When WIRED Magazine is more on top of a political story than any of the supposed major media outlets, you know that the corporate media has rendered itself truly irrelevant. What Musk is doing is beyond illegal. The NYT, the WaPo, the networks, all should be screaming about this because the implications for the country are terrifying. What will it take?
I’ve seen this sentiment many times this weekend. Maybe people think of only newspapers as legacy media, but WIRED has been around for over thirty years and is owned by Condé Nast. It’s 100% corporate media, not a couple of independent journalists on Substack. I’m a happy subscriber and think they’ve risen admirably to this moment, but legacy media isn’t down for the count yet.
William, I looked up which Dem Senators voted to confirm him. My sister and her partner live in VA, so they do have D Senators, unfortunately all my "representatives" are Republicans.
In a functioning government, Congress would be holding hearings. But the GOP 1) controls both houses of Congress, and 2) is absolutely corrupt to the last man and woman.
Thune is under Attack. USAID funds the Lutheran Charity in his state, this is a large employer in Thune’s South Dakota. Dies this inform us that the nominees Gabbard and Patel do not have the votes?
Ha! That's the independent I subscribe to, based on their excellent work developing a monitoring tool on one piece at least of the administration's activity... "WIRED built software to systematically check the status of 1,374 government domains. The tool runs periodic scans, tracking whether sites remain accessible, how their servers respond, and if the domain names still resolve. This allows us to monitor patterns in uptime and catch moments when sites suddenly vanish– sometimes reappearing minutes or hours later." https://www.wired.com/story/us-government-websites-are-disappearing-in-real-time/
I watched the beginnings of the coup unfold Friday night on the Alt National Park's Facebook page. Reuters was the only outlet reporting on it at the time, Rachel Maddow picked it up on her show after being alerted. The fact that it took 24 to 48 hours to surface in big news outlets was absolutely terrifying. It was a sleepless weekend. It is deeply upsetting that it wasn't front and center everywhere, boldly describing what it is.
Mainstream reporting kept focusing on the consequences rather than the why. The headlines were about firings or resignations and totally missing the point. The story was quickly buried in other stories at the bottoms of their website pages when it should have been pinned and highlighted at the top of every communication channel, website, etc.
Do you have any insight into why legacy media is failing to recognize and prioritize what is perhaps the most important story since the Civil War? This is a government takeover and they should be calling on Americans to shut down and take to the streets because that is what it is going to take to overcome this.
[[The fact that it took 24 to 48 hours to surface in big news outlets was absolutely terrifying.]] Agreed, but on a big story like this, it can take time to report out accurately and contextually. Reuters and Wired had running head starts on other outlets.
The bigger problem is that even with time to catch up, most outlets are not now providing the correct context, which is that this is a fast-moving coup.
Publishing good reporting is essential, for sure. It also provides "cover" for them. They can claim, like Jill Abramson does, that they are reporting hard stories about real things. (and don't get me started on Peter Baker). There was an interview years ago of A. G. Sulzberger by David Remnick. Remnick asked if the NYT was doing enough to warn the public about Trump. (the interview was during the first Trump administration) Sulzberger felt it wasn't his job to do that. It was his job to "publish" the news. Most of the people in "big media" really do seem ignorant of their editorial choices.
IMHO, the fact that the media landscape is fractured beyond recognition is the bigger issue. Talk to random people that aren't tuned into the news and you will be very disappointed in what they actually know about what is going on.
NYT, WaPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. have all played along for far too long. Decades have passed since they were first disparaged by the Murdoch Empire as the "liberal" media or the "lamestream" media. The Pentagon has awarded press passes to OANN, Breitbart, and some other crazy right wing outlet that slips my mind right now. The Sec of Transportation is now communicating all official announcements via Twitter (refuse to call it X). Tik Tok, Twiter, and various socials are where it is happening for most people.
We are well and forked. The vast majority (my framing) of the public are truly ignorant of how much the federal gov't touches their lives. When the scaffolding that is supporting them starts to collapse they will notice.
I want Congress to ask themselves: why does Trump need them? Autocrats throughout history disbands the representative/legislative branches. No more salary, no paid trips&travel, no private looting, no more insider trade info. If for no other reason then self interest, shouldn’t they put on the brakes?
Having caught the story of the Musk coup, and including it in the day's coverage Friday for the show I'm responsible for, and then pushing that story as it developed this weekend, I'm both amazed and terrified - amazed that more people aren't terrified, and terrified because so many don't even know about it.
As to the question of who is correct, Jarvis or Abramson? It's Jarvis on this one.
I can't see any comments, so sorry if my point has already been made.
In my eyes, the difference is not whether to cover views of MAGAs or not but rather how to do it.
What NYT's doing is in fact mostly sane-washing though more independant readers certainly can make other use of it. And NYT definitely has known for years that it was the most important help Trump got in what most be seen as his success.
The Times has published over the years dozens and dozens of stories about Trump voters of different ages and ethnicities, jobs and economic status. There have been at least three just since the election. The paper lets them talk on and on and never questions any of the lies they state. I could count on the fingers of one hand, stories about people who didn’t vote for him. I remember they had one story about Biden voters, before he dropped out, and most were described as reluctant to admit it. I’m sure even now they’ll talk to yet more Trump voters to see how happy they are with Trump so far. That millions of their readers are appalled or terrified by what he’s doing won’t matter. They’ll never feature any stories about us.
With all due respect to Jill Abramson, and not to make it all about him, but Peter Baker is pretty much the avatar for a very talented reporter who is guilty of just about the worst sanewashing possible. I mean, the guy proudly states that he doesn’t allow himself opinions on his subjects even in his own head! That’s the guy we should have covering an unprecedented attack from within on our government and way of life? I don’t think so.
With regards to the overall press coverage, sadly, I’ve pretty much given up. I follow the few journalists mentioned at this site who do good work, and that’s about it. I think responsibility has been shirked, and at this point, it is up to well intentioned Americans to push the issue through actions like a general strike and hope maybe the press wakes up and notices.
I absolutely agree with Norman Ornstein, that this is a fast-moving putsch. Elon Musk's role and actions are completely illegal, but the problem is: who is going to remove him, arrest him or stop him from dismantling our government? I would appreciate some legal views on this.
Norman Ornstein is 100% correct. What can the media do better — not be distracted by the firehouse of manufactured crises. As awful as tariffs and assaults on civil rights are, the single most important topic to be laser focused on is the QUICKLY UNFOLDING COUP happening in real time, right now, and why so many Republicans are ignoring Professor Timothy Snyder’s caution to “NOT obey in advance.”
Let’s hope law enforcement and the military are prepared to not obey illegal orders, the courts are prepared to issue just decisions based on true facts, and the media focus on the single most important issue — the coup and its subsequent constitutional crisis.
Where is the NYT coverage of altnationalparkservice? They are resisting! Where are the interviews with the career civil servants being fired? Why has there been the implication in the NYT and WaPo stories that the IGs and Treasury folks just walked off their jobs when told to? Why is the resistance to the takeover given as much coverage as the takeover? Only answer I can see is that the reporters consider it an unimportant, doomed-to-fail part of the story.
I’m what’s known as recovering journalist (couldn’t take it any more and left before the corporate owners completely gutted where I worked), and I have what may be a useful perspective. Yes, this reporting is expert and crucial, AND there’s a disconnect at that point dictated by the norms of what I always thought of as “Capital J” Journalism. It sets out to be the best, most objective, non-partisan, just-the-facts reporting and trusts the readers to read it all, think through it all and decide what it means and how to respond. Editorial pages are, to Journalists, where what it means and what to do about it are allowed topics. This model is failing us and I think has been failing us for quite a while. People in general don’t read long articles now. People in general don’t parse formal language and long sentences now.
Actually, those of us who read the long stories and parse the language are pretty upset at what we are seeing. A lot of bothsides coverage as if putting Musk employees into our disbursement system were not handing over the keys to the bank to avowed safecrackers. If you bracket the most important fact - that he and his minions have no legal right to be there - then the reporting of their presence has the calm tone that is observable.
On second thought, they may have purposely avoided that aspect of the story because it was a wider context their reporting had not covered. Cap J Journalists prefer to cite their own sources for everything. And they would not be comfortable simply quoting a section of law because they’re not lawyers and what if they quoted the wrong part or if another section changes the situation? It might be a context gap that we readers really find to be a problem.
That's just it. What Musk and his minions are doing is flat-out illegal, civilly and criminally, and most news outlets simply aren't saying that in so many words.
Another recovering journalist here -- you are correct. News organizations have got to get better about putting the MEANING of news right there with the FACTS of the news -- in headlines and ledes. There are practical concerns about that -- e.g., if you're not careful, it makes for long sentences -- but they can be overcome. Yeah, it'll make headlines longer, but online that's not the problem that it is for print.
Crap. Bothsides is a fig leaf for a business model that American news media has followed for decades, to maximize their readership by trying to offend as few as possible (and also provide cover for the publisher and senior editors who have their own unspoken agendas, now finally being exposed to daylight at the WaPo and LAT). Nobody really reads those Cletus Safaris, who needs to read a bunch of uninformed cliched thinking (You decide if I'm talking about the interviewees or the journalists).
American journalism is not well regarded in the rest of the world, where journalists literally put their lives at risk, while the chief concern of major US journalists appears to be to cozy up to their editor so they can pay the Ivy League tuition for their kids.
It's too bad Americans are by and large dumb shits and don't follow journalism any more. On the other hand, are they really missing very much? I haven't listened to or watched PBS or NPR in twenty years (Robin McNeil, a Canadian, was a good interviewer but otherwise the Newshour stayed in the DC conventional wisdom bubble), I never thought much of the NYT and finally cancelled my subscription after they buried the Risen story, the WaPo used to be good on foreign news but then Little Donnie Graham took a dump on their readership to push the invasion of Iraq, and as far as network news, I was appalled when I came to this country and saw Walter Cronkite (This was really their best?). I get my news from overseas now (not Russia Today!) and boutique news sources like TPM and ProPublica. Maybe I should subscribe to Wired.
It's a 10 alarm fire. The Post should be using its red banner treatment of this story.
Second, I agree about the stenography approach. The problem is, where are the same reporters quoting all the city residents who aren't Trump supporters, to foster "understanding"? Do we all need to take trips to hang out in rural diners to get our views quoted? We all understand MAGA supporters: they are disconnected from reality. How does continuing to quote their uninformed, incorrect views help, other than to reinforce them as factual in the minds of casual readers? I recall a guy who actually got a new, better paying job thanks to Biden's CHIPS Act, who complained that Biden was doing nothing for him. How is quoting that helpful to "understanding" him? Or helpful to HIM understanding the real world?
I am exhausted these days from barely suppressed rage, a feeling of impotence, and fear that our last hope for resistance to the coup, the press, is treating it like, as you say, a backyard bonfire.
Abramson misses the point. Ok do the Cletus safari, but then have a long-form piece saying "Here's what Trump voters want, and here's why they are not going to get it." And as others have commented, have a piece about what Harris voters want.
The background to all of this is the repeated NYT sanewashing of Trump, especially with regard to headlines, plus the snit that Sulzberger got into when Biden wouldn't do a sit-down interview leading to dozens of "Biden is old" stories without having *any* "Trump is deranged" stories. If Ms. Abramson doesn't recognize this background, it is probably that she lives in the privileged groupthink cocoon that appears to envelop the NYT. (Also, too, off-topic, but could we get more than Ron Wyden and AOC to show up?)
I also remember a NYT interview about 9 or 10 years ago with an avowed neoNazi. It was also CORRECTLY slammed as not asking any potentially informative questions but instead allowing him to talk about how much he loved his kids and why he lived in the community he moved to. No lies from either side, but zero insight. And the questions that were needed to not normalize him were pretty easy and showed up in the enraged comments on line afterward. Sane criticism to Judy Woodruff’s pre-election tour of MAGA folks. Not probing or putting anyone on the spot, but being kindly and sympathetic presumably to demonstrate “balance”. But performing balance is not how you cover a fire that arsonists have set! Bothsides asks: Why do you think this building needed to be burnt? Do you care if the fire causes deaths and injuries? We can see evil in the answers but neither the interviewer nor the person answering appears concerned about it.
I emailed my representatives, as well as Senators Thom Tillis, Susan Collins, Dave McCormick, Mitch McConnell, and Lisa Murkowski (the only Republicans that may care).
There were many thousands of WaPo comments on the article, most of them expressing alarm and opposition to having an unelected, unaccountable yahoo rummaging around the U.S. Treasury.
I hope all the television news stations give it top priority, but I don't watch much TV news anymore.
Another reason for non-North Carolinians to contact Thom Tillis is that he sits on the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight over Treasury, among other things. It makes perfect sense to call his office (D.C., regional, or, for North Carolinians, both) to express concern about apparently unauthorized access to Treasury accounts.
When WIRED Magazine is more on top of a political story than any of the supposed major media outlets, you know that the corporate media has rendered itself truly irrelevant. What Musk is doing is beyond illegal. The NYT, the WaPo, the networks, all should be screaming about this because the implications for the country are terrifying. What will it take?
I’ve seen this sentiment many times this weekend. Maybe people think of only newspapers as legacy media, but WIRED has been around for over thirty years and is owned by Condé Nast. It’s 100% corporate media, not a couple of independent journalists on Substack. I’m a happy subscriber and think they’ve risen admirably to this moment, but legacy media isn’t down for the count yet.
Why is no one roasting Scott Bessent? His toes should be held to the fire.
William, I looked up which Dem Senators voted to confirm him. My sister and her partner live in VA, so they do have D Senators, unfortunately all my "representatives" are Republicans.
In a functioning government, Congress would be holding hearings. But the GOP 1) controls both houses of Congress, and 2) is absolutely corrupt to the last man and woman.
MSM has been bludgeoned by settlements already. Similar to Putin’s consolidation of power.
Thune is under Attack. USAID funds the Lutheran Charity in his state, this is a large employer in Thune’s South Dakota. Dies this inform us that the nominees Gabbard and Patel do not have the votes?
You think Thune will stand up to trump. No way!
Ha! That's the independent I subscribe to, based on their excellent work developing a monitoring tool on one piece at least of the administration's activity... "WIRED built software to systematically check the status of 1,374 government domains. The tool runs periodic scans, tracking whether sites remain accessible, how their servers respond, and if the domain names still resolve. This allows us to monitor patterns in uptime and catch moments when sites suddenly vanish– sometimes reappearing minutes or hours later." https://www.wired.com/story/us-government-websites-are-disappearing-in-real-time/
I watched the beginnings of the coup unfold Friday night on the Alt National Park's Facebook page. Reuters was the only outlet reporting on it at the time, Rachel Maddow picked it up on her show after being alerted. The fact that it took 24 to 48 hours to surface in big news outlets was absolutely terrifying. It was a sleepless weekend. It is deeply upsetting that it wasn't front and center everywhere, boldly describing what it is.
Mainstream reporting kept focusing on the consequences rather than the why. The headlines were about firings or resignations and totally missing the point. The story was quickly buried in other stories at the bottoms of their website pages when it should have been pinned and highlighted at the top of every communication channel, website, etc.
Do you have any insight into why legacy media is failing to recognize and prioritize what is perhaps the most important story since the Civil War? This is a government takeover and they should be calling on Americans to shut down and take to the streets because that is what it is going to take to overcome this.
[[The fact that it took 24 to 48 hours to surface in big news outlets was absolutely terrifying.]] Agreed, but on a big story like this, it can take time to report out accurately and contextually. Reuters and Wired had running head starts on other outlets.
The bigger problem is that even with time to catch up, most outlets are not now providing the correct context, which is that this is a fast-moving coup.
Agreed on all your points. I do not understand why MSM won't call it a coup.
Publishing good reporting is essential, for sure. It also provides "cover" for them. They can claim, like Jill Abramson does, that they are reporting hard stories about real things. (and don't get me started on Peter Baker). There was an interview years ago of A. G. Sulzberger by David Remnick. Remnick asked if the NYT was doing enough to warn the public about Trump. (the interview was during the first Trump administration) Sulzberger felt it wasn't his job to do that. It was his job to "publish" the news. Most of the people in "big media" really do seem ignorant of their editorial choices.
IMHO, the fact that the media landscape is fractured beyond recognition is the bigger issue. Talk to random people that aren't tuned into the news and you will be very disappointed in what they actually know about what is going on.
NYT, WaPo, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. have all played along for far too long. Decades have passed since they were first disparaged by the Murdoch Empire as the "liberal" media or the "lamestream" media. The Pentagon has awarded press passes to OANN, Breitbart, and some other crazy right wing outlet that slips my mind right now. The Sec of Transportation is now communicating all official announcements via Twitter (refuse to call it X). Tik Tok, Twiter, and various socials are where it is happening for most people.
We are well and forked. The vast majority (my framing) of the public are truly ignorant of how much the federal gov't touches their lives. When the scaffolding that is supporting them starts to collapse they will notice.
I want Congress to ask themselves: why does Trump need them? Autocrats throughout history disbands the representative/legislative branches. No more salary, no paid trips&travel, no private looting, no more insider trade info. If for no other reason then self interest, shouldn’t they put on the brakes?
Elon Musk should be in FBI custody.
I agree with every word!
He should indeed. But the FBI works for Trump now.
The Alt National Park Service is in the trenches. They can be found on Facebook and Bluesky.
Having caught the story of the Musk coup, and including it in the day's coverage Friday for the show I'm responsible for, and then pushing that story as it developed this weekend, I'm both amazed and terrified - amazed that more people aren't terrified, and terrified because so many don't even know about it.
As to the question of who is correct, Jarvis or Abramson? It's Jarvis on this one.
I can't see any comments, so sorry if my point has already been made.
In my eyes, the difference is not whether to cover views of MAGAs or not but rather how to do it.
What NYT's doing is in fact mostly sane-washing though more independant readers certainly can make other use of it. And NYT definitely has known for years that it was the most important help Trump got in what most be seen as his success.
Jeff Jarvis is spot on. When has the Times ever run the voices of Trump opponents? They are a propaganda outfit.
The Times has published over the years dozens and dozens of stories about Trump voters of different ages and ethnicities, jobs and economic status. There have been at least three just since the election. The paper lets them talk on and on and never questions any of the lies they state. I could count on the fingers of one hand, stories about people who didn’t vote for him. I remember they had one story about Biden voters, before he dropped out, and most were described as reluctant to admit it. I’m sure even now they’ll talk to yet more Trump voters to see how happy they are with Trump so far. That millions of their readers are appalled or terrified by what he’s doing won’t matter. They’ll never feature any stories about us.
Another question screaming to be addressed is "Where are the congressional Democrats??"
With all due respect to Jill Abramson, and not to make it all about him, but Peter Baker is pretty much the avatar for a very talented reporter who is guilty of just about the worst sanewashing possible. I mean, the guy proudly states that he doesn’t allow himself opinions on his subjects even in his own head! That’s the guy we should have covering an unprecedented attack from within on our government and way of life? I don’t think so.
With regards to the overall press coverage, sadly, I’ve pretty much given up. I follow the few journalists mentioned at this site who do good work, and that’s about it. I think responsibility has been shirked, and at this point, it is up to well intentioned Americans to push the issue through actions like a general strike and hope maybe the press wakes up and notices.
I absolutely agree with Norman Ornstein, that this is a fast-moving putsch. Elon Musk's role and actions are completely illegal, but the problem is: who is going to remove him, arrest him or stop him from dismantling our government? I would appreciate some legal views on this.
There are rumblings about impeachment but I don't see how that would work out any better than last time
Impeach whom? Trump? Impossible with this group of spineless republicans. Musk, he doesn't even hold an office. How can you impeach him?
That's my take on it but the idea is being floated.
Norman Ornstein is 100% correct. What can the media do better — not be distracted by the firehouse of manufactured crises. As awful as tariffs and assaults on civil rights are, the single most important topic to be laser focused on is the QUICKLY UNFOLDING COUP happening in real time, right now, and why so many Republicans are ignoring Professor Timothy Snyder’s caution to “NOT obey in advance.”
Let’s hope law enforcement and the military are prepared to not obey illegal orders, the courts are prepared to issue just decisions based on true facts, and the media focus on the single most important issue — the coup and its subsequent constitutional crisis.
Where is the NYT coverage of altnationalparkservice? They are resisting! Where are the interviews with the career civil servants being fired? Why has there been the implication in the NYT and WaPo stories that the IGs and Treasury folks just walked off their jobs when told to? Why is the resistance to the takeover given as much coverage as the takeover? Only answer I can see is that the reporters consider it an unimportant, doomed-to-fail part of the story.
I’m what’s known as recovering journalist (couldn’t take it any more and left before the corporate owners completely gutted where I worked), and I have what may be a useful perspective. Yes, this reporting is expert and crucial, AND there’s a disconnect at that point dictated by the norms of what I always thought of as “Capital J” Journalism. It sets out to be the best, most objective, non-partisan, just-the-facts reporting and trusts the readers to read it all, think through it all and decide what it means and how to respond. Editorial pages are, to Journalists, where what it means and what to do about it are allowed topics. This model is failing us and I think has been failing us for quite a while. People in general don’t read long articles now. People in general don’t parse formal language and long sentences now.
Actually, those of us who read the long stories and parse the language are pretty upset at what we are seeing. A lot of bothsides coverage as if putting Musk employees into our disbursement system were not handing over the keys to the bank to avowed safecrackers. If you bracket the most important fact - that he and his minions have no legal right to be there - then the reporting of their presence has the calm tone that is observable.
On second thought, they may have purposely avoided that aspect of the story because it was a wider context their reporting had not covered. Cap J Journalists prefer to cite their own sources for everything. And they would not be comfortable simply quoting a section of law because they’re not lawyers and what if they quoted the wrong part or if another section changes the situation? It might be a context gap that we readers really find to be a problem.
Fair point, but I would hope that any Times or Post reporter covering this would have plenty of lawyers and law profs on speed dial.
Excellent point. Thank you. I overlooked that.
That's just it. What Musk and his minions are doing is flat-out illegal, civilly and criminally, and most news outlets simply aren't saying that in so many words.
Another recovering journalist here -- you are correct. News organizations have got to get better about putting the MEANING of news right there with the FACTS of the news -- in headlines and ledes. There are practical concerns about that -- e.g., if you're not careful, it makes for long sentences -- but they can be overcome. Yeah, it'll make headlines longer, but online that's not the problem that it is for print.
Crap. Bothsides is a fig leaf for a business model that American news media has followed for decades, to maximize their readership by trying to offend as few as possible (and also provide cover for the publisher and senior editors who have their own unspoken agendas, now finally being exposed to daylight at the WaPo and LAT). Nobody really reads those Cletus Safaris, who needs to read a bunch of uninformed cliched thinking (You decide if I'm talking about the interviewees or the journalists).
American journalism is not well regarded in the rest of the world, where journalists literally put their lives at risk, while the chief concern of major US journalists appears to be to cozy up to their editor so they can pay the Ivy League tuition for their kids.
It's too bad Americans are by and large dumb shits and don't follow journalism any more. On the other hand, are they really missing very much? I haven't listened to or watched PBS or NPR in twenty years (Robin McNeil, a Canadian, was a good interviewer but otherwise the Newshour stayed in the DC conventional wisdom bubble), I never thought much of the NYT and finally cancelled my subscription after they buried the Risen story, the WaPo used to be good on foreign news but then Little Donnie Graham took a dump on their readership to push the invasion of Iraq, and as far as network news, I was appalled when I came to this country and saw Walter Cronkite (This was really their best?). I get my news from overseas now (not Russia Today!) and boutique news sources like TPM and ProPublica. Maybe I should subscribe to Wired.
Two things, Margaret.
It's a 10 alarm fire. The Post should be using its red banner treatment of this story.
Second, I agree about the stenography approach. The problem is, where are the same reporters quoting all the city residents who aren't Trump supporters, to foster "understanding"? Do we all need to take trips to hang out in rural diners to get our views quoted? We all understand MAGA supporters: they are disconnected from reality. How does continuing to quote their uninformed, incorrect views help, other than to reinforce them as factual in the minds of casual readers? I recall a guy who actually got a new, better paying job thanks to Biden's CHIPS Act, who complained that Biden was doing nothing for him. How is quoting that helpful to "understanding" him? Or helpful to HIM understanding the real world?
I am exhausted these days from barely suppressed rage, a feeling of impotence, and fear that our last hope for resistance to the coup, the press, is treating it like, as you say, a backyard bonfire.
Abramson misses the point. Ok do the Cletus safari, but then have a long-form piece saying "Here's what Trump voters want, and here's why they are not going to get it." And as others have commented, have a piece about what Harris voters want.
The background to all of this is the repeated NYT sanewashing of Trump, especially with regard to headlines, plus the snit that Sulzberger got into when Biden wouldn't do a sit-down interview leading to dozens of "Biden is old" stories without having *any* "Trump is deranged" stories. If Ms. Abramson doesn't recognize this background, it is probably that she lives in the privileged groupthink cocoon that appears to envelop the NYT. (Also, too, off-topic, but could we get more than Ron Wyden and AOC to show up?)
I also remember a NYT interview about 9 or 10 years ago with an avowed neoNazi. It was also CORRECTLY slammed as not asking any potentially informative questions but instead allowing him to talk about how much he loved his kids and why he lived in the community he moved to. No lies from either side, but zero insight. And the questions that were needed to not normalize him were pretty easy and showed up in the enraged comments on line afterward. Sane criticism to Judy Woodruff’s pre-election tour of MAGA folks. Not probing or putting anyone on the spot, but being kindly and sympathetic presumably to demonstrate “balance”. But performing balance is not how you cover a fire that arsonists have set! Bothsides asks: Why do you think this building needed to be burnt? Do you care if the fire causes deaths and injuries? We can see evil in the answers but neither the interviewer nor the person answering appears concerned about it.
Judy Woodruff. Decent woman. Reporting in the wrong era. Namby pamby kumbaya bull.
I emailed my representatives, as well as Senators Thom Tillis, Susan Collins, Dave McCormick, Mitch McConnell, and Lisa Murkowski (the only Republicans that may care).
There were many thousands of WaPo comments on the article, most of them expressing alarm and opposition to having an unelected, unaccountable yahoo rummaging around the U.S. Treasury.
I hope all the television news stations give it top priority, but I don't watch much TV news anymore.
Mitch will do what he always does, say how bad it is but he will support it. He just did that with tariffs.
Another reason for non-North Carolinians to contact Thom Tillis is that he sits on the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight over Treasury, among other things. It makes perfect sense to call his office (D.C., regional, or, for North Carolinians, both) to express concern about apparently unauthorized access to Treasury accounts.