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

Merrick Garland is Living in Mitch McConnell’s Head

Last week, Mitch McConnell voted to confirm Merrick Garland as Attorney General. Twenty Republicans actually crossed the aisle to do the same, an amazing thing in this day and age. But without Mitch, it would’ve been just one more Kamala tie-breaker. The speculation is that this was Mitch’s way of telling Garland — and Joe Biden — that stealing that Supreme Court seat in 2016 was nothing personal. And it wasn’t. I have no doubt Mitch would have tanked anyone Obama nominated. Anything to further vandalize that administration. Garland just happened to be there. But while Mitch surely thinks, in his own head, that it was nothing personal, he knows Joe Biden holds no such illusions. Because when Mitch sabotaged the Garland nomination, he blew a hole through history, full stop. And for Biden that was personal. He was there, in the White House. It’s nothing new that the obstruction of that fifth reasonable voice on the bench was a major disaster, and it only got worse when Trump drew

Four Takeaways from the First Fifty Days

In just fifty days, Joe Biden has taken plenty of us — including me — by surprise. He is clearly rising to the occasion, displaying skills few knew he had. He has learned the trick of under-promising and over-delivering, and when he makes a promise, he knows ahead of time that it’s a sure thing. He also has an apparent gift for delegating the right jobs to the right people. He lets them do their thing while he gives them cover, benignly hovering above the fray. So far, it’s working. Let’s hear it for old white guys with something left in the tank. So the fifty-day mark seems a good time to step back and make a few observations, not so much about Biden, as because of him. Boring but Radical It was Ted Cruz, of all people, who nailed it, albeit unintentionally. In a tweet last week he proclaimed Joe Biden “boring but radical.” He was being nasty, of course, because nasty is all he knows. But to me, it was validation. After four years of total batshit craziness, it turns out b

A Peek Under the Hood at the Koch Agenda

It’s hard to feel sorry for a guy like Kyle McKenzie. Knowing he’s the research director for Stand Together, an advocacy group owned by the Koch family, I’m not inclined to sympathy. But as a former advertising guy, who once sat through too many focus groups to count, I know well how consumer research can undo the best-laid plans. In McKenzie’s case, the plans were to figure out how the Kochs should handle HR1 — the massive voting rights bill now reaching the Senate — where they are once again on the wrong side of history. McKenzie was charged with finding ways to undermine any positive perceptions the public might harbor about making it easy for people to vote. What they were looking for was a message — any message — that might convince the public that the right to vote is overrated. We know this thanks to the amazing Jane Mayer of The New Yorker . Somehow, she obtained this eye-opening audio of a ten-minute conference call, in which McKenzie presents his research findings to