What Sy Hersh told Leigh Haber of "The Ink" yesterday: “There’s something wrong with the way we’re covering the president. We have a White House press office where reporters go every day to yell at the Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt. She’s not there to inform the press. She’s there to conduct propaganda. So why bother going there? Why cover the press briefings? There’s something wrong with a system where you yell questions and write down her answers. You don’t have to be in the White House and sit in a room and raise your hand and be called on. It’s a performance that’s totally useless.”
Totally valid. In the new documentary about Sy, "Cover Up," he didn't find his stories going to the white house, or from people in supposed leadership.
Yes- I had a parallel thought while reading Margaret’s post - which was: What if the WH press corps, at least the “mainstream” ones, stood up en masse when Leavitt spouted one of her ridiculous statements (like threatening to sue a network) and walked out? And didn’t come back? Not that she would be cowed, at least in public, but it would be a striking message.
My sentiments exactly! Miss Sassy Pants KL does not deserve the opportunity to degrade everyone in that room or to be heard period! Sorry, but the plain truth is she is incompetent and unqualified to speak!!
One of the great reporters of the latter 20th century was IF Stone who was blacklisted to periphery. He got his scoops by looking at records and stuff, not by getting self promoting BS stories like just for one example Dokoupil's interview of Trump.
Playing the liars is not reporting of any value.
Of course Hersh is correct.
OTOH, Big Media owners for years has preferred on big issues to provide a news-like product instead of (pardon the expression) news that really matters.
Margaret--thanks for filling us in on this information. Hundreds of thousands of us have unsubscribed to the NYTimes, WAPO and even ended our cable subscriptions. We get our news from Substack, YouTube and a few other sources we can still trust.
And yes, we are in a full autocracy. Someone needs to tell the Republicans in the Senate and the House. Unfortunately, they already know and are too cowardly to do anything about it.
I canceled my WaPo subscriptions and cable is long gone, too. Bezos has so much money he probably doesn't care about the financial status of the post. Unfortunately, social media has leveled the field so thoroughly, that a NYTimes article has as much a chance of a click as a rogue conspiracy post by an angry man in his basement. The only way out of this may be a tidal wave of blue in the midterms.
I canceled my WaPost subscription, then thought better of it and uncanceled and then the final straw came with a Post editorial criticizing not Trump's idiotic effort to coerce Denmark into giving us Greenland, but criticizing the tariffs he said he was imposing as a bad tactic. I then decided to cancel for good.
This one is another great essay. I so often find myself bothered by this "balance" or "both sides-ism." Or, our "tribes." Is there really another "side?" Am I blind to something? When I view these current events, the total shame of everything Trump or MAGA seems crystal clear to me. Am I looking with objectivity and intellectual honesty? I cannot believe there is another side to reality, and I hope and insist that I am truly seeing reality. Am I right and the MAGAts are wrong? I don't know how to conclude anything else! I guess I am biased. I do hope it is the "well known liberal bias of reality."
As a former journalist, so do I. The question is, how are you going to pay for that? Some large, national outlets could afford it, but most others cannot.
I wonder how far simply using, and being transparent that you are using fact checkers would go in paying for itself? Every article, column, etc that's been checked says that.
Like how Barbara Mullen says below - I want to see a fact check banner in every commentary, news or interview on TV.
But until then, I want only want to pay for news that does have a banner.
I can't get this out of my head - what to do to get factual reporting out there. Something that I've done - albeit unintentionally - was take a pay cut to keep working with a couple of outlets. I can survive on lower income for a little while if that's what it takes, I figure. I'm not talking about the big dogs, I'm talking about the NFP's, the independent outlets, the boots-on-the-ground reporters.
I wonder about other places, it they'd be more prone to use a fc'er if they could afford it a bit easier.
Fact checker for over 5 years here - I'd be willing to take a pay cut to get the truth out and I'd be honored to work with journalists that are still doing the same.
"lt is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift
The same can be said of institutions or organizations. We are witnessing that with legacy media, controlled by individuals who profit by their actions (or inaction.)
"Even the New York Times, generally functioning at a high level of journalism..."
Not only do I not see this to be the case, I would say that in the aggregate the New York Times has been a major factor in our descent into fascism. Journalism in this country is inherently bound to democracy, so if it fails democracy, it fails journalism. And the Times has failed democracy.
They not only normalized Trump from the beginning but did their best to drag his opponent, Hillary Clinton, down to or beneath his level. And they haven't improved at all since then.
Not just every day, but several times every day, one can imagine the Times reactions to 'what if Harris/Biden/Hillary had said/done/tweeted that.' These counternarrative questions instantly answer themselves in an almost laughable exposure of the asymmetrical coverage.
And I don't think one could find anybody (outside of MAGA or the media) who wouldn't instantly agree that if a Democratic president was sending in a military force to red states for easily debunked, transparently political reasons on the pretext of national security, the Times would be sounding a five-alarm outrage siren, setting their hair on fire and demanding his/her resignation. The tone, intensity and proportionality, both on the news side and in the editorial pages, would be dramatically different. Instead, it hasn't even reached the level of Hillary's emails or Biden's supposed cognitive decline. The Times makes a decision every day to not confront the fall of our democracy with the sense of immediacy it necessitates, so that they don't appear 'biased' to the very people responsible for its destruction.
I'm quite sure though that if we ever do have a Democratic president again, the Times will rediscover their ability to amplify outrage for whatever faux scandal the right concocts. Unfortunately, I may not get the opportunity to be proved correct.
Jim, I'd also add to the list of journalistic malfeasance at NTY over the years the tag-team operation between news and editorial that fanned the flames of the faux White Water scandal, which was aimed at taking down both Clintons.
Indeed, Jack.. And I can attest that's the time when I first became aware of the NYT's (and the MSM at large) bias against the Clinton's personally and the Democrats in general, and when I first witnessed the permission structure within the institution that allowed for the savaging of the left while showing deference to the right. If there was any doubt about that dynamic during Whitewater, it was erased shortly after when the Times and the rest of the mainstream political media engaged in the War on Gore.
When you throw in their unfettered promotion of the lies and propaganda that lead us into the illegal, immoral Iraq War, followed by their amplification of the Swift Boat garbage against Kerry, through their ridiculously disproportionate EMAILZ! coverage (an obvious continuation of what you rightfully point out as their attempt at taking down the Clintons over Whitewater), it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the NYT has been bad for democracy, bad for our country and bad for humanity for decades.
While it is not practical to hold the news media to only reporting “facts”, it is possible for the White House Press Corps to insist that Caroline Leavitt treat reporters with respect. Last week a reporter asked her if the President was going to change his comments the killing of Ms. Good in light of the various tapes, Ms. Leavitt asked him what HE saw, and the reporter answered. Ms. Leavitt then responded by saying that it what she expects because he is a biased left-winger. I was appalled, but not surprised, at Leavitt’s snarkiness, but also at the fact that the next questioner did not insist on an answer to the initial question. Why didn’t everyone in the room get up and walk out, or at least demand decorum appropriate to the White House press room?
Because the WH press corps is largely a bunch of sheep? I mean, there may be a better answer, but when I watch their (lack of) response to the most egregious behavior by administration officials, that's the thought that comes to mind.
*The networks should add a daily Ted Koppel-like “America held Hostage” program, explaining Trump’s moves and how they fit and don’t fit with American ideals.
*Newspapers should have a daily column focusing on Trump’s quotes and the veracity within. Trump officials too.
*Editorials should be fearless and positioned frequently on the front page and in local and national news broadcasts.
All of these should remind readers about democracy and the Constitution and values. There are more but my typing finger is tired.
Today’s hour-plus-long press conference would provide dozens of opportunities for the news media to quote Trump in his most incoherent, unhinged, lying comments. Aaron Rupar tracks it for us. But the media will sane-wash it.
The United States today appears locked in a phase of deep institutional evolution. Political cycles are short, narratives are binary, and legitimacy is contested in real time. Democratic mechanisms still function, but they suffer, under constant stress. Institutions are asked not only to govern, but to arbitrate identity, morality, and social conflict simultaneously. Minneapolis is not the cause of this condition. It is a manifestation of it.
One thing the press could do is to stop giving the autocrats a clean slate every day. E.g., If they are going to report on Trump's latest fabrication, their introductory language should be something like "Compulsive liar and convicted felon Donald Trump claimed today that..."
More context: “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America,” by award-winning Duke University historian Nancy MacLean.
If “kettling” was a tactic, was this premeditated murder? Here’s what LA Times reported in 2014: “Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers…according to an independent review of 67 cases that resulted in 19 deaths.” Why weren’t we paying attention? They’ve had a dozen years to refine their methods. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227-story.html.
Don’t even get me started on NYT. I think Dasani Coates may have been exploited but her story resulted in a Pulitzer. You can guess how receptive NYT is to any queries.
But they NEVER interview people in diners or anywhere that aren’t MAGA nuts or Republicans. There are plenty of diners in NYC where they could find people like me who are outraged, upset and scared about what Trump is doing, but they rarely interview us anywhere about anything. Țhe Times obsession with the Trump voter is insane.
What is also sadly notable is the severe amount of playing both sides in TV interviews. For example when Jacob Frey, Mayor of Minneapolis, said the "f..." word the media insisted he was escalating things. When interviewers sit with a blank stare while MAGA people filibuster they are condoning what is being said. Jake Tapper is the king of this.
What Sy Hersh told Leigh Haber of "The Ink" yesterday: “There’s something wrong with the way we’re covering the president. We have a White House press office where reporters go every day to yell at the Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt. She’s not there to inform the press. She’s there to conduct propaganda. So why bother going there? Why cover the press briefings? There’s something wrong with a system where you yell questions and write down her answers. You don’t have to be in the White House and sit in a room and raise your hand and be called on. It’s a performance that’s totally useless.”
It’s a great point by Hersh.
Totally valid. In the new documentary about Sy, "Cover Up," he didn't find his stories going to the white house, or from people in supposed leadership.
Thank you! Journalism Professor Jay Rosen wrote “Send the interns” during the first Trump administration. I would say today … “Send nobody!”
Yes Dan, tell it!
Yes- I had a parallel thought while reading Margaret’s post - which was: What if the WH press corps, at least the “mainstream” ones, stood up en masse when Leavitt spouted one of her ridiculous statements (like threatening to sue a network) and walked out? And didn’t come back? Not that she would be cowed, at least in public, but it would be a striking message.
My sentiments exactly! Miss Sassy Pants KL does not deserve the opportunity to degrade everyone in that room or to be heard period! Sorry, but the plain truth is she is incompetent and unqualified to speak!!
Dan, I've shared 3 quotes from that piece-Sy, is again, spot on-I would love to hear about an empty press room!
One of the great reporters of the latter 20th century was IF Stone who was blacklisted to periphery. He got his scoops by looking at records and stuff, not by getting self promoting BS stories like just for one example Dokoupil's interview of Trump.
Playing the liars is not reporting of any value.
Of course Hersh is correct.
OTOH, Big Media owners for years has preferred on big issues to provide a news-like product instead of (pardon the expression) news that really matters.
Agree. My father was a lifelong subscriber to his newsletter. Izzy inspired me to become a journalist.
Margaret--thanks for filling us in on this information. Hundreds of thousands of us have unsubscribed to the NYTimes, WAPO and even ended our cable subscriptions. We get our news from Substack, YouTube and a few other sources we can still trust.
And yes, we are in a full autocracy. Someone needs to tell the Republicans in the Senate and the House. Unfortunately, they already know and are too cowardly to do anything about it.
I canceled my WaPo subscriptions and cable is long gone, too. Bezos has so much money he probably doesn't care about the financial status of the post. Unfortunately, social media has leveled the field so thoroughly, that a NYTimes article has as much a chance of a click as a rogue conspiracy post by an angry man in his basement. The only way out of this may be a tidal wave of blue in the midterms.
I canceled my WaPost subscription, then thought better of it and uncanceled and then the final straw came with a Post editorial criticizing not Trump's idiotic effort to coerce Denmark into giving us Greenland, but criticizing the tariffs he said he was imposing as a bad tactic. I then decided to cancel for good.
This one is another great essay. I so often find myself bothered by this "balance" or "both sides-ism." Or, our "tribes." Is there really another "side?" Am I blind to something? When I view these current events, the total shame of everything Trump or MAGA seems crystal clear to me. Am I looking with objectivity and intellectual honesty? I cannot believe there is another side to reality, and I hope and insist that I am truly seeing reality. Am I right and the MAGAts are wrong? I don't know how to conclude anything else! I guess I am biased. I do hope it is the "well known liberal bias of reality."
It's not you and you're not blind. They are pretzeling themselves to both-sides things that do not have two legitimate sides.
I want to see fact checkers used for every article.
As a former journalist, so do I. The question is, how are you going to pay for that? Some large, national outlets could afford it, but most others cannot.
I wonder how far simply using, and being transparent that you are using fact checkers would go in paying for itself? Every article, column, etc that's been checked says that.
Like how Barbara Mullen says below - I want to see a fact check banner in every commentary, news or interview on TV.
But until then, I want only want to pay for news that does have a banner.
You'd be a rarity, then. Most people don't want to pay for fact-checked news, especially when they can get opinion they agree with for free.
I can't get this out of my head - what to do to get factual reporting out there. Something that I've done - albeit unintentionally - was take a pay cut to keep working with a couple of outlets. I can survive on lower income for a little while if that's what it takes, I figure. I'm not talking about the big dogs, I'm talking about the NFP's, the independent outlets, the boots-on-the-ground reporters.
I wonder about other places, it they'd be more prone to use a fc'er if they could afford it a bit easier.
Fact checker for over 5 years here - I'd be willing to take a pay cut to get the truth out and I'd be honored to work with journalists that are still doing the same.
How do we make that happen?
Especially with AI in the mix and no laws in place to control it.
I want to see a fact check banner in every commentary, news or interview on TV.
Same.
"lt is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift
The same can be said of institutions or organizations. We are witnessing that with legacy media, controlled by individuals who profit by their actions (or inaction.)
"Even the New York Times, generally functioning at a high level of journalism..."
Not only do I not see this to be the case, I would say that in the aggregate the New York Times has been a major factor in our descent into fascism. Journalism in this country is inherently bound to democracy, so if it fails democracy, it fails journalism. And the Times has failed democracy.
They not only normalized Trump from the beginning but did their best to drag his opponent, Hillary Clinton, down to or beneath his level. And they haven't improved at all since then.
Not just every day, but several times every day, one can imagine the Times reactions to 'what if Harris/Biden/Hillary had said/done/tweeted that.' These counternarrative questions instantly answer themselves in an almost laughable exposure of the asymmetrical coverage.
And I don't think one could find anybody (outside of MAGA or the media) who wouldn't instantly agree that if a Democratic president was sending in a military force to red states for easily debunked, transparently political reasons on the pretext of national security, the Times would be sounding a five-alarm outrage siren, setting their hair on fire and demanding his/her resignation. The tone, intensity and proportionality, both on the news side and in the editorial pages, would be dramatically different. Instead, it hasn't even reached the level of Hillary's emails or Biden's supposed cognitive decline. The Times makes a decision every day to not confront the fall of our democracy with the sense of immediacy it necessitates, so that they don't appear 'biased' to the very people responsible for its destruction.
I'm quite sure though that if we ever do have a Democratic president again, the Times will rediscover their ability to amplify outrage for whatever faux scandal the right concocts. Unfortunately, I may not get the opportunity to be proved correct.
Like the tan suit.
Absolutely.
Jim, I'd also add to the list of journalistic malfeasance at NTY over the years the tag-team operation between news and editorial that fanned the flames of the faux White Water scandal, which was aimed at taking down both Clintons.
Indeed, Jack.. And I can attest that's the time when I first became aware of the NYT's (and the MSM at large) bias against the Clinton's personally and the Democrats in general, and when I first witnessed the permission structure within the institution that allowed for the savaging of the left while showing deference to the right. If there was any doubt about that dynamic during Whitewater, it was erased shortly after when the Times and the rest of the mainstream political media engaged in the War on Gore.
When you throw in their unfettered promotion of the lies and propaganda that lead us into the illegal, immoral Iraq War, followed by their amplification of the Swift Boat garbage against Kerry, through their ridiculously disproportionate EMAILZ! coverage (an obvious continuation of what you rightfully point out as their attempt at taking down the Clintons over Whitewater), it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the NYT has been bad for democracy, bad for our country and bad for humanity for decades.
Margaret,
While it is not practical to hold the news media to only reporting “facts”, it is possible for the White House Press Corps to insist that Caroline Leavitt treat reporters with respect. Last week a reporter asked her if the President was going to change his comments the killing of Ms. Good in light of the various tapes, Ms. Leavitt asked him what HE saw, and the reporter answered. Ms. Leavitt then responded by saying that it what she expects because he is a biased left-winger. I was appalled, but not surprised, at Leavitt’s snarkiness, but also at the fact that the next questioner did not insist on an answer to the initial question. Why didn’t everyone in the room get up and walk out, or at least demand decorum appropriate to the White House press room?
Because the WH press corps is largely a bunch of sheep? I mean, there may be a better answer, but when I watch their (lack of) response to the most egregious behavior by administration officials, that's the thought that comes to mind.
They're afraid of losing their access.
BTW if I recall correctly the reporter she was so obnoxious to isn't even American. I think he was from the Guardian, but I'm not sure.
But their precious ‘access’ is worthless.
You know that and I know that, but apparently they don't.
Oh, boy:
*The networks should add a daily Ted Koppel-like “America held Hostage” program, explaining Trump’s moves and how they fit and don’t fit with American ideals.
*Newspapers should have a daily column focusing on Trump’s quotes and the veracity within. Trump officials too.
*Editorials should be fearless and positioned frequently on the front page and in local and national news broadcasts.
All of these should remind readers about democracy and the Constitution and values. There are more but my typing finger is tired.
Excellent, John.
Today’s hour-plus-long press conference would provide dozens of opportunities for the news media to quote Trump in his most incoherent, unhinged, lying comments. Aaron Rupar tracks it for us. But the media will sane-wash it.
That daily column would run for pages and pages most days.
The United States today appears locked in a phase of deep institutional evolution. Political cycles are short, narratives are binary, and legitimacy is contested in real time. Democratic mechanisms still function, but they suffer, under constant stress. Institutions are asked not only to govern, but to arbitrate identity, morality, and social conflict simultaneously. Minneapolis is not the cause of this condition. It is a manifestation of it.
One thing the press could do is to stop giving the autocrats a clean slate every day. E.g., If they are going to report on Trump's latest fabrication, their introductory language should be something like "Compulsive liar and convicted felon Donald Trump claimed today that..."
Context!
More context: “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America,” by award-winning Duke University historian Nancy MacLean.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/books/review/democracy-in-chains-nancy-maclean.html
The shooter’s father “couldn’t be more proud,” a quote that will live in infamy. Books will be written deconstructing Jonathan Ross, his upbringing and his training since, at least in my experience, it’s atypical for a US military veteran to shoot an unarmed mother in the face. These links give some background info. What’s missing is Renee Good saying “I’m not mad at you,” before she was killed. Was “F*cking B*tch” the last thing she heard? https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/01/09/johnathan-ross-ice-killing-renee-good-minneapolis-background. https://www.sacurrent.com/news/ice-shooter-jonathan-ross-reportedly-married-to-filipina-who-immigrated-to-the-u-s/
If “kettling” was a tactic, was this premeditated murder? Here’s what LA Times reported in 2014: “Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers…according to an independent review of 67 cases that resulted in 19 deaths.” Why weren’t we paying attention? They’ve had a dozen years to refine their methods. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227-story.html.
The “wbur” page could not be located
Thanks for the heads up. I think it’s fixed now. I forgot to put a period between the two links.
The NYT sanewashing is despicable.
Defeat the liars. Worthy goal that we are totally failing to achieve.
Right on Margaret. The NY Times seems to have stepped off the ethical cliff. Here's my latest on its coverage of Trump's Greenland threats:
A tale of two meetings: Times tells different story than other media on EU response to Trump's Greenland threats
In its headline and story, Times describes a very different reaction than other news outlets
https://jeffballinger.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-two-meetings-times-tells
Don’t even get me started on NYT. I think Dasani Coates may have been exploited but her story resulted in a Pulitzer. You can guess how receptive NYT is to any queries.
I saw the two ways looking at Good’s murder in Minnesota in the NYT and I was outraged…. Keep up the good work!
I call it the Endless Diner Series.
But they NEVER interview people in diners or anywhere that aren’t MAGA nuts or Republicans. There are plenty of diners in NYC where they could find people like me who are outraged, upset and scared about what Trump is doing, but they rarely interview us anywhere about anything. Țhe Times obsession with the Trump voter is insane.
What is also sadly notable is the severe amount of playing both sides in TV interviews. For example when Jacob Frey, Mayor of Minneapolis, said the "f..." word the media insisted he was escalating things. When interviewers sit with a blank stare while MAGA people filibuster they are condoning what is being said. Jake Tapper is the king of this.