As a former Canadian TV news executive and print journalist and editor I am appalled by the news coverage of Trump. It is disturbing to see what is happening to journalistic standards and principles because they have been thrown out the window. One of the most important standards- is it news, is it relevant, is it important- are all gone. The same constant lies by Trump are covered endlessly, largely in part because the 24 hour news channels have this voracious appetite for “new” news items or that “phony” self hyped term - Breaking News. All of it feeds off each other with social media pickup what’s on the news channels and when it gathers steam the mainstream media picks it up. In the meantime the most important principle in journalism-judgement has gone the way of the dodo bird. Judgement that once indicated, no we are not covering that presser, that rally, etc. because it’s been stated over and over again, but that exactly that’s what the media is doing in its coverage with Trump.
Oh, hallelujah! I would have been fired from my job at a medium-sized daily newspaper if I had tolerated the lies that reporters pass on to us from news sources now--even those running for office despite proving their inability to distinguish fact from fiction. Thank you for blowing the whistle.
I worked eight years for a small-sized weekly. Same deal there -- and I'm pretty sure that if anyone had even tried to sneak a lie (or even a questionable "fact") into a story, it wouldn't have made it out of the newsroom. Everything got read by at least at least one editor (and usually two) and a proofreader before it went to press. (I wish I could say the same thing for typos, but hey . . . <g>)
still pondering the peculiarities of how a bunch of mostly smart people, like editorial management at the Times, manage to hang onto what they clearly think is the admirable high ground of their continued neutrality, which as that editor himself points out, is not where most of the American people are. somehow these bright people manage to shield themselves psychologically from what I'd think would be constant nagging thoughts challenging their assumption. yet they remain committed to it, and from their tone it's obvious how superior they feel for doing so.
it would be a fascinating case of institutional hubris if it weren't aiding and abetting the collapse of democracy.
Fox News did a far better job fact checking Tim Walz than MSM has done against Trump/ Vance... During both Walz interviews on Fox, Shannon Bream inserted a "closing" counter response to nearly everything Walz said. She lied, spun, and generalized Fox's pro-Trump talking points to rescind every fact Walz put out, and, most importantly, she got the last word on all topics. Fox is pure propaganda for the right, and there is no comparable media force on the left. If Trump gets re-elected and takes us the way of Germany in the late 30s, historians will accurately ascribe America's fall to media's failure.
Amen. Preach on, Brother. As a now-retired newspaper journalist, I cannot understand why news organizations continue to provide aid and comfort to those who aim to kill not just democracy but news organizations and truth itself. Maybe Andy Borowitz is right: The New York Times is being edited by Sean Hannity.
Exactly the truth. MSM headlines, and in the body of articles about the fpotus, rarely, if ever, say what is real. "Fpotus lied again today about immigrants eating pets". "Vance repeatedly refuses to say fpotus lost the last election; he is sabotaging trust in elections". The both sides-ism is enabling a Republican duo presidential ticket to revel in fascism. Whenever fpotus or his spokespersons call Harris a "communist, Marxist, fascist", do not leave the lie hanging in the air; call it out immediately as a fear propaganda tool. When reporting on a fpotus rally or "town hall", do not sane-wash gibberish. Report verbatim what he says, all of it, and point out the absurdity, nonsense, incoherence, and lies. MSM does this detailed kind of reporting on Harris far more than on the fpotus. Democracies have turned autauthoritarian because truth tellers feared retribution. If truth telling is done from the start, over and over, journalists are doing their job, and authoritarianism willl not gain traction.
The lies themselves are the story. At this point they’re the only story. But nine years after Trump waddled down the escalator there still hasn’t been a “Gee Trump lies a lot, let’s talk about why” story in the NYT—which ran such stories about Al Gore on a daily basis for months, so don’t tell me they can’t do it.
And I know the standard faux-sophisticated defense is “all politicians lie.” No they don’t. Rosy predictions that don’t pan out are not lies. (To be scrupulously, NYT-style fair, for example, “We’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it” was not a lie.) It’s not the same category.
As Margaret Sullivan wrote, "In sanewashing Trump’s rantings, the media is simply not doing its job at the most basic level of reporting the facts truthfully." See Sullivan's substack, American Crisis, for another example of truthful criticism (pun intended)
They seem to see it as a mutual aid association. He lies, they cover it. They cover it,he lies. Rinse, repeat. The press is broken and we have find a way to fix it if we want to keep a democracy.
As long as today's "journalists" -- given the nature of so much reporting today, actually calling them journalists is, I think, a misnomer -- act as if "bothsidesism" is objective reporting, they will continue to enable lies and propaganda. They started doing so before Trump, never, it seemed, informed enough on subjects and issues to call out Republicans on their lies. I once heard a senior NYT editor say in an NPR discussion on the subject that he believed it was balanced and objective to "respectfully" allow both sides equal time without challenges or questions. "Let the public decide," he said. How the H can the public decide if they are not given factual information and lies are not pointed out?
As a former Canadian TV news executive and print journalist and editor I am appalled by the news coverage of Trump. It is disturbing to see what is happening to journalistic standards and principles because they have been thrown out the window. One of the most important standards- is it news, is it relevant, is it important- are all gone. The same constant lies by Trump are covered endlessly, largely in part because the 24 hour news channels have this voracious appetite for “new” news items or that “phony” self hyped term - Breaking News. All of it feeds off each other with social media pickup what’s on the news channels and when it gathers steam the mainstream media picks it up. In the meantime the most important principle in journalism-judgement has gone the way of the dodo bird. Judgement that once indicated, no we are not covering that presser, that rally, etc. because it’s been stated over and over again, but that exactly that’s what the media is doing in its coverage with Trump.
Oh, hallelujah! I would have been fired from my job at a medium-sized daily newspaper if I had tolerated the lies that reporters pass on to us from news sources now--even those running for office despite proving their inability to distinguish fact from fiction. Thank you for blowing the whistle.
I worked eight years for a small-sized weekly. Same deal there -- and I'm pretty sure that if anyone had even tried to sneak a lie (or even a questionable "fact") into a story, it wouldn't have made it out of the newsroom. Everything got read by at least at least one editor (and usually two) and a proofreader before it went to press. (I wish I could say the same thing for typos, but hey . . . <g>)
News used to be a public service. Now it’s a corporate business, and lies make more money than truth. How do we fix it? Can it even be fixed?
Corporate media is in the bag for Trump. The irony is that if trump wins he will kill corporate media immediately.
first-rate column today, Mark, thank you.
still pondering the peculiarities of how a bunch of mostly smart people, like editorial management at the Times, manage to hang onto what they clearly think is the admirable high ground of their continued neutrality, which as that editor himself points out, is not where most of the American people are. somehow these bright people manage to shield themselves psychologically from what I'd think would be constant nagging thoughts challenging their assumption. yet they remain committed to it, and from their tone it's obvious how superior they feel for doing so.
it would be a fascinating case of institutional hubris if it weren't aiding and abetting the collapse of democracy.
Fox News did a far better job fact checking Tim Walz than MSM has done against Trump/ Vance... During both Walz interviews on Fox, Shannon Bream inserted a "closing" counter response to nearly everything Walz said. She lied, spun, and generalized Fox's pro-Trump talking points to rescind every fact Walz put out, and, most importantly, she got the last word on all topics. Fox is pure propaganda for the right, and there is no comparable media force on the left. If Trump gets re-elected and takes us the way of Germany in the late 30s, historians will accurately ascribe America's fall to media's failure.
Amen. Preach on, Brother. As a now-retired newspaper journalist, I cannot understand why news organizations continue to provide aid and comfort to those who aim to kill not just democracy but news organizations and truth itself. Maybe Andy Borowitz is right: The New York Times is being edited by Sean Hannity.
Exactly the truth. MSM headlines, and in the body of articles about the fpotus, rarely, if ever, say what is real. "Fpotus lied again today about immigrants eating pets". "Vance repeatedly refuses to say fpotus lost the last election; he is sabotaging trust in elections". The both sides-ism is enabling a Republican duo presidential ticket to revel in fascism. Whenever fpotus or his spokespersons call Harris a "communist, Marxist, fascist", do not leave the lie hanging in the air; call it out immediately as a fear propaganda tool. When reporting on a fpotus rally or "town hall", do not sane-wash gibberish. Report verbatim what he says, all of it, and point out the absurdity, nonsense, incoherence, and lies. MSM does this detailed kind of reporting on Harris far more than on the fpotus. Democracies have turned autauthoritarian because truth tellers feared retribution. If truth telling is done from the start, over and over, journalists are doing their job, and authoritarianism willl not gain traction.
The lies themselves are the story. At this point they’re the only story. But nine years after Trump waddled down the escalator there still hasn’t been a “Gee Trump lies a lot, let’s talk about why” story in the NYT—which ran such stories about Al Gore on a daily basis for months, so don’t tell me they can’t do it.
And I know the standard faux-sophisticated defense is “all politicians lie.” No they don’t. Rosy predictions that don’t pan out are not lies. (To be scrupulously, NYT-style fair, for example, “We’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it” was not a lie.) It’s not the same category.
As Margaret Sullivan wrote, "In sanewashing Trump’s rantings, the media is simply not doing its job at the most basic level of reporting the facts truthfully." See Sullivan's substack, American Crisis, for another example of truthful criticism (pun intended)
Yes, this is exactly it. The press fails us daily, and it's a grave danger to democracy. Thank you for this well reasoned article.
They seem to see it as a mutual aid association. He lies, they cover it. They cover it,he lies. Rinse, repeat. The press is broken and we have find a way to fix it if we want to keep a democracy.
As long as today's "journalists" -- given the nature of so much reporting today, actually calling them journalists is, I think, a misnomer -- act as if "bothsidesism" is objective reporting, they will continue to enable lies and propaganda. They started doing so before Trump, never, it seemed, informed enough on subjects and issues to call out Republicans on their lies. I once heard a senior NYT editor say in an NPR discussion on the subject that he believed it was balanced and objective to "respectfully" allow both sides equal time without challenges or questions. "Let the public decide," he said. How the H can the public decide if they are not given factual information and lies are not pointed out?
I think the MSM has just become irrelevant.
If only they would do the right thing.
Also stop reporting “what he meant”.