Good News, Bad News: May 10, 2024
With 178 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
MIXED BAG: Kristen Welker Tries to Hold Tim Scott Accountable
It is exceedingly difficult to fact check lies in real time, especially when elected officials from one of our major parties dissemble about basic facts like who won an election or whether or not they met Kim Jong-Un. This is why it’s best practice for newsrooms to adhere to our guideline asking them to stop platforming liars. But even MAD recognizes that this isn’t always possible. For instance, the public deserves to hear from major party VP candidates. And hear from them we did last Sunday.
In my introductory column, I wrote about how Mainstream Media Ignores Trump’s Disqualifying Abortion Lies. This past Sunday on Meet The Press, Senator Tim Scott repeated Trump’s lie that Democrats support infanticide.
To her credit, host Kristen Welker rebuffed Scott’s disinformation, calling his statement false. She said Democrats do not support infanticide. And she reiterated that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare, while noting that in most cases they are performed because of a “medical health crisis.” But watching the exchange reveals just how awkward and ineffective even firm pushback on liars can be:
What might an independent voter’s takeaway be from such an exchange? Tim Scott’s segment on the show wasn’t followed up with any reporting that refuted his lie. Still, kudos to Welker for standing firm. Too often pundits and TV journalists let lies go completely uncontested.
Welker also attempted to hold Scott to account for Trump’s recent threats that he would not respect the results of the 2024 election:
Scott’s dodging and deflecting of Welker’s direct question, “Yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024?” highlights the extensive media training he and other politicians undergo. One wonders how extensively the hosts of our most prestigious political broadcasts prepare to hold firm to their line of questioning.
Welker’s attempts at holding Scott to account are an encouraging improvement over the years-long mainstream media paradigm of letting lies go unchecked. Still, it’s pretty weird that after Scott lied outrageously and accused Welker of being a Democratic party shill, she smiled, thanked him for coming on, and invited him back.
Ultimately, however messy these exchanges may be, they represent an attempt to hold politicians to account for party leaders’ statements, which is an integral component of pro-democracy journalism. Getting candidates on the record allows for the rest of the media ecosystem to conduct further reporting that provides illuminating context from experts and officials, as you can see below:
Honorable Mentions (other pro-democracy coverage of note this week):
Kansas City Defender gives voters a guide to public school bond vote - Civic journalism outlet, the Kansas City Defender, provided essential reporting on the stakes of a recent vote on public school funding.
Applicable MAD Guideline: Prioritize substantive coverage of the issues that matter to voters’ lives.
Washington Post: In Arizona, election workers train with deepfakes to prepare for 2024 - The Post elevates the role of election workers and the importance of training them to defend against election subversion. The article features a terrifying video of a fake version of Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, completely fabricated using AI.
Applicable MAD Guidelines: Celebrate and uplift election workers, voters, and the election process AND Have a plan for managing deepfakes.
THE BAD NEWS
New York Times’ Executive Editor Champions Anti-Democracy
Ben Smith’s interview with NYT executive editor, Joe Kahn, set the media criticism world on fire this week. Kahn falsely asserted that critics of the Times’ political coverage want the paper to do propaganda for Biden.
Kahn:
It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them? I don’t even know how it’s supposed to work in the view of Dan Pfeiffer or the White House. We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that’s very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side? And that would accomplish — what?
Literally no one is asking the Times to become an “instrument of the Biden campaign.” Critics want an end to false equivalency between a coup-attemptor and a conventional candidate. They want frequent and prominent coverage, in plain language, of the threats Trump and his allies pose to democracy, especially details of who is funding the entire anti-democratic enterprise, and towards what ends.
It is wildly disconcerting to see the person hired to apply world-class news judgment at the nation’s most important news organization tell Smith that polls determine the paper’s coverage choices. Immigration is at the top of the polls because a well- funded propaganda ecosystem shouts about it every day, likewise with the economy and inflation. That’s the story. Provide readers with that context.
It’s indicative of a pro-Trump (and thereby, anti-democracy) bias endemic to all Times coverage that Kahn considers immigration and inflation as favorable issues for Trump. Both Biden and Trump can point to economic successes during their administrations. On that issue, the Times has worked overtime to paint Biden’s achievements as failures and Trump’s failures as achievements.
Immigration can only be seen as a favorable issue for Trump if one believes lying, demagoguery, and sabotaging legislation to address the issue are laudable feats of strategery—to the degree that you describe them to readers as such.
Lots has been said about Kahn’s obtuse apprehension of journalism’s role in a democracy. Here are the highlights for anyone wanting to take a deeper dive:
For a fairly complete breakdown, check out Dan Froomkin’s powerful Presswatchers piece: “New York Times editor Joe Kahn says defending democracy is a partisan act and he won’t do it.”
Brian Beutler made great points in his pay-walled Off-Message Substack. Here’s one of them:
Also check out these pieces from Greg Sargent, Dan Pfeiffer, and Oliver Darcy.
Nicholas Grossman tweeted that for all of Joe Khan’s rhetoric about covering what the public cares about, the Times often pursues obsessions of its own:
Dave Roberts got in on the action by pointing out the folly of relying on polls for coverage choices. Voters won’t say something is important if they don’t know anything about it:
Matt Yglesias said voters deserve high-quality, substantive coverage:
And Jeff Nesbitt’s commentary reveals a deep right-wing bias at the Times:
Joe Kahn’s forceful display of anti-democracy bias and overall cluelessness heightens MAD’s appreciation for the countless newsrooms and editors around the country who are making the effort to provide voters with context and clarity on the issues that matter to them most. The April 26th edition of Good News, Bad News featured three local papers from around the country that are making their commitment to pro-democracy election coverage clear (“These Newsrooms Have Made A Commitment To Pro-Democracy Coverage”), and putting the Grey Lady to shame in the process. Newsrooms can and should pursue a citizen’s agenda while simultaneously using news judgment to protect their readers from disinformation.
Maybe someday the New York Times will take its cues from these inspiring journalists, instead of from poll respondents soaking in the right-wing disinformation ecosystem, as the above Gallup graph shows.
Dishonorable Mentions (other election coverage failures this week):
“74% of Americans Like Dog A Lot!” CNN Consults “Betting Markets” in Uninformative Segment - In this demoralizing clip, Harry Enten stands with another pundit as the two flap their gums about meaningless percentages they have culled from “betting markets” in regard to the fallout from the dog-murder detailed in Kristi Noem’s book. I took the liberty of editing it down to spare you too much brain rot. The time and resources CNN spent on this segment could have instead been used to detail the policy positions of Trump’s potential VPs, their efficacy (or not) in their respective offices, or their history of lying (or not) about elections. Heck, CNN could even have produced another much-needed explainer of how over half of our inflationary struggles are the result of corporate greed. Whatever this is, it’s not good journalism.
Applicable MAD Guideline: Every guideline in our section asking newsrooms to Treat Elections Like They Matter More Than Sports Scores.
Associated Press runs PR headline on behalf of Kristi Noem - In reporting that South Dakota’s governor lied about meeting Kim Jong Un, the AP chose the headline, “South Dakota Gov. Noem admits error of describing meeting North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in new book.” Incredibly, the article does not include a single statement from Noem admitting she lied or in any way taking responsibility, as the headline suggests. Why did the AP make this bizarre decision to depict the VP contender as contrite? A total disservice to readers, a major boost to a liar.
Applicable MAD Guideline: Make headlines accurate and informative, not clickbait.
NBC News platforms uninformed opinions with little context, lots of euphemism - At first, the above linked article might seem like the kind of journalism MAD’s guidelines encourage. Reporter Alex Tabet mentions that Trump is suggesting the possibility of political violence if he loses. He calls Trump’s election claims baseless. But, he doesn’t call them lies. In a video segment attached to the article, Tabet says, "Trump supporters are parroting his skepticism.” The choice of “skepticism” to describe Trump’s strategic lying is an affront to the public’s need to understand what Trump and his allies are up to—deliberately sowing doubt about elections to set the pre-conditions for another insurrection if he loses.
Applicable MAD Guideline: Avoid euphemisms that conceal and normalize extremism.
Extra Credit: Pro-Democracy Quote Of The Week
The New York Times remains the most influential news outlet in America, even if there are others with larger audiences. Its choices, its blind spots, and its mistakes shape what millions who never read it understand about the world.
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.
NYT must have some crusty deep pockets demanding a rightward bend. What will Kahn think when Trump installs a national review board to control NYT's content? Or when wack-a-do Bannon, Miller, Flynn et.al start imprisoning journalists ala Germany in the late 1930s? The authors of Project 2025 only THINK they will be able to control Trump after they put him back in office; clearly they are unfamiliar with the history of despotism.