Of course, they will follow none of this. Chaos, controversy, agitation, unrest, threats of violence, actual violence, sell. As simple as that. They will keep trump on the front pages and on our screens for as long as he draws interest. The more absurd, delirious, lewd, angry, cruel, aggressive, threatening, and treasonous he is, the better. Let's all pray he loses big. He will still be out there howling at the moon, but at some point, the rats will begin to leave the ship.
Thank you for the point-by-point description of what responsible election coverage looks like. Election coverage has been so awful that it's a challenge to imagine what it *should* be. I have no hope that most of the non-right-wing media will get their act together this election cycle, but going forward? Maybe. I'm somewhat encouraged that more commentators are calling out the GOP program for its anti-democratic nature and even using the f-word (the one with 7 letters, not the 4-letter one) in connection with Trump. OTOH, Project 2025 isn't exactly subtle, and the MSG rally was even less so.
I would add this: Given Trump's litany of lies about the 2020 election, which to this day continue, no claim he makes should be repeated unless accompanied by verifiable proof. Take the position that factual claims must be based on evidence. Refuse to repeat such claims in the absence of the evidence relied upon by the person making the claim. Check the evidence to verify that it is reliable.
Failure to do this opens the media to easy manipulation by Trump.
And the disproof of the blatant lies and distortions shouldn't be buried 7 or 8 paragraphs down. This makes me crazier than almost anything else. Most people don't get that far down in the story.
This is a big ask for the MSM, as trafficking in tRump election/voting lies drives reader/viewer engagement, and if tRump and the campaign announce he's the winner at 8pm EST, well, you bet the media will play along...after all, tRump virtually guaranteed that what he'll do, and rather than spend precious time and resources rebutting the sheer inanity of his claims, the media will just run with it, at least initially, until it's obvious that Harris is winning conclusively, and then and only then will tRump be called out for his lies.
Old habits are hard to break, and the tRump addiction has been the worst of all those habits.
Excellent advice but it in future it might be wise to avoid stereotypical names such as Bobby Joe and Wanda May when describing Southern election workers.
Mark, maybe you can answer this question. I've never understood the attention that the networks get for "calling" the election for a candidate. Who cares what they say? Surely the votes will be tallied and they'll have to change their call if it's wrong. But if Fox says that Trump wins every state, does that have meaning? Why did the Trump people get all up in arms over Fox calling Arizona for Trump in 2020, as even if they'd not done so, the facts would have been that Biden won? If there is some legitimacy given to a network's early declarations, what kind of demented system is this?
Heidi, the networks get that attention because that's what the overwhelming majority of viewers/listeners are waiting for. I sure don't tune in to listen to the blather of talking heads. OK, I am interested in the commentary of a handful of generally well-informed and perceptive talking heads, but the rest of it is just filler.
I agree. Make sure we personally refute /dispute lies, half truths and other suggestive comments emails, communications of any kind made to us, either in person email, letter, conversations, presentations, zoom calls wherever they occur. Call them out succinctly, as factually as you can, cite sources if you must, but make sure there is a dialog that cuts it off right where it is presented. Too many of us sit quietly, try to resolve/dispute claims in private instead of making public negations of public comments. If it is public, say NO to it out loud in public. Also, make sure you are clear about facts, names and point out the nebulous talks and sources which are open for interpretation. This vague doublespeak is on purpose and effective when a liar needs audience participation to 'fill in the blank', and this has worked for many a person seeking power over those who do not want to think for themselves, but will fill in their hopes when they are tossed partially cooked phrases for them to grasp onto. Most of these false narratives come from feelings and beliefs not facts. If you can, listen to these people letting them know they are heard, find common ground ask them their real values and principles, those that you can agree on, or acknowledge that they are valid for them (or both of you), and work from there. You may just find that eventually they see that there are other approaches than the ones they have been choosing, but this takes a long time and it is WORK! (and is hard to listen to their gibberish until they run out of it all!). Phew - we have lots of work ahead of us all..
Terrific advice for all election journalists. Hopefully most MSM read and incorporate all the points. They are antithetical to the Murdoch Fox agenda, which is all the more reason for the rest of mainstream media to follow Mark Jacob’s guidelines. Thanks Mark, for spelling out so clearly how and why to respond to maga claims.
I suppose my ire is such that I’d like to see more accountability to those who have perpetrated all the disinformation that has so infected our populous. Especially within the R-party that knows better, but, seemingly could care less about the damage done. Cowards, all.
The mass corporate media has proven to be not only ineffective in fighting fascism, the MSM has been complicit in supporting fascism with false equivalents and both-sidesism.
Unless the Corporate Media steps up for American ideals of E pluribus unum the United States will fall to the RW Christo Fascists.
America needs to close the book on Trumpism once and for all.
If he can lie and try to make fools out of Americian citizens with his fake AK-47 round to his ear story, he has absolutely NO CREDABILITY at all! NONE!!!
Thanks for this. Well done. These rules highlight the tension between the media's need for attention and its mission to inform by reporting accurately and with context. With respect to #1, I'd just add that reporting either candidate as "ahead" early in the count distorts the truth and invites drama. As long as there is a material number of uncounted ballots, there is no way to know who is "ahead." The modeling can offer insights, but conclusions based on it are just informed guesses. Nobody is "ahead" or "leading" until it's no longer "too early to call." (credit a guest on MSNBC whose name I missed)
Naturally, like Trump, there was the clip played on CNN of Kari Lake saying she'll only concede if she loses if she thinks it was a fair election.
How did these folks even get through middle school, much less life?
The media lets them get away with that "caveat" without any pushback or inquiry or challenge. It's unprofessional and a harm to our democratic processes.
Harris or Walz should come out one minute after the polls close in California and say something like this; “It is lookin good. We are on a track to win this election. But we will not claim victory until the votes are counted and reported, probably some time tomorrow. If Donald Trump or anyone else comes out to claim victory, it’s a lie. Plain and simple. This has been a fair, accurate, safe, and secure election and that is a fact. Anything else is a lie. We’ll see you tomorrow. “ The idea is to pre-empt Trump to prevent what he did 4 years ago. A similar strategy has been used by the US against Russia in Ukraine. Publicize deceitful actions before they take place.
Of course, they will follow none of this. Chaos, controversy, agitation, unrest, threats of violence, actual violence, sell. As simple as that. They will keep trump on the front pages and on our screens for as long as he draws interest. The more absurd, delirious, lewd, angry, cruel, aggressive, threatening, and treasonous he is, the better. Let's all pray he loses big. He will still be out there howling at the moon, but at some point, the rats will begin to leave the ship.
Thank you for the point-by-point description of what responsible election coverage looks like. Election coverage has been so awful that it's a challenge to imagine what it *should* be. I have no hope that most of the non-right-wing media will get their act together this election cycle, but going forward? Maybe. I'm somewhat encouraged that more commentators are calling out the GOP program for its anti-democratic nature and even using the f-word (the one with 7 letters, not the 4-letter one) in connection with Trump. OTOH, Project 2025 isn't exactly subtle, and the MSG rally was even less so.
I would add this: Given Trump's litany of lies about the 2020 election, which to this day continue, no claim he makes should be repeated unless accompanied by verifiable proof. Take the position that factual claims must be based on evidence. Refuse to repeat such claims in the absence of the evidence relied upon by the person making the claim. Check the evidence to verify that it is reliable.
Failure to do this opens the media to easy manipulation by Trump.
And the disproof of the blatant lies and distortions shouldn't be buried 7 or 8 paragraphs down. This makes me crazier than almost anything else. Most people don't get that far down in the story.
This is a big ask for the MSM, as trafficking in tRump election/voting lies drives reader/viewer engagement, and if tRump and the campaign announce he's the winner at 8pm EST, well, you bet the media will play along...after all, tRump virtually guaranteed that what he'll do, and rather than spend precious time and resources rebutting the sheer inanity of his claims, the media will just run with it, at least initially, until it's obvious that Harris is winning conclusively, and then and only then will tRump be called out for his lies.
Old habits are hard to break, and the tRump addiction has been the worst of all those habits.
Excellent advice but it in future it might be wise to avoid stereotypical names such as Bobby Joe and Wanda May when describing Southern election workers.
Thank you for spelling this issue out in such clear detail, Mark.
It is critically important that our media outlets cast light on what is happening, rather than reflecting lies.
Mark, maybe you can answer this question. I've never understood the attention that the networks get for "calling" the election for a candidate. Who cares what they say? Surely the votes will be tallied and they'll have to change their call if it's wrong. But if Fox says that Trump wins every state, does that have meaning? Why did the Trump people get all up in arms over Fox calling Arizona for Trump in 2020, as even if they'd not done so, the facts would have been that Biden won? If there is some legitimacy given to a network's early declarations, what kind of demented system is this?
Heidi, the networks get that attention because that's what the overwhelming majority of viewers/listeners are waiting for. I sure don't tune in to listen to the blather of talking heads. OK, I am interested in the commentary of a handful of generally well-informed and perceptive talking heads, but the rest of it is just filler.
I agree. Make sure we personally refute /dispute lies, half truths and other suggestive comments emails, communications of any kind made to us, either in person email, letter, conversations, presentations, zoom calls wherever they occur. Call them out succinctly, as factually as you can, cite sources if you must, but make sure there is a dialog that cuts it off right where it is presented. Too many of us sit quietly, try to resolve/dispute claims in private instead of making public negations of public comments. If it is public, say NO to it out loud in public. Also, make sure you are clear about facts, names and point out the nebulous talks and sources which are open for interpretation. This vague doublespeak is on purpose and effective when a liar needs audience participation to 'fill in the blank', and this has worked for many a person seeking power over those who do not want to think for themselves, but will fill in their hopes when they are tossed partially cooked phrases for them to grasp onto. Most of these false narratives come from feelings and beliefs not facts. If you can, listen to these people letting them know they are heard, find common ground ask them their real values and principles, those that you can agree on, or acknowledge that they are valid for them (or both of you), and work from there. You may just find that eventually they see that there are other approaches than the ones they have been choosing, but this takes a long time and it is WORK! (and is hard to listen to their gibberish until they run out of it all!). Phew - we have lots of work ahead of us all..
Terrific advice for all election journalists. Hopefully most MSM read and incorporate all the points. They are antithetical to the Murdoch Fox agenda, which is all the more reason for the rest of mainstream media to follow Mark Jacob’s guidelines. Thanks Mark, for spelling out so clearly how and why to respond to maga claims.
Sadly, mischief and lies sell better.
Nice summation, Mark. Thank You.
I suppose my ire is such that I’d like to see more accountability to those who have perpetrated all the disinformation that has so infected our populous. Especially within the R-party that knows better, but, seemingly could care less about the damage done. Cowards, all.
Enough is ENOUGH!
The mass corporate media has proven to be not only ineffective in fighting fascism, the MSM has been complicit in supporting fascism with false equivalents and both-sidesism.
Unless the Corporate Media steps up for American ideals of E pluribus unum the United States will fall to the RW Christo Fascists.
America needs to close the book on Trumpism once and for all.
If he can lie and try to make fools out of Americian citizens with his fake AK-47 round to his ear story, he has absolutely NO CREDABILITY at all! NONE!!!
Thanks for this. Well done. These rules highlight the tension between the media's need for attention and its mission to inform by reporting accurately and with context. With respect to #1, I'd just add that reporting either candidate as "ahead" early in the count distorts the truth and invites drama. As long as there is a material number of uncounted ballots, there is no way to know who is "ahead." The modeling can offer insights, but conclusions based on it are just informed guesses. Nobody is "ahead" or "leading" until it's no longer "too early to call." (credit a guest on MSNBC whose name I missed)
Naturally, like Trump, there was the clip played on CNN of Kari Lake saying she'll only concede if she loses if she thinks it was a fair election.
How did these folks even get through middle school, much less life?
The media lets them get away with that "caveat" without any pushback or inquiry or challenge. It's unprofessional and a harm to our democratic processes.
Harris or Walz should come out one minute after the polls close in California and say something like this; “It is lookin good. We are on a track to win this election. But we will not claim victory until the votes are counted and reported, probably some time tomorrow. If Donald Trump or anyone else comes out to claim victory, it’s a lie. Plain and simple. This has been a fair, accurate, safe, and secure election and that is a fact. Anything else is a lie. We’ll see you tomorrow. “ The idea is to pre-empt Trump to prevent what he did 4 years ago. A similar strategy has been used by the US against Russia in Ukraine. Publicize deceitful actions before they take place.