Skip to main content

Press Culpability

One of the largely untold stories of this era has been the culpability of the mainstream press in our current predicament. For at least two decades, the press has turned a blind eye to the insidious Republican takeover of all the levers of power, consistently treating this long descent into lawlessness and lunacy as if it’s all just politics as usual.

What the press has refused to say out loud — in any mainstream media format — is that one of our two major political parties has gone completely off the rails, and is systematically corroding every social, economic, and political structure in its path. You will never hear it said on the air that yes, this mess is entirely the work of one party.

Which it is. It couldn’t be more obvious. It’s certainly well documented. In our hearts, we all know it. You would think it might be worth a mention among the pundits we’re so devoted to hearing from.

But the core pretense — that we’re a nation of upright citizens, soberly discussing the issues of the day in a fair and equitable manner — is being disingenuously broadcast by people we trust to know better.

But because the business model for today’s press requires conflict, and because a conflict demands two sides, and because two sides need — for the sake of “narrative thrust” — to be seen as equally plausible, we hear incessantly how “both sides are to blame.”

The term “both-siderism” (a/k/a “both-sidesism,” a/k/a “false equivalency”) has entered the language for good reason. What it lacks in linguistic elegance it makes up for in utility. It’s a handy term for something that — once you recognize the phenomenon — pops up everywhere you look, in most of what passes for discourse these days.

Both-siderism takes many forms, but the template is well defined: minimize the methodical destruction wrought by Republicans, while exaggerating the most trivial missteps of Democrats.

Play down Trump’s immigrant-bashing. Play up Hillary’s emails. Play down voter suppression, assault on the rule of law, criminal incompetence in a pandemic. Play up Biden’s latest gaffe.

And treat them as equally bad.

In much of our media — NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, and other outlets that aspire to journalism (Fox News doesn’t count) — both-siderism seems to be a fixture of editorial policy.

But wait, you say, I see criticism of Republicans all the time. Yes, you do. But you will never see a Republican pundit called out for lying, no matter how outrageous the whopper. And you will never, ever see a prominent “news” personality call out the Republican party for undermining our entire way of life. They would be off the air in a heartbeat. Even Rachel Maddow — who regularly shows us Republican carnage in real time, and who comes as close as anyone to placing the blame squarely where it belongs — does not cross that line. One can only conclude that she is forbidden to do so.

The effect of this is to permanently tilt the playing field. Because no matter what Republicans do — no matter how naked the power grab, how venal the corruption, how open the cruelty, how bald-faced the lie — we can absolutely count on the press to give them a pass.

Oh, they’ll make disapproving noises. They’ll roll out a pundit, or a news anchor, or an op-ed columnist, or a whole panel of serious-sounding analysts who get paid to be indignant. Inevitably they will wring their hands and lament, with a straight face, how our discourse is always so partisan, and isn’t it such a shame we’re so divided?

And that’s the lie the press is selling. That the country is divided, as opposed to vandalized.

In the name of fairness, they want us to accept that ignorance should carry equal weight in any discussion. That science is subjective. That facts are negotiable. That rule of law is optional. That scoundrels deserve our attention.

These are not things that should be up for discussion. They make a mockery of the values we supposedly share as a nation. Yet we’re told by the press every day that these things have two sides, and that both sides deserve to be heard.

That is simply not true.

Which brings us to the real two sides of the discussion. A discussion we are not, repeat not, having. To our deep detriment.

Because for any issue that’s truly important — for the urgent needs of healthcare, infrastructure, environment, and anything else we’ve ignored for way too long — there are indeed two sides. But only one of them is acting in good faith.

Republicans have shut down all debate. You won’t hear either side of those issues, consequential as they are, discussed anywhere. Since they have no ideas, only an agenda, Republicans know they can’t win any honest discussion. So they refuse to discuss. They deal exclusively in alternative facts. They gaslight in broad daylight. And the press plays right along, pretending it’s nothing.

If you want Republicans on your panel, you have to make believe that they have a valid point. No matter what lie they tell. 

So the big story here is that the people who are supposed to be telling us this big story happen to also be its subjects. So who exactly will tell it? The press?

You see the problem.

 

P.S. For much of the thinking behind this rant, I am indebted to Driftglass and Bluegal, the husband-and-wife podcasting team at The Professional Left. For many years now, they have pointed me to difficult truths with good humor, and with equal parts insight and gusto. I encourage you to sample their wares.

Comments

  1. Thanks for turning me on to Driftglass & Bluegal. I subscribed.

    I object to the extreme generalization about Republicans. I hope that there are still many rank-and-file Republicans of good will, and note that on the national stage, the country still has a handful of influential Republicans of conscience.
    One example is the old conservative blue blood George Will: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-one-should-want-four-more-years-of-this-taste-of-ashes/2020/06/01/1a80ecf4-a425-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Republicans of conscience are nowhere in evidence in either house of Congress, nor in most statehouses. As for the George Will and the other Never Trumpers, their complicity in getting us to this point predates Trump by decades.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does Joe Manchin have Something Up his Sleeve?

A story surfaced last month that I thought would get more traction than it has. When it made The Rachel Maddow Show, I thought it might have some legs. But it’s gone dormant, at least for now. It came from West Virginia, where the United Mine Workers unveiled a startling new plan — almost a manifesto. The union — which represents most of the hard-luck coal miners in West Virginia and Kentucky — admitted what everyone has long known: that coal is on a fast track to oblivion. The union, therefore, is henceforth committing to a transition that phases out fossil fuels and phases in clean energy practices. Yes, you read that right. In return, they’re asking the federal government for generous investments in their states to help them make that transition. They want tax incentives for renewable energy sources, preference in hiring for new jobs, extensive career retraining, and a bunch of other stuff geared towards digging miners out of a very deep hole and putting them, hopefully, on a

The Banality of Grand Juries

I’ve always been taken with the phrase “banality of evil,” and I’ve found it useful in a variety of contexts. But mostly I’ve associated it with my own experience serving on two grand juries. That’s two more than anybody I know. The banality of grand juries derives, not so much from evil as from one its cousins, stupidity, an apt descriptor for the cavalcade of crimes a grand juror routinely encounters. Case after case, crime after crime, day after day, ten or so cases a day. For a month. Almost all the cases are mind-numbingly banal — stupid people doing stupid things quite stupidly. I served in Manhattan, probably in the same courthouse where Trump’s newly appointed grand jury will sit. Different grand juries serve different purposes, and Trump’s will be quite different from either of mine. But the basics are the same. So is the banality. A grand jury is neither grand nor a jury. It’s more like a committee, but with a certain official power. There are sixteen of us on the pan

Let’s Make it a True Daily Double, Uh, Aaron?

As I have, in the last year, pretentiously weighed in on some of the more pressing issues of the Covid Era, any speculation about the future of Jeopardy might well strike my readers as frivolous. I totally agree. Nonetheless, I ask that you indulge me as I veer off my beaten track to acknowledge this fraught crossroads in American cultural history. Let’s be clear about the stakes here. Whoever replaces the late Alex Trebek might well take up a space in your living room — and your 7 p.m. time slot — for the next thirty years. So who will it be? Who will feed us the “final jeopardy answer” going forward? Who will lend sufficient gravitas to making the daily double a true one? These are not small matters. Because in an age of toxic know-nothing-ness — a time of arrogant ignorance and educational dysfunction — Jeopardy is unapologetically intelligent. Unlike any other regularly scheduled event in our culture, Jeopardy celebrates the know-it-all. It’s a safe space for eggheads,