In a piece at Rolling Stone Matt Taibbi laments the sorry state of today’s journalism:
During the Trump-Clinton presidential race three years ago, I wrote:
The model going forward will likely involve Republican media covering Democratic corruption and Democratic media covering Republican corruption. This setup just doesn’t work.
The al-Baghdadi story is a classic example of what happens when that dynamic is allowed to play out to its logical conclusion. From Fox to the New York Times, all of the major commercial outlets this weekend were more consumed with telling audiences who benefited politically from the al-Baghdadi mission, than getting the facts about that mission out.
This is a disservice to audiences, who deserve to know the basics. Who is al-Baghdadi? How did he come to be the leader of ISIS/ISIL? Why was he in Idlib? The story of this person ought to have been a mix of the enraging and the sobering. Al-Baghdadi was reportedly involved in all sorts of atrocities, from beheadings to crucifixions, but he seems to have become radicalized by America’s invasion of Iraq.
This ought to have been a moment to reflect on what’s happened in the last twenty years, and if our policies across multiple administrations have been the right ones. Would we even be launching operations against such a person if we hadn’t invaded Iraq all those years ago? What’s the endgame? What do the people of the region think?
All of this has been subsumed to the only story left that matters in the United States – who’s winning Twitter at any given moment, Trumpers or anti-Trumpers? News outlets are now so committed to pushing one or the other narrative that they are falling prey to absurdities like the Post’s “austere cleric†headline.
I have been criticized here for falling for “rightwing political correctness”. If I have fallen victim to rightwing agitprop, so has Matt Taibbi. I think a more accurate way of viewing my criticism of the WaPo’s headline which, like Mr. Taibbi, I thought was absurd, is that I am viewing it more as journalists used to as is Mr. Taibbi.
If we are going to separate into one set of media outlets aligned with the Democratic Party and another aligned with the Republican Party, neither particularly reliable, as it is openly in the United Kingdom, I think we should have libel and defamation laws like those in the UK. Here in the U. S. we have a very high standard. Actual malice must be proven to prevail in a libel suit while it is practically impossible for a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit against a media outlet. In the UK, the burden of proof in a defamation suit is on the defendant. That would be a drastic change.
I would prefer a more judicious media but, alas, that is probably not to be had.
To be frank, I’ve never been much of a fan of Taibbi, but here I think he’s exactly right and I can’t find much to disagree with.
If I were still on Twitter, I’d like to see the activist left’s reaction to his apostasy and “false equivalence.”
When it comes to covering politics, the MSM is now dispensing rabid opinion, gotcha, and horse races. Facts are only important if they support a narrative. Some may blame the pursuit of clicks for this situation, but back in the day newspapers did make a buck while providing slanted news. This may be partly because the much longer news cycle (once or maybe twice a day at most) allowed time to actually research scoops before going to press.
Be careful what you wish for.
The standard for libel / defamation is defined by the Supreme Court. 2 of the 5 judges needed to redefine the standard may have very personal opinions of this matter.
al-Baghdadi gets killed and did we have any of what Taibi said?
“This is a disservice to audiences, who deserve to know the basics. Who is al-Baghdadi? How did he come to be the leader of ISIS/ISIL? Why was he in Idlib? The story of this person ought to have been a mix of the enraging and the sobering. Al-Baghdadi was reportedly involved in all sorts of atrocities, from beheadings to crucifixions, but he seems to have become radicalized by America’s invasion of Iraq.
This ought to have been a moment to reflect on what’s happened in the last twenty years, and if our policies across multiple administrations have been the right ones. Would we even be launching operations against such a person if we hadn’t invaded Iraq all those years ago? What’s the endgame? What do the people of the region think?”
No. Heck, there wasn’t even much talk about the article. Lots of attention on the headline. As grown ups dont we all know that headlines often dont have much to do with the written article? So why did it get concentrated on? Yes, it was lame, probably someone trying to be clever, but why weren’t we talking about all of the stuff Taibi mentioned? Right wing PC.
“If we are going to separate into one set of media outlets aligned with the Democratic Party and another aligned with the Republican Party, neither particularly reliable, as it is openly in the United Kingdom, I think we should have libel and defamation laws like those in the UK. ”
I cant see us giving up the free speech rights to do this.
Steve
Oddly, the Brits think they have freedom of speech, too.
Steve,
It ain’t just right-wing PC. Remember the “Trump urges unity vs racism” NYT headline that caused so much outrage on the left in early August?
Andy- Agreed. Just two points. One, as I said headlines arent worth worrying about. They often dont reflect the content of the article. Second, right wing PC really exists. This was a classic case. Left wing PC is real, but it is just as real on the right.
Dave- By historical standards and international standards they do. Ours are more encompassing.
Steve
The WaPo headline is just a teapot housed tempest and illustration of media pettiness and absurdity. There are bigger, darker issues.
The kerfuffle over a phone call is simply a diversion from much bigger issues, in Ukraine and elsewhere. And beginning years prior. Clownish headlines will soon seem the least of our concerns with media. Stay tuned.