At my last newsroom job, they asked me why I wanted to cover Trump differently than any other candidate. I said I didn’t—I wanted us to cover him like any other news source: When he says something, consider the track record of truthfulness and consider how likely it is that he actually knows what he’s talking about.
Every journalist does that every day. But they all looked at me like they were basset hounds and I was an algebra teacher.
At my last newsroom job in legacy media, I hosted a segment on what the world will think of the Supreme Court upholding Trump's Muslim ban. The expert who was the guest - who had been sold as "straight down the middle" - said the world will think less of us and will act accordingly. In our post-show analysis, my (very young) executive producer said, "Well, we have someone saying that the world will look down on us, now we have to find someone who says they won't." And I immediately said, "This guy was straight down the middle. It is false balance - and outright editorial manipulation - to "find" someone who says the opposite. This was the same place in which I had said we should meet with different constituent groups - meaning Black and Brown people - to learn what they wanted to hear, and the network director looked me right in the eye and said, "That would be biased." But then, a month later, it wasn't biased to "find" someone to support Trump?
The execrable Joe Kahn at the New York Times says both-siding is so voters can “make an informed choice.” It’s 180 degrees from that.
One of the reporters in my last newsroom and I were talking and she said something about being in “the middle.” I told her I was in the middle—I want gun control, reproductive freedom and higher taxes on rich people, all of which are supported by at least 60 percent of Americans. She was baffled by that—for her, the middle was exactly halfway between what Republicans want and what Democrats want. (And in practice it’s never that—it’s “Republicans should get half of what they want” and that’s it.)
What still shocks me about Joe Kahn's statement from last May is that he seems to think "democracy" is a partisan issue so it's OK if one party doesn't support it.
This is an excellent article! I felt, after reading it, that you really got to the crux of the true issue. I can’t believe how strongly it resonated with my own thoughts. Excellent analysis!
Great column -- it's helping me clarify my own response(s) to what's been going down in Springfield, OH, and also to the responses to it, some of which are, well, concerning in their own way. I've lived the last nearly four decades in a place with an active grapevine. In the last decade or so, much of it's moved to social media, especially Facebook, which is the grapevine on steroids because it not hard to spread anything to tens, hundreds, even thousands of people at once. News travels on the grapevine. Rumors travel on the grapevine. Sometimes grudges travel on the grapevine. And nearly everything gets *changed* (if not entirely garbled) in the transmission. Like a kids' game of telephone. There's no accountability for any harm that gets done. But people pass unsubstantiated stories along, often for the thrill of being "in the know."
At my last newsroom job, they asked me why I wanted to cover Trump differently than any other candidate. I said I didn’t—I wanted us to cover him like any other news source: When he says something, consider the track record of truthfulness and consider how likely it is that he actually knows what he’s talking about.
Every journalist does that every day. But they all looked at me like they were basset hounds and I was an algebra teacher.
At my last newsroom job in legacy media, I hosted a segment on what the world will think of the Supreme Court upholding Trump's Muslim ban. The expert who was the guest - who had been sold as "straight down the middle" - said the world will think less of us and will act accordingly. In our post-show analysis, my (very young) executive producer said, "Well, we have someone saying that the world will look down on us, now we have to find someone who says they won't." And I immediately said, "This guy was straight down the middle. It is false balance - and outright editorial manipulation - to "find" someone who says the opposite. This was the same place in which I had said we should meet with different constituent groups - meaning Black and Brown people - to learn what they wanted to hear, and the network director looked me right in the eye and said, "That would be biased." But then, a month later, it wasn't biased to "find" someone to support Trump?
The execrable Joe Kahn at the New York Times says both-siding is so voters can “make an informed choice.” It’s 180 degrees from that.
One of the reporters in my last newsroom and I were talking and she said something about being in “the middle.” I told her I was in the middle—I want gun control, reproductive freedom and higher taxes on rich people, all of which are supported by at least 60 percent of Americans. She was baffled by that—for her, the middle was exactly halfway between what Republicans want and what Democrats want. (And in practice it’s never that—it’s “Republicans should get half of what they want” and that’s it.)
What still shocks me about Joe Kahn's statement from last May is that he seems to think "democracy" is a partisan issue so it's OK if one party doesn't support it.
Yes, excellent analysis!!! Thank you so much. You make it sound so logical and clear!!! No malarkey. Haha .
Ha! My favorite Biden word. Thank you!
This is an excellent article! I felt, after reading it, that you really got to the crux of the true issue. I can’t believe how strongly it resonated with my own thoughts. Excellent analysis!
Thank you so much!
Great column -- it's helping me clarify my own response(s) to what's been going down in Springfield, OH, and also to the responses to it, some of which are, well, concerning in their own way. I've lived the last nearly four decades in a place with an active grapevine. In the last decade or so, much of it's moved to social media, especially Facebook, which is the grapevine on steroids because it not hard to spread anything to tens, hundreds, even thousands of people at once. News travels on the grapevine. Rumors travel on the grapevine. Sometimes grudges travel on the grapevine. And nearly everything gets *changed* (if not entirely garbled) in the transmission. Like a kids' game of telephone. There's no accountability for any harm that gets done. But people pass unsubstantiated stories along, often for the thrill of being "in the know."