I worked with a woman a few years ago who was incredibly expressive. Every movement of her face, the myriad hunches of her shoulders, the vast tonal qualities of her voice - comprised so many nuances that told us exactly what she was thinking without her having to say a word.
She was also very negative. Angry at the world. And every one of her expressions carried that undertone.
On the surface, she was super polite. Too polite. Obviously fake polite. Except it apparently wasn’t obvious to everybody.
Her journalism philosophy was, “We only count it if the words come out of their mouths.” So, for instance, Trump mimicking a disabled reporter didn’t demonstrate a reportable lack of empathy. Because he didn’t say, “I don’t like disabled people,” or “I have no empathy.”
One day, I was pitching a piece on pro-tax Republicans winning primaries in Oklahoma. They were aware that education needed to be funded and taxes, at least in this case, funded good things like education. That, to me, signaled a major mind shift in conservative thinking, which has maintained for decades that there is nothing good about taxes.
I said something like, “If they can do this in a state like Oklahoma, this speaks to a state like Wisconsin.”
Her answer was, “What do you MEAN ‘a state like Wisconsin.’”
Actors know that line readings can be vastly different. This is where we talk about choices and intention. You can say, “What do you mean ‘a state like Wisconsin,’” in an inquisitive, “you just made me think” tone. Or you can say it in an accusatory toned. This journalist was accusatory. Of what, I didn’t know.
The room quieted. I was taken off guard, and slowly said something like “conservatives have a history of being anti-tax and for less government funding.”
“Oh,” she said, and sat down.
I feel like my colleague and I represented two opposing views of journalism. And sadly, I believe hers is the prevailing view - not necessarily among a majority of journalists, but among a majority of journalism leaders.
How Many Angels Can Fit on the Head of a Pin
Ten days ago, I sat taking notes during the stunning testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to the Jan. 6 Congressional Committee. Hutchinson - in case you were taking care of some emergency situation last week and missed the wall-to-wall media and social media coverage - was Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ executive assistant in the run-up to and on Jan. 6.
Hutchinson illuminated a lot. She was able to tell what she, herself, saw and heard - like Trump angrily telling the Secret Service to let “his people” past the magnetometers with their weapons, because “they aren’t going to hurt me.” This shows that when Trump later told the protesters to go to the Capitol, he knew they were armed.
She also saw versions of Trump’s speech in which he wanted to talk about pardoning the insurrectionists. Let’s note here that this promise of a pardon would have happened BEFORE anyone stormed the capital. Police reported seeing people with AR-15s, and the Secret Service confiscated semi-automatic weapons when people did go through the magnetometers (metal detectors to you and me) to go onto the Elipse to hear Trump speak. But none of them were used on Jan. 6 at the Capitol. I shudder to think how a pre-invasion pardon might have changed that.
Hutchinson also relayed the things she was told, but did not see or hear herself. This is also important evidence, even though it’s hearsay. But this seems to be the evidence many in the press - and, of course, on the right - are pointing at to discredit her testimony.
Trump lunging for the steering wheel in the suburban is one of those things. Hutchinson never says he grabbed the steering wheel, but she does quote Tony Ornato, Trump’s chief of security, telling her that lead agent Bobby Engel grabbed his arm and told Trump to “get his hand off the steering wheel.” She also said Ornato told her Trump’s reaction to this was to lunge at Bobby Engel’s “clavicles.”
My first thought was, “Well, it will be interesting for Merrick Garland and his team to get the people in that SUV in front of the grand jury.”
NBC’s Peter Alexander reacted the way my former colleague reacted: by looking microscopically at the trees instead of at the forest.
Alexander is effectively saying, “The exact words Hutchison relayed may not be accurate, therefore we should distrust her entire testimony.”
But the exact words she used in this case didn’t need to be accurate in exacting detail. She was relaying what she was told. She made clear that she was not in the car and she was giving second-hand information.
The issue, as the Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig points out, is that Trump was angry and wanted to go to the Capitol.
The fact that Trump wanted to lead his armed “people” to the Capitol to “fight like hell” should have been the major headline from every journalist in and out of that hearing room. How he exhorted his Secret Service detail to do that is really beside the point.
(Also, can I just say how validating is to see one of the best journalists in the country have a Twitter typo. Please Twitter, let us edit.)
In the Room Where It Happened
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank’s take on Hutchinson’s testimony was also quite revealing about the point of view of the Washington press corps.
When Hutchinson relayed the conversation she had with Ornato about what happened in the car, “I heard gasps and saw stunned glances among the 70 or so reporters in the room,” Milbank writes.
When Hutchinson relayed the various times Trump had thrown dishes or violently pulled up table cloths, Milbank writes, “In the hearing room, jaws dropped.”
Gasps? Jaw drops? About the physical violence of a man who ordered children to be separated from their parents? About the physical violence of a man whose first wife accused him of rape? Of the physical violence of a man who is the subject of a defamation lawsuit by a woman who describes in detail how he violently raped her decades ago? About the physical violence of a man who was caught on tape saying he grabbed women by the pussy?
How much do you have to actively ignore to be surprised by Hutchinson’s testimony?
Journalism Through a Critical Lens
Journalism is about holding truth to power, which I will elucidate more fully in future columns. For now, I want to share this piece by James Fallows on framing the news. (It’s a whole series, so you may want to subscribe.)
And I want to enlist your brains. Let’s start with this prompt:
You know you’re seeing bias in journalism when…
These are some of my thoughts:
a journalist brings on someone who wants to undermine people’s humanity, or take peoples’ rights away, as “just another point of view”
Journalists don’t challenge religion, even when it’s corrupt - see Southern Baptist Convention
Journalists value access to those in power, rather than calling out the truth to those in power