“Language is courage: the ability to conceive a thought, to speak it, and by doing so to make it true.”
“I am the sum total of everything that went before me, of all I have been seen done, of everything done-to-me. I am everyone everything whose being-in-the-world affected was affected by mine. I am anything that happens after I'm gone which would not have happened if I had not come.”
“Go for broke. Always try and do too much. Dispense with safety nets. Take a deep breath before you begin talking. Aim for the stars. Keep grinning. Be bloody-minded. Argue with the world. And never forget that writing is as close as we get to keeping a hold on the thousand and one things--childhood, certainties, cities, doubts, dreams, instants, phrases, parents, loves--that go on slipping , like sand, through our fingers.”
― Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991
First they hire the dishonest Mick Mulvaney to do political commentary and now CNN has dumped Brian Stetler and the long running Reliable Sources media criticism show.
Thanks so much for revisiting the topic of the media using frames which distort our perception of our politics. The new editor of The NY Times, Joe Kahn, made this bizarre statement in a Columbia Journalism Review podcast this past spring:
“ If we become a partisan organization exclusively focused on threats to democracy, and we give up our coverage of the issues, the social, political, and cultural divides that are animating participation in politics in America, we will lose the battle to be independent,”
Media citric Dan Froomkin’s response on twitter was spot on, calling it:
“ the smarmiest most deceitful and clueless straw-man depiction of what critics are asking for I've ever seen. Ever. NOBODY has said anything remotely like that. For shame. This is fake news. ”
Froomkin is right that Kahn is using a straw man argument. He did that to frame reporting on threats to our democracy as kowtowing to partisans so he could push back against demands that the Times put a spotlight on rightwingers destroying our democracy. No one is demanding the Times stop covering social, political and cultural divides. In fact it’s the opposite — covering those topics helps explain how our democracy has gotten to this dangerous place.
Dana Milbank makes it clear that this didn’t start with Trump. He rightly points to the ascendancy of Newt Gingrich as the point that Republicans became blatantly divisive and anti-government:
The one thing Milbank doesn’t do is blame the media for refusing to acknowledge how dangerous this was. If they had put a spotlight on the threats Newt and his old posed to our democracy back then they may well have been able to put stop to it.
Jim, I love this. It reminds me of your [first?] book by the same name. We usually read the NYTimes and Washington Post on line (because of travel, etc) and one thing I've observed is how long some of the articles linger on the web page. That too seems like an editorial decision that gives longer emphasis to some "news" stories than others. A consumer of today's news clearly needs to be a very discerning reader.
"It was a dark and stormy day in the Oval Office. The gloom fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was interrupted by a violent gust of wind from an invisible obese, orange-haired long-aged spirit, whose angry Lear-like scream swept through the souls of all present, fiercely agitating the frail efforts of Democrats who had gathered to celebrate......something that no one remembers now......" [See Gloom on page 5]
Framing is business as usual at both the Times and Washpost. (Not so much the AP.) Day after day, story after story. It's so insidious because most readers don't realize the news they're getting is warped. What I don't understand is WHY this has become, and remains, so . . . .standard. Maybe that's a good topic for another day.
Excellent piece - thank you for writing this. The loss of Eric Boehlert has truly damaged the integrity of journalism in the United States - a field under unprecedented pressure and attack, both financially and politically. Although others leaving comments have speculated as to why the New York Times keeps showing that it's addiction to Trump harms its actual news coverage (I remember Boehlert writing "They miss him"!) I'm still wondering just why that paper, out of all of them, keeps doing this. Something that a media critic needs to investigate and determine. When I first read the Baker piece, I commented on Twitter: "Someday, as students review the archives to study one of the most historic and consequential U.S. legislative measures in the 21st century, they'll come across this piece and say: Oh, that's from Peter Baker - he just missed the point."
One of the little mental exercises I do when reading political blather that seems to broadcast a pro-Trump or pro-GOP bias is to flip the article on its head and read it. Suddenly, Trump is in Biden's "long shadow," and suddenly he's the one who is "struggling."
As Eric often pointed out, mainstream media has a built-in bias where the GOP is framed in a position of strength, whereas the Democrats are "struggling" or "in disarray." Despite the fact that the Republicans are not much more than a cult of personality focused on changing America into an authoritarian backwater, they are given full legitimacy, the Democrats are portrayed as a bunch of infighting fools with outlandish goals.
Speaking of framing--in today's Washington Post:
"How to recover from President Biden’s Saudi Arabia failure"
Biden is responsible for the actions of MBS?
Help me
Salman Rushdie, goodreads quotes:
“Language is courage: the ability to conceive a thought, to speak it, and by doing so to make it true.”
“I am the sum total of everything that went before me, of all I have been seen done, of everything done-to-me. I am everyone everything whose being-in-the-world affected was affected by mine. I am anything that happens after I'm gone which would not have happened if I had not come.”
“Go for broke. Always try and do too much. Dispense with safety nets. Take a deep breath before you begin talking. Aim for the stars. Keep grinning. Be bloody-minded. Argue with the world. And never forget that writing is as close as we get to keeping a hold on the thousand and one things--childhood, certainties, cities, doubts, dreams, instants, phrases, parents, loves--that go on slipping , like sand, through our fingers.”
― Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991
Nice!
First they hire the dishonest Mick Mulvaney to do political commentary and now CNN has dumped Brian Stetler and the long running Reliable Sources media criticism show.
Thanks so much for revisiting the topic of the media using frames which distort our perception of our politics. The new editor of The NY Times, Joe Kahn, made this bizarre statement in a Columbia Journalism Review podcast this past spring:
“ If we become a partisan organization exclusively focused on threats to democracy, and we give up our coverage of the issues, the social, political, and cultural divides that are animating participation in politics in America, we will lose the battle to be independent,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/14/joseph-kahn-new-york-times-twitter-democracy/
Media citric Dan Froomkin’s response on twitter was spot on, calling it:
“ the smarmiest most deceitful and clueless straw-man depiction of what critics are asking for I've ever seen. Ever. NOBODY has said anything remotely like that. For shame. This is fake news. ”
https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/1519038876353921024
Froomkin is right that Kahn is using a straw man argument. He did that to frame reporting on threats to our democracy as kowtowing to partisans so he could push back against demands that the Times put a spotlight on rightwingers destroying our democracy. No one is demanding the Times stop covering social, political and cultural divides. In fact it’s the opposite — covering those topics helps explain how our democracy has gotten to this dangerous place.
Dana Milbank makes it clear that this didn’t start with Trump. He rightly points to the ascendancy of Newt Gingrich as the point that Republicans became blatantly divisive and anti-government:
“ Newt Gingrich started us on the road to ruin.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/04/newt-gingrich-started-us-road-ruin-now-hes-back-finish-job/
The one thing Milbank doesn’t do is blame the media for refusing to acknowledge how dangerous this was. If they had put a spotlight on the threats Newt and his old posed to our democracy back then they may well have been able to put stop to it.
Jim, I love this. It reminds me of your [first?] book by the same name. We usually read the NYTimes and Washington Post on line (because of travel, etc) and one thing I've observed is how long some of the articles linger on the web page. That too seems like an editorial decision that gives longer emphasis to some "news" stories than others. A consumer of today's news clearly needs to be a very discerning reader.
Doing the Lord's work. Thank you!
"It was a dark and stormy day in the Oval Office. The gloom fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was interrupted by a violent gust of wind from an invisible obese, orange-haired long-aged spirit, whose angry Lear-like scream swept through the souls of all present, fiercely agitating the frail efforts of Democrats who had gathered to celebrate......something that no one remembers now......" [See Gloom on page 5]
Framing is business as usual at both the Times and Washpost. (Not so much the AP.) Day after day, story after story. It's so insidious because most readers don't realize the news they're getting is warped. What I don't understand is WHY this has become, and remains, so . . . .standard. Maybe that's a good topic for another day.
Excellent piece - thank you for writing this. The loss of Eric Boehlert has truly damaged the integrity of journalism in the United States - a field under unprecedented pressure and attack, both financially and politically. Although others leaving comments have speculated as to why the New York Times keeps showing that it's addiction to Trump harms its actual news coverage (I remember Boehlert writing "They miss him"!) I'm still wondering just why that paper, out of all of them, keeps doing this. Something that a media critic needs to investigate and determine. When I first read the Baker piece, I commented on Twitter: "Someday, as students review the archives to study one of the most historic and consequential U.S. legislative measures in the 21st century, they'll come across this piece and say: Oh, that's from Peter Baker - he just missed the point."
Eric would applaud.
One of the little mental exercises I do when reading political blather that seems to broadcast a pro-Trump or pro-GOP bias is to flip the article on its head and read it. Suddenly, Trump is in Biden's "long shadow," and suddenly he's the one who is "struggling."
As Eric often pointed out, mainstream media has a built-in bias where the GOP is framed in a position of strength, whereas the Democrats are "struggling" or "in disarray." Despite the fact that the Republicans are not much more than a cult of personality focused on changing America into an authoritarian backwater, they are given full legitimacy, the Democrats are portrayed as a bunch of infighting fools with outlandish goals.
The best possible tribute to the great and sorely-missed Eric Boehlert! Thanks so much for this analysis.
The reporter had news right in front of him, but was determined to talk about something else.
Too true, Jim, but it is a two-edged sword, not only in journalism.
I tweeted this to @nytpolitics. Hopefully they'll learn something.