Good News, Bad News: June 18, 2024
With 139 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
RARE: Voters Get News Coverage on Accuracy of Border Narratives
Ever notice how news coverage of U.S. border and immigration policy mostly consists of everything besides expert analysis? We get plenty of politician talking points, plenty of opinion-from-random-voters-presented-as-news, but, when it comes to elections, precious little that informs us on candidates’ policy solutions and their efficacy.
This week was a little different. Independent, Tucson-based journalist Todd Miller interviewed an immigration policy expert in a piece headlined: “This Election Year’s Top Three False Border and Immigration Narratives.” Miller’s expert is David Bier, who works for the Koch-funded Cato Institute. This initially gave me pause. Was I getting the Koch view or a fair analysis by an expert who just happens to work for a manipulative oligarch? A review of Miller’s decades long work covering issues of immigration and borders, and Bier’s even-handed answers, allayed my fears. Grains of salt in hand, I read on.
Miller asked Bier “what he thought were the top three false narratives proclaimed, promoted, and propagated during this year’s campaign season,” in the hopes that their conversation would “assist you in navigating your discussions about the border and immigration, discussions that will inevitably intensify during the next several months.” Bier shared that his top three false narratives were “(1) ‘Donald Trump had the most secure border in America’s history,’ (2) ‘Joe Biden opened America’s borders to illegal immigration,’ and (3) ‘Recent immigration is helping Democrats.’” It was an edifying, succinct piece.
While I’m sure Miller’s Substack has a decent reach, it’s likely that only a small percentage of Americans see his reporting. Clearly, we need our national newsrooms doing the same kind of journalism, explaining for the public what’s at stake when we choose one candidate’s border policy proposals over another, and evaluating the veracity of their border claims. The New York Times provided just that in a piece entitled “Assessing Trump’s and Biden’s Claims About Immigration and Border Security.”
There’s a lot going wrong at the Times these days, but that doesn’t mean quality reporting doesn’t regularly make it into the paper. And while fact checks can be fraught, they often serve an important purpose. In an information ecosystem rife with disinformation, fact checks encourage media literacy and stress the importance of facts.
Linda Qiu’s analysis for the Times accords with the reality of the two men. Habitual liar Trump receives deserved flack, with Qiu finding his border statements to be false or lacking evidence more often than not, while Biden, a standard politician, is dinged for making a single exaggerated claim. The reader comes away with a slightly better understanding of which candidate is more truthful about the border.
In this critical election year American voters can benefit from as much explanation and context as possible, on all the major issues that might affect their vote in November. In an era when poll responses are treated as stand alone news events, the need for fact-based, expert analysis is greater than ever, especially on a subject as complex as border politics.
Honorable Mentions (other pro-democracy coverage of note this week):
Someone on the MSNBC production team gets it: On January 6, 2021 media reporter Max Tani posted, in real time, the internal guidance issued by major newsrooms to their reporters as to how to refer to the mayhem and violence unfolding at the Capitol. The main directive was to soften the harsh reality of the situation (CNN allowed ‘domestic terrorism’ but, how often was it used?). It was a fateful decision that set the precedent for years of media normalization of a coup attempt. We are paying the price for that initial downplaying of an attempted coup to this day, as kid glove treatment of Trump’s disqualifying behavior has sustained his viability for a critical mass of citizens and cowardly elected officials.
But, someone on the production crew at MSNBC during June 13th’s Ari Melber show was not afraid to stick reality on the screen for all to see:
Applicable MAD Guideline: Expose candidates who foment political violence AND Call out lies and bad behavior in every piece of reporting AND Prominently cover the Big Lie-fueled attack on election legitimacy and voting rights.
THE BAD NEWS
The Associated Press Does Public Relations for Failed Coup Leader and His Party
On January 6th, 2021, Donald Trump enacted his final plan to avoid relinquishing power and overthrow the elected government chosen by the American people. Over one hundred Capitol Police suffered injuries and multiple people died, as a crowd Trump incited with lies, guided by the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys he’d told to “stand by,” stormed the Capitol. Yes. Donald Trump attempted a coup. This is how the Associated Press chose to write about his return to the scene of the crime he committed against American democracy:
These were the two first paragraphs:
According to the Associated Press, it was not shameful for Trump to return to the Capitol. It was not an outrage that an enemy of American democracy stepped foot inside the same building that his mob had torn apart. Nor was it unconscionable that he received a warm greeting from the same lawmakers whose lives he’d put under threat. No, instead, Lisa Mascaro and the Associated Press decided to call the event “triumphant.” Folks were “energized” and “reinvigorated.” The enemy of American democracy was “emboldened” and “successful,” his audience “enticed.”
With its shameless publication of last week’s article, the AP confirmed that the cowardly, normalizing newsroom guidance relayed by Max Tani on January 6th had matured to the point of total acceptance.
Trump can do nothing to earn the admonition of our mainstream news executives, so long as a portion of their audience might be pro-Trump. To describe Trump and his actions accurately might lead to less engagement, and thus less profit. The American electorate has been given full permission by our most respected news brands to treat Donald Trump, enemy of American democracy, as a normal, viable, “triumphant” candidate for office. And while that may be bad for America, it’s damn good for the CBS’s of the world.
Dishonorable Mentions (other election coverage failures this week):
Mark Jacob calls out misleading Washington Post headline: Jacob points out that most people only read headlines, and as such it is a journalistic failure for the Washington Post to frame the below story as they do. Making matters worse, it takes until “the third paragraph before we learn that the audience ‘was not predominantly Black.’” A casual reader, which most Americans are, would wrongly come away from this headline believing that there is higher Black support for Trump, a lifelong racist, than there actually is.
Applicable MAD Guideline: Make headlines accurate and informative, not clickbait.
Extra Credit: Normalization Resistance Track Of The Week
Are you hopelessly plugged into a pacifying feed of mainstream, normalizing messaging? No way, you’re capable of stepping back and resisting the powerful forces that, in the name of almighty profit, seek to make the abhorrent acceptable. Stay strong!
“T.V. is the place where phrases are redefined
like ‘recession’ to ‘necessary downturn’
’crude oil’ on a beach to ‘mousse’
’Civilian death’ to ‘collateral damages’
and being killed by your own Army
is now called ‘friendly fire’”
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 signed that letter a couple of months back. When will it be sent?