Skip to main content

One More Atrocious Electoral Performance — From the Media

For me, the biggest surprise is how surprised they all were.

Did the mainstream press really believe its own bullshit? Or were they just pretending to believe it?

Let’s call out The New York Times and The Washington Post by name. Not because they’re better or worse than any of the other pushers of supposedly reputable journalism, but because they, of all people, should know better.

They assured us that the midterms were about three things, and three only: inflation, gas prices, crime. Exactly the crap Republicans were peddling.

And when they weren’t obsessing on those, they always found time to point out Biden’s low approval numbers — as if those numbers weren’t juiced by fraudulent polling, and by relentless rightwing assaults on his “failed presidency.” There were endless stories about those feckless Democrats, always in disarray, who were never quite able to “work across the aisle” with stochastic terrorists openly plotting to kill them.

Democracy? Abortion? Climate? Guns?  Sure, they told us, people think about that stuff, but those aren’t “kitchen table” issues. As if Republicans have given a single thought to a kitchen-table issue in half a century.

The press knew it was all bullshit, and they pushed it anyway. They needed the horse race, and to keep that horse race interesting they needed to pretend both sides were legitimate, that one side wasn’t holding a lit fuse to what’s left of democracy.

Of course, they were helped in their beliefs, both by the gamed “junk” polling of recent weeks, and by the bombastic braying of Republicans taking victory laps in advance of losing.

But were they so sealed in their Acela-corridor echo chamber that they couldn’t see the glaring evidence to the contrary, staring them right in the face? Evidence that refuted every narrative they were pushing? Evidence that was being routinely reported even in their own publications?

They’d all reported on the Kansas abortion referendum — last summer’s electoral primal scream from women outraged at the Dobbs decision — which dramatically foreshadowed everything that happened last week.

They’d reported on the record registration numbers, both for women and for Gen Z first-time voters, and they shared our amazement when those numbers obliterated records from previous years.

They’d reported on the surge in early voting, and the long lines of people waiting to do it, despite the cruel obstacles erected by red-state legislatures.

They’d even done a few stories on “candidate quality,” their euphemism for seditious idiots from out on the fringes, dangerously unfit to hold office.

So how, after all this solid reporting, did they add it all together and come up with a red wave? What was the editorial strategy that pushed them to simply ignore stories — even their own — that didn’t fit the desired narrative? Who decided what that narrative should be, anyway? Does that person still have a job?

For me, this cognitive dissonance was unsettling, because I was seeing a lot of the same material they were — minus the junk polls — and getting a very different picture.

I know I’m not alone. I saw plenty of cause for optimism in the run-up to Election Day, from people who were reading the same stuff I was. But such is the power of the mainstream press that they had us doubting the evidence of our own eyes.

Yet at the same time, we could see what they were doing. We could recognize the skewed headlines that signaled a deceptive slant to the articles. We didn’t even have to read the article to know where it was going, which was always to the classic horse race: feckless Democrats, underdog Republicans.

(For a really good sampling of those headlines, see this op-ed by Dana Milbank in the Post. Yes, that Post. Yes, I get the irony.)

Of course, they haven’t stopped. The post-mortems in the last week are just as disingenuous. The Times, in an article late last week, has Republicans wondering what went wrong, whether it was “…poor candidates, an overheated message or the electoral anchor that appeared to be dragging the GOP down, former President Donald J. Trump.”

While the answer was surely all three, the article once again sidesteps the biggest reason, the reason no member of the press will touch: that the whole GOP is unhinged, and you’d have to be unhinged yourself not to acknowledge it. This is not a drill. We need the press to take these unhinged people seriously.

It’s not that these news outlets don’t have columnists licensed to call out the craziness. It’s just that their daily reporting — the basic news we need as citizens — is letting us down. Even now they continue to cling to the “both sides” narrative, to the point where they risk the very democracy that keeps them in business.

Do they not know what happens to the press when democracy collapses? Do they really think when the fascists take over they can just seamlessly morph into some American version of Tass or RT? Sadly, a lot of them will.

The dust still hasn’t settled on this election. We may yet lose the House, though that seems a less dire outcome than it felt like a week ago.

But win or lose, I’m not alone in feeling deeply misled, and by no means for the first time, by news sources that we have no choice but to trust. Which makes it really alarming that they’re so untrustworthy.

The press has come up way short, and the country is much the worse for it. Trump was horrifyingly wrong to call it the “enemy of the people.” But it hasn’t been much of a friend lately, either.


Comments

  1. I sometimes wonder if they say that the GOP has a chance so that the people who can help defeat them don't become complacent. Of course, if that were the case, you could argue that they are manipulating the outcome with disingenuous reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "stochastic terrorists", "bombastic braying" Great words that engender crystal clear images. Thank you for using our language as it should be...reminding me once again why I love books and radio over pictorial media. "The pictures are in my head"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I once did a promotional video for myself, entitled "Who Needs a Picture When You Could Have a Thousand Words?"

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Mainstream Media Continues to Disappoint

  Since I began this blog in 2020, one of my obsessions has been the culpability of the press in our current political predicament. Given the stakes we face this year, I feel we all need to be reminded that these mainstream news organizations are necessary, but not sufficient. Accordingly, I am revisiting this piece, which I wrote last May, because it’s particularly illustrative of the problem, especially in its depiction of The Washington Post’s shameful spinning of the final Durham Report.   The awkward term "both-siderism" has, at long last, stepped into the limelight, thanks to the graceful gravitas of CNN icon Christiane Amanpour (full disclosure: our dog used to play with her dog). In one brilliant commencement address , to the Columbia School of Journalism, she dope-slapped her own profession and, indeed, her own boss, both of whom richly deserved it. That takes guts, not to mention a reputation for integrity. Both of which she has in abundance.

Is Nikki Haley Working on a Take-Down of Trump?

  Every now and then I like to engage in a bit of speculation. Not prediction, mind you, but something hopefully less presumptuous. In this case, I’ve been musing about Nikki Haley’s path forward, if she has one. Not whether she’ll win the nomination, which is unlikely. I’m more interested in her potential as an irritant, as a person ideally positioned to tamper with Trump’s fragile psyche. She now has the unmistakable opportunity to attack Trump from inside the Fox media bubble, something few have been able to do. Haley just might be the focus of a novel strategy that does two things at once: It holds the door open for the slim chance she has of winning the nomination this summer, while at the same time, it lays the groundwork for a 2028 run at the presidency. Given the debased state of today’s Republican party, this is surely as good a strategy as any, though it risks doing more for Joe Biden than for her. More on this later. For now, let’s presume that ther

What Could Be Worse than the Dobbs Decision?

  I’ve tried to be a bit more optimistic in my posts of late. I’ve focused on the evidence — of which there’s plenty — that maybe Trump and the Republican party are driving themselves, as opposed to us, off a cliff. The politics of preserving democracy have indeed been somewhat encouraging, especially when one considers the virtually unbeaten record of Democrats in every election since the fall of Roe v. Wade . I’d like nothing more than to give up the gloom-and-doom thing on a permanent basis. But not today. Today, once again, I have to bum us all out. I have to tell you about one of those boring and esoteric legal issues that tend to slip right by us, but which, in this case, carries a level of threat arguably more alarming even than the tanking of Roe . Once again, the Supreme Court is up to no good, and it has nothing to do with the criminality of Donald Trump. One of the decisions they’re cooking up for this June could dwarf the Dobbs decision, both in