The complicity of the media.

November 9, 2023

          Most of the time, it does little good to rant about the media. But today, it matters. The media is exhibiting bias and incompetence to a degree that can only be described as complicity in Donald Trump's second attempt at a coup. Their complicity matters because it confounds and demoralizes Americans who are doing their best to defend democracy against the greatest threat it has faced in 150 years.

          On Wednesday, there was one big story: The president’s party “ran the table” in Tuesday’s elections as Republicans doubled down on policies that are antidemocratic, racist, and misogynistic. Many media outlets gave the obligatory nod to the Democrats’ victory in a “Just the fact, Ma’am” fashion. But the media could not wait to pivot to the “Biden is old” and “But, but . . . inflation!” narrative. Journalists have consumed the anti-Biden Cool Aid in copious quantities.

          Before I proceed further, let me skip ahead to the solution: You and me. We must become the medium and the message. We can no longer hope for help from major media outlets in speaking the truth about the danger that Donald Trump poses. It is true that there are exceptions, even in the pages of irresponsible major media outlets. But from an editorial policy perspective, the major outlets have decided to push the “Biden is old” and “inflation is out of control” stories to maximize profits—even if it breaks our democracy..

          So, it’s you and me, buddy! Or rather, it is all of us. We must be messengers for Biden and Democrats. We must prod and correct media outlets that act recklessly in normalizing Trump while they choose—as an editorial policy—to dismiss, diminish, and mock Joe Biden and his supporters.

          Yesterday, a reader sent a note complaining that I was “Preaching to the choir.” Guilty as charged! My response to the reader’s criticism is that we need to make “the choir” so big that we overwhelm the negative narrative spun by the media.

          We must write the narrative, not the media. You can help by spreading the words of Heather Cox Richardson, Jessica Craven, Simon Rosenberg, Joyce Vance, Jay Kuo, Judd Legum, Thom Hartmann, Lucian Truscott, Robert Reich, and me (and others) from Substack. (Don’t stop there; there are many other important voices on Substack.)  Also, the writers at The Bulwark (Charlie Sykes, Jonathan Last et al.) are by our side every step of the way.

          Promote, praise, and support opinion writers like Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, Ian Millhiser at Vox, Politics Girl on YouTube, Rebecca Solnit at The Guardian, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, and Dennis Aftergut and Larry Tribe wherever they choose to write. And if you are a brave soul still competing on Elon Musk’s “hellish landscape,” be a warrior for truth.

          So, what has prompted my harsh criticism of major media a day after Democrats’ incredible victories on Tuesday?

          Let’s take the New York Times. It featured an “above the fold, column one” headline, “Abortion Rights Fuel Big Democratic Wins, and Hopes for 2024.” Fair enough. But the online version of the Times featured this “discussion” among alleged experts on page one, under the headline: Opinion | ‘He’s 80 Years Old, and That Colors Every Impression Voters Have’: Three Writers Dish on Biden and the G.O.P. Debate.

          The three writers “dishing” on Joe Biden were Frank Bruni, Nate Silver (founder of FiveThirtyEight), and Katherine Mangu-Ward. Here is how their “dishing discussion” started (with minor edits for brevity):

Frank Bruni: Should Biden at this late stage consider not pursuing re-election? Would that likely help or hurt the Democrats in winning the White House? And if not Biden, who would give the party the best chance? Nate, let’s start with you.

Nate Silver: . . . I think whether Democrats would be better off if Biden dropped out is very much an open question — which is kind of a remarkable thing to be saying at this late stage. There’s a whole cottage industry devoted to trying to figure out why Biden doesn’t get more credit on the economy, for instance. And the answer might just be that he’s 80 years old, and that colors every impression voters have of him.

Katherine Mangu-Ward: The voters in these polls just seem to be screaming, ‘He’s too old, and I feel poor!’

          Gosh! It’s almost like the thumping Biden gave Republicans on Tuesday didn’t happen. And for a smart guy, Nate Silver should be able to figure out “Why Biden doesn’t get more credit on the economy.” Since Nate is apparently flummoxed, I will help him out: It is because “experts” like Nate Silver obsess over his age and price inflation to the exclusion of Biden’s historic accomplishments.

          And in case the Times’ editorial slant isn’t clear from the above, the Times’ chief political analyst Nate Cohn (not Nate Silver) doubled down on his pre-election op-ed trashing Joe Biden. Nate Cohn wrote an article on Wednesday that attempted to dismiss the significance of Tuesday’s win for Democrats. See Nate Cohn op-ed in NYTimes, Tuesday Was Great for Democrats. It Doesn’t Change the Outlook for 2024. Cohn writes, “A pattern continued [on Tuesday] with success in low-turnout elections, which favors highly engaged voters. Presidential years tend to be different.”

          We can be sure that if Republicans won big on Tuesday, Nate Cohn would not be dismissing the victories as “low turnout elections.”

          Or how about the Los Angeles Times, which did not include a front-page story on Tuesday’s elections? But it did manage to place this headline on the front page: Biden support down sharply among California voters for first time in presidency, poll shows. So, to the LA Times, polls matter more than elections! Why? Because negative news drives readers and clicks. The LA Times doesn’t care about the truth. It wants you to buy the soap it sells in its advertising. Truth is a casualty in the profit equation.

 [In the interest of brevity and a valiant act of self-restraint, I omitted several additional paragraphs of examples. You are welcome!]

          I will stop before I lose your attention, patience, and goodwill. You get the point.

          But indulge me as I repeat a question posed by Michael Podhorzer in his response to the NYTimes poll (Mad Poll Disease Redux), which is relevant in considering the media’s post-election coverage:

I’d like to ask members of the media this question directly: If Trump wins—and if he fulfills any of his long list of deranged promises, some of which involve breaking America beyond repair—how do you think history will judge how you covered this election? [¶¶]

The media needs to decide whether they are covering this election as if it’s an election like any other, or the election that will decide whether the MAGA movement succeeds in ending American democracy.

          Sadly, the post-election coverage by major media outlets suggests that they are “covering this election like any other.” We can’t let that happen. We must become the medium and the message. To that end, I have “pinned to the top” of the Comments section a note from a reader (Gary) about his successes in reaching out to journalists at major media outlets to object to their coverage.

Other big news.

          Congressional dysfunction.

          GOP congressional dysfunction in the House ticked up a notch on Tuesday and Wednesday in developments that received almost no attention. Republicans were planning to vote on three (of twelve) budget bills this week. But Speaker Mike Johnson apparently did not have the votes from Republicans to advance the bills. So, Johnson pulled the spending bills and substituted a motion to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib. See Politicio, Speaker Johnson’s grace period is over.

          Per Politico,

In the latest negative sign, GOP leadership could punt the Financial Services spending bill, which was tentatively slated for final passage Thursday. And they already had to pull Transportation-HUD this week.

Some appropriators have suggested that there’s no way to pass some of those bills through the House and they should just go straight to negotiating them with the Senate, something that would likely prick conservatives’ ire.

          In other words, Johnson may give up passing bills in the House that he knows cannot gain Republican support and start negotiating directly with the Senate. That’s bad for two reasons: It means that Johnson has no negotiating leverage with the Senate. And “skipping approval by the House” is not part of the constitutional scheme for passing legislation.

          Why should we care about the apparent inability of Mike Johnson to bring a host of “must pass” bills to the floor? Because, as noted by Politico, Johnson is facing the same roadblocks that ended Kevin McCarthy’s tenure as Speaker:

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) [said] that he has “eight to 10” people upset about Amtrak cuts and the same amount who want to see Amtrak eliminated altogether. And he needs both to vote for the [Amtrak] bill.

Johnson is learning in real-time what McCarthy dealt with all year — in a four-seat majority in a Republican conference this fractured, you can’t avoid pissing someone off.

          And if Johnson can’t pass “must pass” spending bills, that is a bad omen for Johnson’s ability to gain GOP consensus on a “continuing resolution” to keep the government open after November 17. Not to worry! The Republican Party wishes everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!

          And if holiday wishes aren’t enough distraction, House Republicans are hoping that you will forget about the need for a federal government entirely if they subpoena President Biden’s son and brother in a fishing expedition by the House Oversight Committee. See CNN, House Oversight Committee subpoenas Hunter and James Biden.

          Hunter Biden has said that he is eager to testify before the Committee—so long as the testimony is public. Predictably, Republicans don’t want to subject their failed inquiry to public scrutiny.

          Republicans must believe Americans are idiots if they will be distracted by a transparent effort to fabricate false drama over a non-story as the government shuts down.

Judicial developments.

          The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected an effort to keep Trump off of the GOP primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. See Democracy Docket, Minnesota Supreme Court Allows Trump To Appear on Presidential Primary Ballot.

          As explained by Democracy Docket,

The [Minnesota Supreme Court] classified the presidential primary as an “internal party election” and found that there is no state law that prevents a political party from “placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.”

          It is possible, therefore, that the same plaintiffs could seek to keep Trump off the general election ballot.

          Notably, a Colorado trial judge will issue a ruling by Thanksgiving on a lawsuit to keep Trump off the ballot. So, it might be a happy Thanksgiving despite efforts by congressional Republicans to ruin the holiday with a government shutdown.

          In a significant development in the election interference trial in DC, federal Judge Tanya Chutkan has issued an order requiring Trump to declare if he will assert the “reliance on counsel” defense at trial. The order is here: Order and Memorandum Opinion.

          Trump must tell Jack Smith by January 15, 2024, if he intends to rely on advice of counsel in his defense. If Trump does intend to do so, he must

provide the required discovery to the government at that time: “any communications or evidence [Defendant] intend[s] to use to establish the defense,” and “otherwise-privileged communications that [Defendant does] not intend to use at trial, but that are relevant to proving or undermining the advice-of-counsel defense . . . in their entirety.

          In other words, if Trump is going to throw his lawyers under the bus, he must give Jack Smith the written communications on which Trump relied in executing his coup attempt. The walls are closing in on Trump—and his lawyers.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Thanks for putting up with my ire regarding the major media’s coverage of the election. But I believe I am faithfully reflecting the anger and upset in emails and comments from readers. Channeling that upset is sometimes helpful. But as noted above, suggestions by reader Gary provide a positive outlet for that upset. See the Comments section for Gary’s description of his efforts to engage journalists at major media publications.

          Speaking of the Comments section, reader Barbara Jo made a comment this morning that is worth considering:

[H]aving watched MSM’s coverage of the returns, I was struck by not hearing a single reference to the vast network of nationwide grassroots organizations that had had a substantial hand in every one of last night’s contests. We should not lose sight of this fact over the next year as we read / listen to these prognosticators report on our prospects for 2024.

          Good point! Every time I appear at meetings of grassroots organizations, I leave with renewed optimism. There are hundreds of thousands—millions?—of dedicated grassroots volunteers who are working every day to ensure that democracy wins in 2024—and beyond! They are the secret superpower of the Democratic Party. And yet, to the major media, they do not exist. But their influence is real—and cannot be ignored.

          The victories on Tuesday were due, in part, to the hard work of groups like Indivisible, The States Project, PostCardsToVoters, Markers for Democracy, Heather’s Herd, BigTentUSA, Vote Forward, The Civics Center, Movement Voter Project, Sister District, Field Team Six, 31st Street Swing Left, VoteRiders, AirLift, Senate Circle, and hundreds of others. (Please do not take offense if I did not mention your group!)

          Grassroots groups are laser-focused on registering new voters and motivating existing voters to show up. If the major media is oblivious to the existence, reach, and effectiveness of grassroots groups in the Democratic Party, they are understandably underestimating the ability of the Democratic Party to “get out the vote.”

          Here’s the point: As we endure the major media’s dismissive attitude about Democratic victories and prospects, we should take confidence and optimism from our collective persistence and tenacity. We will defeat the anti-democratic forces that have coalesced under the MAGA label; it is just a question of “When?”

With that certain knowledge, let us resume the fight with renewed vigor and righteousness. I know I will! Join me!

Talk to you tomorrow!