Brokedown Engine

As a sort of companion piece to my last post, at the New York Post Michael Goodwin has written what strikes me as an important column:

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale — that most of what you read, watch and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at the New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government — and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in “All the President’s Men.” Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

In essence he makes several points. The first is something has genuinely changed in the media.

The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction — toward Clinton and away from Trump.

He blames the New York Times and the Washington Post for abandoning any vestige of journalistic integrity:

For the most part, I blame the New York Times and the Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.

It didn’t used to be this way:

The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate. Those standards were developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to gain public trust. The commitment to fairness made the New York Times the flagship of American journalism. But standards are like laws in the sense that they are designed to guide your behavior in good times and in bad. Consistent adherence to them was the source of the Times’ credibility. And eliminating them has made the paper less than ordinary. Its only standards now are double standards.

And the change is irreversible:

Which brings us to the crucial questions. Can the American media be fixed? And is there anything that we as individuals can do to make a difference? The short answer to the first question is, “No, it can’t be fixed.” The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment. It fell off the wall, shattered into a million pieces, and can’t be put back together again. In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.

I think that the likely outcomes of all of this are that the media conglomerates will continue their downward spiral and the present tendency for different factions to have their own facts will only accelerate.

16 comments… add one
  • steve Link

    He is pretty much full of shi$. We have never had a POTUS candidate like this. The level of crudity is what you would expect, maybe, in a rough congressional race, or a local city council race. We have not seen a candidate this uninformed since Palin. Before Palin I am not sure who compares. He promised everything. (Not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid. Everyone gets covered. It will be cheaper. It will be easy. I know more about ISIS than the generals. ) He contradicted himself weekly, and sometimes more often. No detail on his “policy proposals”. For daring to point some of this out, the press is biased? No way. Now, where they do show bias is that they cover him non-stop. It gets good ratings. They cover every tweet. (Which Trump could control by not tweeting.)

    The guy is a marketing genius. He is great at PR. He knows exactly how to please his base, and does. However, he just isn’t accomplishing much. Even Fox is giving him mostly negative coverage and the shilled for Palin. (For Trump too, but it has just been too hard to ignore some of what he does.)

    Steve

  • Guarneri Link

    Poor Steve. Take two aspirin and call us in the morning.

    But I digress. I actually read the piece before arriving at GE. My biggest reaction was to the Humpty Dumpty reference. He provides no supporting argument for the notion of irretrievability. Yet things usually don’t work that way. I wonder if people have thoughts about that assertion.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    Never will happen. Trump’s base enjoys all of this–the rage and condescension; they want to attack and bully and then be victims. Attacking the media for showing a Trump tweet is just another step. It would be a pitiable moment in reality tv. The real question is how far gone Trump & his followers will be this time next year. Season 2 of crap has to be have more crap than Season 1.

  • PD Shaw Link

    Time for an Abraham Lincoln pun. When the wife of the Secretary of the Navy stopped into the White House to see the famous painting of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation she’d heard so much about, the artist had to explain it wasn’t yet finished, newspaper reports are not always reliable. Lincoln added, “that is to say, Mrs. Welles, they ‘lie,’ and then they ‘re-lie!’

    I don’t know that our press is any more or less reliable than it was 150 years ago. The tendencies are quite similar.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    FUN, ain’t it? What we like about Trump is, he can be relied upon to never give up. Will the Elites in the media ever swallow their pride and give trump the kind of interviews they gave Obama? (stroking and petting). NO. They cannot stomach him, but their job is to report and inform, so they lose business.
    I’d like to see one of these “reporters”, interview the President in a fashion to reveal his hopes for this nation and his plans for getting us there. If you start with the premise that he is a con, a charlatan, you’ve picked a fight, and you know Trump.
    Is there no one in the news business intelligent enough to do an honest interview?
    I honestly believe they are afraid that it would cost them their jobs. Their jobs and their friends and social connections.
    But it won’t matter as news is changing. Last I heard, Trump has 30 M. twitter followers, and counting.

  • steve Link

    “What we like about Trump is, he can be relied upon to never give up. ”

    Never give up on keeping himself as the center of attention.

  • I disagree with just one sentence of Michael Goodwin’s column: “The Times’ previous reputation for having the highest standards was legitimate.”

    No, they were always garbage, at least much of the time. Especially since Little Pinch took over. This is the same newspaper that happily released classified intel that could have gotten Americans killed and very much may have done so during the Bush administration, the same paper with the most blatant and frankly, lying coverage of Israel and the ME at least since the Yom Kippur war. and the same paper that still proudly displays Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer prize for his pro-Stalin coverage of the Soviet Union they published. They never published a mea culpa, even after it finally came out the Duranty had hushed up the Stalin Terror, the show trials and the Holdomor, a Stalin enforced genocidal famine in the Ukraine hat murdered an officially estimated 7 million to 10 million people.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    Let’s go with option C:

    1) Trump is a malignant narcissist and an ignorant, pathological liar. He is incapable of admitting error and therefore cannot learn from mistakes, and he appears addicted to cable news and social media.

    2) Our media have lost all pretense to objectivity in reacting to everything he does as bringing the apocalypse. Eight months of meaningless “Trump works for Putin”, fixation on stupid, irrelevant tweeting and continuous pearl clutching because he won’t act “presidential” have rendered outfits like the Post and Times into tabloids.

  • I am in complete agreement with that assessment, Ben. Also, consider these hypotheticals. Imagine that Trump stops doing all of the horrible stuff you list in #1. How will the media respond? I don’t think they’ll respond at all. They’ll keep doing everything they’ve been doing including flat out lying about Trump and continue driving themselves into the ditch until they’re only relevant to a handful of true believers. How do I know that? Because they reacted the same way to someone as mild as Mitt Romney.

    What if the media resort to strict standards of journalistic ethics? They won’t change Trump’s behavior but they might start rebuilding what they’ve lost.

  • steve Link

    Totally disagree. With Bush they covered his issues, and they were incredibly uncritical on the war. If Romney had been elected they would have done the same, and I don’t really remember them being all that harsh with him to begin with. When he clearly wiped the floor with Obama in that one debate they were quick to point that out.

    Steve

  • “Bush lied” has been completely discredited and yet you saw and continue to see it in the media. Obama was pretty clearly cut a lot of slack by the media. Pew Research found that Romney was treated significantly more harshly than Obama by the media, particularly in “horse race” coverage.

  • Andy Link

    I’m with Ben on this one.

    The thing is, Trump is so bad that there should not be any need to exaggerate when reporting on him. There should be no reason not to give due diligence to reports to ensure they are as accurate as possible. If they did all that, Trump would still look terrible and the MSM would maintain some credibility.

    And then there is Twitter, which is destroying reasonable communication 140 characters at a time. The elite twitterverse is one giant circle-jerk.

  • There should be no reason not to give due diligence to reports to ensure they are as accurate as possible. If they did all that, Trump would still look terrible and the MSM would maintain some credibility.

    Exactly, Andy. And what’s with all of the unnamed sources? An occasional unnamed source is one thing but when most of the sources are unnamed it makes you wonder if the “unnamed source” is some guy in the next cubicle.

  • Andy Link

    Good thing we have CNN investigating Reddit GIF trolls:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

  • A good case in point.

  • Andy Link

    Don’t make CNN angry or they will dox you!

Leave a Comment