'Partisan bickering' is a media frame that fails the public
The government shutdown is producing an all-too-familiar barrage of performative neutrality
It’s the easiest thing in the world for the media to present a story as just another case of Democrats and Republicans not being able to get along.
Not only is this framing easy but it’s also safe. Who can argue with or criticize that kind of even-handedness, even if it doesn’t really tell the story? (I’m here, however, to do just that.)
That is precisely the way most mainstream outlets decided to present what’s happening in Washington during this consequential shutdown of the U.S. government.
“Partisan bickering” was a favorite phrase in news alerts. Headlines featured how Democrats and Republicans “trade blame” and we heard a lot about “dueling measures.”
Here’s one from CBS News on Sunday that was typical enough: “Johnson, Schumer accuse each other of not being serious about negotiations as shutdown stretches into another week.”
These words are factual, but they fail to get the bigger picture across. They are accurate but not truthful in a larger sense.
Remarkably, many Americans seem to understand anyway, as the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty wrote in a news analysis: “As much as the White House is trying to blame this on Democrats, who have refused to give the Republicans the eight votes they need in the Senate to reopen the government, a survey by the Washington Post showed that a large plurality of Americans are holding Trump and the Republicans responsible.”
“Nearly three-quarters support the Democrats in their central demand that subsidies lowering the cost for health coverage purchased under the Affordable Care Act should be extended, rather than expiring at the end of the year,” she wrote. (Gift link to the story here.)
That is, in fact, the larger story — that Democrats are determined to prevent huge increases in Americans’ health care costs by standing firm. They think the stakes are so high that it’s worth the fight, including the very real harm of a shutdown.
Carl Hulse of the New York Times wrote it this way: “Democrats believe they have a powerful message on health care, with some Americans set to face soaring premiums unless Republicans agree to extend federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.”
In my hometown paper, The Buffalo News, the excellent Jerry Zremski — the paper’s longtime Washington correspondent — told it bluntly and well: “Work on a seven-week stopgap measure went nowhere after the Trump administration and the Republican congressional majority refused to agree to Democratic demands to protect health-care funding.”
But even these context-rich news analyses carry headlines that don’t drive home that story. On Hulse’s article, the headline was “Democrats See No Need to Capitulate, Nor Republicans to Cut a Deal.” On Tumulty’s in the Post: “Government Shutdowns have become normal. This one is not.” On Zremski’s: “Amid partisan bickering, initial shutdown impacts in Buffalo appear minimal.”
One Times reader dissected Hulse’s story (gift link here) and got 2,600 nods of agreement, the most of any comment. "Your article frames this as tit-for-tat when the reality is Republicans didn’t negotiate at all. They said here’s the bill we made, take it or leave it. No options or discussions with Dems. And of course, no concessions. This is 100 percent a GOP shutdown. Please be more critically analytical when you frame the issue.”
The well-known politics journalist Rachel Bade, who was at Politico until recently, tweeted last week: “The thing is, DEMOCRATS shut the government down, not Republicans. Small technicality, I know. (Facts are funny things!)” A number of people responded by pointing out which party is in charge these days.
If you wanted to see a headline on a news story (not an opinion piece) about the Democrats standing firm, you might find it, but rarely in the news organization’s own voice. “‘You lose leverage, you lose this country’: Newsom presses Dems to stand firm on shutdown,” was how Politico managed to get at the issue, however obliquely.
The Democrats themselves were getting their message out with varying degrees of finesse. There was a simplistic video involving cats that was reasonably described as cringey. See what you think.
A better try came from two of the most progressive members of Congress, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Their informal video sets the issue out clearly and with a minimum of unnecessary cuteness. Check it out here.
It’s notable that the mainstream press is largely playing its usual “both-sides at fault” game, but Americans nevertheless do understand the reality. This underscores that Big Media is no longer the gatekeeper of news and information.
Readers, where are you following the news of this shutdown? Are you satisfied with any of the coverage you’re seeing? If so, where? And what do you think of Democratic messaging? Is anyone doing a good job?
I’ll be following the coverage as the shutdown continues, and hoping that it improves. Do better, journalists!
Separately, I’ll offer some suggestions of recently published books you might like. One of them has nothing to do with the subject at hand but I enjoyed it so much that I want to share it with you. First, the more germane one, “Paper Girl,” by Beth Macy, a memoir of the author’s childhood in Urbana, Ohio; the award-winning journalist poignantly explores how her hometown has changed because of opioid addiction, the decline of middle-class jobs and the rise of polarizing media. Macy’s account is far from cheerful but a redeeming humanity shines through. The other — also moving but more hopeful — is “The Correspondent,” by Virginia Evans. This wonderful debut novel, told entirely in letters, centers on a 70-something woman still finding her way in the world. Often the letters, over many years, to her longtime best friend ask her what books she’s reading. And so I’ll ask you. What are you reading? (As I described years ago in this New York Times Q&A, I’m always searching for that sweet spot of writing that is engaging and highly readable and also has literary value.) If you have something to recommend — new or old — please pass it along in the comments here.
As always, sincere thanks to all for being here and for caring about how the news media affects democracy. Below this reader comment is some information for newcomers to American Crisis, who are most welcome.
My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US, and teach an ethics course at Columbia Journalism School. I’ve also written two books and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.
The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.
What I ask of you: Last fall, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!
I am appalled at the lack of coverage of "October 2nd - Door Smashing Night," in Chicago.
This is a date that should live in infamy just like January 6th.
Even the conservative Chicago Tribune belatedly reported on it.
"Both sideism" has killed legacy journalism. For example, at what point should journalists stop reporting/platforming people who lie? I see the speaker or the House on every Sunday program every Sunday saying things that are false. I know he's the speaker of the House but what's the journalistic point of giving him a megaphone for distortions and lies? Perhaps he'd be less eager to appear if post interview he was fact-checked. In print, we don't need Trump-love quotes from spokespeople. Just paraphrase: "Trump spokesman [name] praised the president but did not answer the question regarding..." This doesn't seem hard unless your primary goal as a journalist is access.