I think Americans who aren't politically engaged believe that regardless of who is in the White House, their lives will go on as usual. They shrug it off with, "So what? All politicians are crooks." So to me, the challenge is to take what we know Trump will do and extrapolate that in a powerful, all-too-real way, showing unengaged voters what their lives would be like if Trump and the GOP established fascism here.
I read a book about the French Resistance, and less than 3% of the French joined it. The rest either collaborated with the Nazis or simply adapted to the new order and went on with their lives.
So that's the challenge, I think. We need to take Trump's announced plans and make the impact so real, so tangible, that people can't ignore how THEIR lives, THEIR kids, THEIR health and well-being will be affected. If Trump rounds up millions of immigrants, would there be a food shortage due to a labor shortage? If Trump wages war on the press, would all news orgs have to become Fox or go under? If Trump deploys the military on our streets, is that martial law, and what is martial law like? Would we have a curfew, or have to show government-approved papers to travel to see family in another state? If Trump shuts down the FBI and DOJ, how will that affect our public safety and crime rates?
Those questions keep ME up at night, and I'd like to share my insomniac experience with the millions of Americans who are presently all too willing to lose democracy by default - by just plain not showing up, because they think it won't matter.
Yes, the stakes not the odds. But the broad lack of understanding about how our systems operate demands that journalists incorporate basic civics lessons in their work. How does this threat to big D democracy translate to little d democracy at the federal, state, or local level and potentially impact lives.
Stripping out SEC admin law judges? Boring. Who cares? Focus on why financial market oversight matters and what happens when folks are fleeced with impunity.
Another problem is that the threat to democracy is not only with a second Trump administration. The entire Republican Party is determined to end democracy and impose a Christian. Fascist Theocracy. If Trump is not the nominee, anybody else who runs for office as a Republican will be a threat to democracy.
Chyron writers on cable news, as well as headline writers for legacy newspapers, must do a better job of conveying the stakes. A recent MSNBC chyron stated Trump's authoritarian "bent" at the same time Joe Scarborough and Jonathan Lemire were decrying his actual authoritarianism. Would appreciate at least a brief discussion by "American Crisis" of the qualifications (including experience level) of chyron writers in cable newsrooms. Many of these scrolling digital headlines seem to be the work of interns rather than seasoned wordsmiths.
The press needs to be at war with anyone and anything and any plan that would curtail Freedom of the Press -- its remit from the Constitution itself. So war? Perhaps the press will be at war, but it should certainly be erecting the battlements required to defend itself, and therefore all of us. I think democracy, as a word, has become gobbledygook -- the press needs to go to war by defining democracy -- what it means, how it has evolved, how hard it is to reclaim when lost -- so that citizens who interact with the press (reading, watching, listening, instagramming, etc.) have context beyond a single word bandied about. The same goes for Fascism and Authoritarianism. Those are also so often used that they are words without context and meaning. They must be constantly defined, as well. So, yes, if defining the stakes not the odds is war, then war. If informing the stakes not the odds is traditional journalism, then journalism. The press must hold the Constitution accountable to itself.
The media does not help when they breathlessly cover every move Trump makes like it's so entertaining and hilarious. I don't find any of this entertaining or hilarious. Even Rachel Maddow was on a talk show laughing about how super excited she was about covering one of the impeachments. Sorry the work of a democracy is usually so boring for the media, but I would like reporters to cover this like it is: a Trump re-election is the end of democracy. They try to equate Trump and Biden. Trump is a traitor, but Biden is old. That narrative it not helpful or accurate. Too many member of the media are gleeful about covering all of his nonsense. They are not looking ahead.
The press need to be “at war” with Trump which means explaining the stakes, defining the issues and educating people. Covering the horse race is too simplistic. Yet, it’s not just about Trump. It’s also what’s happening at the state and local level. Every day I read about some new threat to the Voting Rights Act or more gerrymandering in the states. It seems local journalists are doing better at covering threats to democracy. But the national media should also cover these threats and should explain the stakes if we continue to restrict our rights and freedoms.
I totally agree that journalism needs to be clear about what is at stake here. Trump should NOT be treated as just another presidential candidate. For one thing, his legal issues have been giving him more "air time" than anyone else - including the amazing advances by Biden. It seems like those reports don't count toward political reporting, like they're not in the same column of "total minutes."
There needs to be less reporting on the court cases, with fewer photos, and more emphasis on what he is saying at these rallies he holds. Journalists need to interpret his words in the headlines, not just report them. I don't think many people who follow him clearly understand what he is saying, what the ramifications will be. At this time in our politics, journalists should be explaining, pointing out what the Republican party has been up to, how it is trying to destroy the Constitution bits at a time. Don't just report on Speaker Johnson, but explain what his closed door conference about SS & MC really means.
Another nugget from a couple of recent Baron media interviews I've heard (paraphrased): There's no democracy without a free press, and there's no free press without a democracy.
While the press needs to awaken the public to the real threat of authoritarianism — after all, the implicit bias of a free press is toward democracy — we need to try to awaken those around us. The high hurdle? To be heard.
I think both Baron and Rosen are on track with their comments. The problem is getting through to those who don't or can't see the true threat to democracy if Trump were to get a second term as President. It seems his followers are blind to the facts. And, they are often so hostile that it's difficult to have a conversation.
Does the press need to be “at war” with Trump, and what would that look like in practice?
IMHO - yes. rump exclaimed that the press is the enemy of the people and he, in my estimation, will do everything he can to silence the press if he takes over (permanently) in 2025.
Do journalists have anything to lose by moving away from a more traditional model? Journalists need to cover the danger posed to the US if rump is re-elected - the Thanksgiving rant he screamed on social media, the fact that he plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the first day of his next term, and who called for the execution of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And the media frets over Biden’s age - he is in great physical shape, eats well, works out and lifts weight, and cares deeply about our country. Compare that to rump’s comments and his age and his prior chaos.
WAPO in 2016 published an editorial about rump being unqualified to be prez - noting the dangers it posed to the US. That editorial is no longer accessible online.
Let me close with this - if rump is elected prez in 2024, the press can kiss the media protections in NY Times vs Sullivan goodbye.
“Trump’s second TERM” - as if it would end after 4 years. This is my worry. That most Americans believe that it doesn’t matter if Trump gets elected that they will be able to do and say as they wish and have their lives go on a usual. They are so naive. It will all be “undone.” Maybe it will dawn on them when he “comes after them.” The media needs to be better - more questions to challenge Trump - the headlines have to be better and not so targeted to “sell/get clicks.” And we all need to be better - more engaged and knowledgeable.
Thank you for staying engaged and sharing your experience, expertise and perspective. It strikes me that tapping into the whole of the American experience with the majority of us who believe in America as it was envisioned is the only way for us to overcome the loud, crazy, aggressive efforts of the small number who want to take over. We just can’t let that happen.
I think the media has been disingenuous in its use of the (to my mind) excuse of presenting all sides of an argument and being "unbiased". It has most definitely NOT presented anything beyond the accepted mainstream view of US politics and has not presented a wide enough context for that view. Exhibit A: the ideas of Naomi Chomsky, arguably one of the most important public intellectuals of our day, are considered "out of the mainstream" because they challenge the contradictions that we tell ourselves about US power and how it is exercised. At the very least, all reputable media should be showing how Trump's statements and actions are completely outside even these narrow bounds of what is mainstream. TOTALLY outside. Time for footnotes!
I think Americans who aren't politically engaged believe that regardless of who is in the White House, their lives will go on as usual. They shrug it off with, "So what? All politicians are crooks." So to me, the challenge is to take what we know Trump will do and extrapolate that in a powerful, all-too-real way, showing unengaged voters what their lives would be like if Trump and the GOP established fascism here.
I read a book about the French Resistance, and less than 3% of the French joined it. The rest either collaborated with the Nazis or simply adapted to the new order and went on with their lives.
So that's the challenge, I think. We need to take Trump's announced plans and make the impact so real, so tangible, that people can't ignore how THEIR lives, THEIR kids, THEIR health and well-being will be affected. If Trump rounds up millions of immigrants, would there be a food shortage due to a labor shortage? If Trump wages war on the press, would all news orgs have to become Fox or go under? If Trump deploys the military on our streets, is that martial law, and what is martial law like? Would we have a curfew, or have to show government-approved papers to travel to see family in another state? If Trump shuts down the FBI and DOJ, how will that affect our public safety and crime rates?
Those questions keep ME up at night, and I'd like to share my insomniac experience with the millions of Americans who are presently all too willing to lose democracy by default - by just plain not showing up, because they think it won't matter.
Yes, the stakes not the odds. But the broad lack of understanding about how our systems operate demands that journalists incorporate basic civics lessons in their work. How does this threat to big D democracy translate to little d democracy at the federal, state, or local level and potentially impact lives.
Stripping out SEC admin law judges? Boring. Who cares? Focus on why financial market oversight matters and what happens when folks are fleeced with impunity.
Another problem is that the threat to democracy is not only with a second Trump administration. The entire Republican Party is determined to end democracy and impose a Christian. Fascist Theocracy. If Trump is not the nominee, anybody else who runs for office as a Republican will be a threat to democracy.
Chyron writers on cable news, as well as headline writers for legacy newspapers, must do a better job of conveying the stakes. A recent MSNBC chyron stated Trump's authoritarian "bent" at the same time Joe Scarborough and Jonathan Lemire were decrying his actual authoritarianism. Would appreciate at least a brief discussion by "American Crisis" of the qualifications (including experience level) of chyron writers in cable newsrooms. Many of these scrolling digital headlines seem to be the work of interns rather than seasoned wordsmiths.
The press needs to be at war with anyone and anything and any plan that would curtail Freedom of the Press -- its remit from the Constitution itself. So war? Perhaps the press will be at war, but it should certainly be erecting the battlements required to defend itself, and therefore all of us. I think democracy, as a word, has become gobbledygook -- the press needs to go to war by defining democracy -- what it means, how it has evolved, how hard it is to reclaim when lost -- so that citizens who interact with the press (reading, watching, listening, instagramming, etc.) have context beyond a single word bandied about. The same goes for Fascism and Authoritarianism. Those are also so often used that they are words without context and meaning. They must be constantly defined, as well. So, yes, if defining the stakes not the odds is war, then war. If informing the stakes not the odds is traditional journalism, then journalism. The press must hold the Constitution accountable to itself.
Baron and Rosen are both right. Because doing the work, in Baron’s words, means explaining the stakes.
The media does not help when they breathlessly cover every move Trump makes like it's so entertaining and hilarious. I don't find any of this entertaining or hilarious. Even Rachel Maddow was on a talk show laughing about how super excited she was about covering one of the impeachments. Sorry the work of a democracy is usually so boring for the media, but I would like reporters to cover this like it is: a Trump re-election is the end of democracy. They try to equate Trump and Biden. Trump is a traitor, but Biden is old. That narrative it not helpful or accurate. Too many member of the media are gleeful about covering all of his nonsense. They are not looking ahead.
The press need to be “at war” with Trump which means explaining the stakes, defining the issues and educating people. Covering the horse race is too simplistic. Yet, it’s not just about Trump. It’s also what’s happening at the state and local level. Every day I read about some new threat to the Voting Rights Act or more gerrymandering in the states. It seems local journalists are doing better at covering threats to democracy. But the national media should also cover these threats and should explain the stakes if we continue to restrict our rights and freedoms.
Do we want democracy enough to fight for it, or is next quarter's earnings report more important.
I totally agree that journalism needs to be clear about what is at stake here. Trump should NOT be treated as just another presidential candidate. For one thing, his legal issues have been giving him more "air time" than anyone else - including the amazing advances by Biden. It seems like those reports don't count toward political reporting, like they're not in the same column of "total minutes."
There needs to be less reporting on the court cases, with fewer photos, and more emphasis on what he is saying at these rallies he holds. Journalists need to interpret his words in the headlines, not just report them. I don't think many people who follow him clearly understand what he is saying, what the ramifications will be. At this time in our politics, journalists should be explaining, pointing out what the Republican party has been up to, how it is trying to destroy the Constitution bits at a time. Don't just report on Speaker Johnson, but explain what his closed door conference about SS & MC really means.
Another nugget from a couple of recent Baron media interviews I've heard (paraphrased): There's no democracy without a free press, and there's no free press without a democracy.
While the press needs to awaken the public to the real threat of authoritarianism — after all, the implicit bias of a free press is toward democracy — we need to try to awaken those around us. The high hurdle? To be heard.
I think both Baron and Rosen are on track with their comments. The problem is getting through to those who don't or can't see the true threat to democracy if Trump were to get a second term as President. It seems his followers are blind to the facts. And, they are often so hostile that it's difficult to have a conversation.
Just gets scary and scarier!
Does the press need to be “at war” with Trump, and what would that look like in practice?
IMHO - yes. rump exclaimed that the press is the enemy of the people and he, in my estimation, will do everything he can to silence the press if he takes over (permanently) in 2025.
Do journalists have anything to lose by moving away from a more traditional model? Journalists need to cover the danger posed to the US if rump is re-elected - the Thanksgiving rant he screamed on social media, the fact that he plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the first day of his next term, and who called for the execution of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And the media frets over Biden’s age - he is in great physical shape, eats well, works out and lifts weight, and cares deeply about our country. Compare that to rump’s comments and his age and his prior chaos.
WAPO in 2016 published an editorial about rump being unqualified to be prez - noting the dangers it posed to the US. That editorial is no longer accessible online.
Let me close with this - if rump is elected prez in 2024, the press can kiss the media protections in NY Times vs Sullivan goodbye.
“Trump’s second TERM” - as if it would end after 4 years. This is my worry. That most Americans believe that it doesn’t matter if Trump gets elected that they will be able to do and say as they wish and have their lives go on a usual. They are so naive. It will all be “undone.” Maybe it will dawn on them when he “comes after them.” The media needs to be better - more questions to challenge Trump - the headlines have to be better and not so targeted to “sell/get clicks.” And we all need to be better - more engaged and knowledgeable.
Thank you for staying engaged and sharing your experience, expertise and perspective. It strikes me that tapping into the whole of the American experience with the majority of us who believe in America as it was envisioned is the only way for us to overcome the loud, crazy, aggressive efforts of the small number who want to take over. We just can’t let that happen.
I think the media has been disingenuous in its use of the (to my mind) excuse of presenting all sides of an argument and being "unbiased". It has most definitely NOT presented anything beyond the accepted mainstream view of US politics and has not presented a wide enough context for that view. Exhibit A: the ideas of Naomi Chomsky, arguably one of the most important public intellectuals of our day, are considered "out of the mainstream" because they challenge the contradictions that we tell ourselves about US power and how it is exercised. At the very least, all reputable media should be showing how Trump's statements and actions are completely outside even these narrow bounds of what is mainstream. TOTALLY outside. Time for footnotes!