In Push For Clicks, Mainstream Media Can't Stop Privileging Lies
Good News, Bad News: August 9, 2024. With 88 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
The Marshall Project Features the Issues Reporting Most Mainstream Outlets De-emphasize
If I was in charge of a major news outlet ahead of the November elections, I’d regularly inform my readers of where the candidates for president stand on the issues. Duh, right?
From the standpoint of a duty to inform the public, it’s bizarre that our major news organizations do not regularly, and prominently, feature candidates’ policies. Of course, it’s less bizarre when we understand the profit imperative—with its reliance on the sensational—that drives what information is pumped into American minds.
While we wait for major media outlets to lighten up on the polls and predictions in favor of reliably informing us of what’s important to know when choosing between candidates, kudos must be extended to The Marshall Project. They are a non-profit journalism outlet focused on the criminal justice beat and their recent article, “5 Things to Know About Kamala Harris’ Criminal Justice Record” exemplifies the type of issues-based reporting that we need.
One of the organizing concepts of our guidelines is for newsrooms to start treating elections like they matter more than sports scores. The Marshall Project’s reporters Jamiles Lartey and Lakeidra Chavis are doing just that.
THE BAD NEWS
In Push For Clicks, Mainstream Media Can't Stop Privileging Lies
One of our pro-democracy election coverage guidelines asks newsrooms not to act as stenographers for strategic MAGA lies. We implore newsmakers to “choose responsible frames based on knowledgeable sources, not the frames and PR opportunities created for you by MAGA Republicans.”
CBS News totally blew it last week when they blasted a headline full of stuff Tom Cotton made up, simply because Tom Cotton said it on their premier Sunday show, Face The Nation.
In her non-informative article about Cotton’s appearance, comprised of only 305 words, CBS reporter Kaia Hubbard wrote:
The Arkansas Republican criticized Harris for being the presumptive nominee for two weeks without providing any opportunity for unscripted moments or questions from the press. He said when she does encounter the media, she'll have to answer for her positions on issues like energy and gun policy.
Ok, Tom Cotton says Harris has radical positions. Reporter Hubbard relays to her readers that Cotton specifically says her energy and gun policy positions are radical. It appears Hubbard stopped there, without any attempt to establish for her audience whether or not the things Cotton says are true. Let’s do her job for her.
On guns, Harris wants to ban assault weapons. A majority of Americans (64% according to this Pew Research survey) also want to ban assault weapons. In general, roughly 60% of the country is in favor of increased gun control.
As for energy policy, Harris was the VP for the most pro-climate administration in US history. According to CBS News’ own reporting, a “big majority of Americans support U.S. taking steps to reduce climate change.”
Harris’ positions on gun and energy policy are nowhere close to radical. But wait, it gets so much worse. In the interview, Cotton blatantly lied, saying Harris “wants to ban gas powered cars” and “confiscate private firearms.” Total lies. Presenter Ed O’Keefe responded to Cotton’s lies by saying, “You've just done a decent job there of explaining the potential policy differences between the former president and the vice president.” O’Keefe’s response amounted to nothing less than the CBS news organization legitimizing and spreading dangerous lies.
The people at CBS who appraise and report facts for a living sanctioned lies on-air and then blasted out a headline with no basis in fact. If something a prominent politician says isn’t true, it is journalistic malpractice, and disrespectful to the audience, to uncritically regurgitate it without any corrective reporting. The story should have been about Tom Cotton’s outrageous lying, so that voters were informed of his lack of trustworthiness.
Jamison Foser, formerly of Media Matters for America, calls this sort of press behavior “privileging the lie.” Foser wrote brilliantly about this concept in a recent piece on the GOP’s latest attempts to “swiftboat” Tim Walz. According to Foser, false rhetoric like the kind Cotton traffics should be punished by reporters in the form of prominent reporting that frames his lies as the most important part of the story.
If you think the media's job is to bring their readers and viewers the truth, this is obviously the best [option].
This is where some will say “but then reporters will be taking sides.”
And there is some truth to that: They'll be taking the truth's side.
Reporters “take sides” with everything they do. Everything they do involves a choice, involves a decision that X is more important than Y. When they report a lie five times before reporting the fact that it is false, they are taking the lie's side.
American voters deserve a national media that no longer privileges lies told for strategic gain by bad actors. The professionals Americans count on to report facts must become partisans for truth if we have any hope of holding on to our democracy this November.
Extra Credit: Pro-Democracy Quote Of The Week
When a candidate makes a false claim, reporters can respond one of three ways:
They can ignore it, on the basis that a false claim is unworthy of attention.
They can adopt the false claim as the basis of their report...
They can produce a report centered on the fact that the candidate is saying something that is untrue. If it is the latest of many falsehoods, they can indicate that. If the candidate is telling more and larger falsehoods than the opposition, they can make that clear. In short, they can make the lack of credibility of the person making the false claim the theme of their coverage.
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.
O'Keefe has been particularly bad this election cycle - has he always been that way? It feels like he has a chip on his shoulder with Biden/Harris.