News outlets over-rely on the phrase ‘critics say,’ this critic says

Journalists do a disservice to the public when they’re afraid to state facts.

A lot of today’s journalists are scared of facts.

They don't like to state things as flat-out true. They’d rather play it safe and employ a cop-out phrase like “observers say” or “critics claim,” even when the facts are not in serious doubt.

It’s a common issue in political journalism – whether to state something as objectively true or put an assertion “in someone else’s mouth.” The problem is that when journalists attribute a known fact to “critics,” it diminishes that fact, turning it into a mere opinion. And that benefits the bad guys.

Here’s a recent ABC News headline: “Trump has taken steps to make his campaign promise to seek 'retribution' reality, critics say.”

Really, ABC? Trump has sicced federal investigators on many people who have investigated him and contradicted his lies. But that’s not enough evidence for you? Pro tip: If you can cut the words “critics say” and it’s still undoubtedly true, then you should cut the words “critics say.”

Last year, CNN wrote a headline stating, “Florida residents can no longer elect to change their gender on their driver’s license. Critics say the policy targets transgender people.”

After complaints on social media, CNN changed that second sentence to: “Transgender people feel targeted by the policy.”

Still not good enough. The policy did target transgender people. They weren’t imagining things. Who else would the policy have targeted? Cartoon characters at Disney World?

I’ve joked about the New York Times having a “euphemism desk” that removes the word “lies” and replaces it with phrases like “a penchant for dispensing with the facts.” In a similar way, I wonder if the Times runs its headlines through software that actually softens them – that undersells the reporting with couched language like “critics say.”

Last year, the Times wrote about the corruption of Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban, seen by many right-wing Americans as a model authoritarian. A subhead said: “A beacon for ‘anti-woke’ conservatives abroad, Prime Minister Viktor Orban keeps his grip at home by doling out cash, critics say.”

The story was all about Orban keeping his grip at home while doling out cash. Yes, critics said it, but so did the New York Times reporter in the story itself, referring to Orban’s “rewards-for-loyalty program.”

Another cowardly dodge by fear-of-facts journalists is the phrase “widely seen.”

In writing last year about Mark Robinson, the Republican nominee for North Carolina governor, the Times said: “He has made comments widely seen as antisemitic.”

Robinson is a Holocaust denier who believes Jews are among the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (with Muslims, China, and the CIA). So is the phrase “widely seen” really necessary? Can’t we just say Robinson has made antisemitic comments?

I’m not saying “widely seen” is always wrong. News outlets were being fair when they said Kamala Harris was “widely seen” as winning her debate with Trump. There was no independent scorekeeping; it was a widespread opinion. But Robinson’s antisemitism isn’t an opinion.

As the Trump threat against our freedoms becomes ever more alarming and stark, you might think that media mush-mouthing would cease. But instead, it keeps getting worse.

Last week, the Washington Post wrote about Trump’s talk of a third term as president:

Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy, smartly noted the media’s disturbing evolution. “A year ago,” he wrote, “the subhead here would have said ‘which is expressly forbidden by the constitution.’ But Trump floats a crazy assertion and then WaPo retreats to saying ‘which most legal scholars say …’”

This type of journalism is widely seen as cowardice, at least by critics like me.

---

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.