Good News, Bad News: April 26, 2024
With 192 days left until Election Day we need political coverage that uplifts and defends democracy.
Every week until the election, we’ll compare our pro-democracy election coverage guidelines with ongoing election coverage to highlight which newsrooms are standing up for democracy and which are sleepwalking us towards a dictatorship. We hope this inspires you to make more informed choices about where you get your news and strengthens your resolve to join us in advocating for the pro-democracy media Americans need. And now…
THE GOOD NEWS
These Newsrooms Have Made A Commitment To Pro-Democracy Coverage
It’s not every week that I’ll have a stellar, contemporaneous example of pro-democracy election coverage. As such, this week I’m going to use this space to highlight some of the best examples MAD has seen of newsrooms making an effort to deliver informative, meaningful election coverage for the 2024 cycle.
First up is Vermont Public, an independent, community supported news organization that ran this piece in January: Vermont Public will cover the 2024 election by taking our cues from you. The staff wrote at the time: “We’re adopting the ‘Citizens Agenda’ model of campaign coverage, to ensure that YOUR concerns inform our candidate debates, voter guides and more. We’re asking a simple question: What do you want the candidates to be discussing as they compete for your votes?” Kudos to Vermont Public for modeling how easy it is to adhere to our guideline asking newsrooms to “Prioritize substantive coverage of the issues that matter to voter’s lives.” It turns out all you have to do is engage with your readership!
In a similar vein, the Arizona Mirror promised readers in February: “We’re ditching ‘junk food’ election coverage to focus on what’s at stake when we vote.” Drawing an analogy between news consumption and a healthy diet, journalist Jim Small told readers: “…stories centered on voters, on issues and on outcomes are like a balanced meal: nutritionally and calorically dense, full of information that leaves readers with a deeper understanding of who believes what, why, and what it means for them and their community.”
And finally, Colorado Public Radio told its audience this month that newsrooms, “across Colorado are teaming up and embarking on an effort to reach out to voters and learn what they want candidates to focus on, the issues they are most concerned with in this election, and how much trust they have — or don’t — in the system itself.”
The examples above coalesce around a very simple idea expressed by the Poynter Institute earlier this April: “Newsrooms should treat the electorate like the hiring committee it actually is.”
If your regular source for election information focuses on polls and drama instead of centering issues that matter to you and your community (important members of the hiring committee!) consider switching to a subscription at a local journalism outlet with values like those above. You can find quality outlets using our Local Journalism Directory here.
Honorable Mentions (other pro-democracy coverage of note this week):
Presswatchers interviews pro-democracy editor - Dan Froomkin followed up with Chris Quinn, the Cleveland Plain Dealer editor who just a few weeks ago penned a column entitled, “Our Trump reporting upsets some readers, but there aren’t two sides to facts.” Quinn’s candor reveals the difficulties newsrooms face when reporting reality to audiences who otherwise receive a steady diet of disinformation from other sources. And he has a tip for editors: “…we’ve made it a point to not quote outrageous, hateful statements by politicians who are just trying to get the use of our platforms to reach their fringe base. I think everybody should do that. I think we should stop allowing our platforms to be used to spread these messages, because that’s the only reason they do it.”
Applicable MAD Guideline: Don’t platform liars or act as stenographers for strategic MAGA lies.
“Democracy Dies Behind Paywalls:” Richard Stengel argues paywalls should disappear for election coverage - This one is from two weeks ago, but you’ll forgive me for just getting around to it because, well, there’s a lot of information out there to sift through. One glaring problem about all that information? “According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, more than 75 percent of America’s leading newspapers, magazines, and journals are behind online paywalls.” As Stengel explains: “Paywalls create a two-tiered system: credible, fact-based information for people who are willing to pay for it, and murkier, less-reliable information for everyone else. Simply put, paywalls get in the way of informing the public, which is the mission of journalism. And they get in the way of the public being informed, which is the foundation of democracy.”
Applicable MAD Guideline: Honestly, MAD’s entire guidelines project applies. Not every newsroom can afford to drop its election coverage paywall, but if major outlets like the Washington Post wanted to treat elections like they mattered more than sports scores, protect Americans from disinformation, and make threats to democracy clear, they’d heed Stengel’s words and drop paywalls on all election coverage through November. The Post’s slogan is ‘Democracy dies in the darkness,’ and paywalls keep voters in the dark.
THE BAD NEWS
‘All The News That’s Fit…’ To Soothe A.G. Sulzberger’s Fragile Ego
A piece out yesterday by Eli Stokols about “The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House” would be easy for most news consumers to dismiss as gossipy clickbait, but certain passages reveal deep failures on the part of the New York Times’ leadership, and call into question the Grey Lady’s ability, and even interest, in defending democracy during this crucial election year.
“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.” - Politico, April 25, 2024
If the above quoted Times journalist is to be believed, A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of our nation’s paper of record, is directing asymmetric coverage of a coup-plotting, rapist candidate for president and a conventional candidate, in a way that favors the coup-plotter. Biden’s age (with no indication it’s affecting his duties) is highlighted and fretted over ad nauseam in the pages of the Times while Trump’s numerous disqualifying actions and entanglements are whitewashed, omitted or otherwise soft-pedaled.
A Media Matters study from 2023 showed the Times mentioned Biden’s age in 98 articles over a five-month span, the most of any of the top U.S. newspapers. Following the Hur report, Media Matters found that the NYT ran 30 reports on Biden’s mental fitness in four days.
As Susan Bordson pointed out on Twitter, “NYT does not use equally applied standards, expectations & criticism in its political reporting & analysis. Evident thru auditing story selections, placements, headline & social media copy.”
What does that look like in practice?
After birtherism, a Muslim ban, hundreds of thousands unnecessarily dead from pandemic response mishandling, a coup attempt, innumerable lies, being found liable for rape, etc., A.G. Sulzberger and NYT staff are determined to balance the misbehavior and criminality of Trump with the regular foibles of a conventional candidate. This distortion of reality is a disservice to readers and a de facto attack on democracy as voters face a choice between an aspiring authoritarian and a supporter of democracy.
Dishonorable Mentions (other election coverage failures this week):
More evidence the New York Times downplays the threat of Trump with inappropriate euphemism - I wouldn’t focus so much on the Times if they weren’t so influential in setting agendas and establishing narratives for the rest of our major press. The relentless use of euphemism to downplay the fascist threat posed by Trump and his allies approaches the farcical.
Here’s the headline:
Here’s our reframe:
Applicable MAD Guideline: Avoid euphemisms that conceal and normalize extremism.
Extra Credit: Pro-Democracy Quote Of The Week
"Whatever your first issue of concern, media had better be your second, because without change in the media, progress in your primary area is far less likely."
- Robert McChesney
Democracy’s Survival Requires That Newsrooms Reset to Focus on What’s at Stake
You can be part of the solution. We’re attaching our pro-democracy guidelines to an open letter for you to sign on to. This letter will be distributed to the leadership of all major news organizations. The guidelines serve as a model of what pro-democracy election coverage can—and should—look like. Signing our letter ensures that your frustrations with media’s failure to stand up for American democracy will be heard loud and clear.
Help others advocate for positive change. Share the letter and guidelines with friends, civic organizations, and everyone who cares about the future of America. Ask them to sign on. Demanding better media is an action we must all take.
Tired of paying for corporate media that doesn’t stand up for democracy? Redirect those funds to quality local journalism. Use our Local Journalism Directory to find an outlet and subscribe.
I do not read the NYT anymore. They pissed me off long ago with their bothsidesism. Facts clearly show that both sides are not equivalent and yet, the MSM sure works hard to normalize Trump and MAGA. 😡