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

Six Things Every American Needs to Know About Trump

  When it comes to Trump, piling on is a civic duty. We cannot afford to allow him even the slightest chance of retaking power. He needs to be overwhelmed. Simon Rosenberg — the veteran political analyst who famously predicted that the Red Wave of 2020 would be the Republican debacle it turned out to be — is urging a practical, grassroots approach to the problem. He is openly optimistic about the Democrats’ prospects this year, but he wants us all to be smart about it. He's especially concerned about getting information to the depressing percentage of the public who have no real grasp of who Trump really is, let alone the clear and present danger he represents. Right now, they are not paying attention, but Rosenberg wants us to be ready when they are, and to have at our command “ The Six Things Americans Are Going To Learn About Trump They Didn’t Know in 2020.” There’s nothing new here, but seeing it in one place is valuable. Think of it as a starter set o

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

The Origin Story of the Pro-Death Movement

  Two weeks ago, I excoriated the New York Times for its heavy hand in election coverage, for compulsively favoring the horserace over the survival of the American Experiment. Of course, no sooner had I done that then they published the sort of eye-opening exposé that few journalistic organizations have the resources to pull off anymore. Which only served to underscore what we’ve been missing from the Times in this year of hair-raising silliness. It was a long and depressing article about the behind-the-scenes machinations that led to the fall of Roe v. Wade . It tells of a loose but vast movement of religious zealots, reactionary lawyers, and red-state legislators who saw the election of Donald Trump as the moment they’d been waiting for. Think of them as the pro-death movement: [T]hey had built an elite legal and ideological ecosystem of activists, organizations, lawmakers and pro bono lawyers around their cause. Their policy arms churned out legal argument