ.
The NYT fostered Clinton Cash. Off hand, I don't remember what they pulled with Obama.
They had the famous front page bottom article about finding the germ warfare trailer in Iraq. That was total BS.
For most of the oughts, they were climate denial curious. They'd have long articles on some renegade climate skeptic.
More relevant, in my experience, when they wrote about some topic with which I was familiar, usually some technology related topic, they were usually wrong.
Thank you, Margaret. Level headed
From hitting it against a wall, perhaps …
LoL...totally relatable.