How guilty people attack the news media

/
The Trump administration has disgracefully tried to deflect criticism for Signalgate onto The Atlantic.

EDITED ILLUSTRATION (ORIGINAL BY MOHAMED HASSAN)

(AMUSING ANECDOTE: WHEN I FIRST TRIED TO CREATE AN ILLUSTRATION USING AN AI IMAGE GENERATOR, I USED KEYWORDS “LYING POLITICIAN” AND GOT FOUR AI IMAGES OF DONALD TRUMP.)

Having been caught using an unauthorized messaging service to discuss details of a military bombing operation with a journalist inadvertently invited into the chat, members of the Trump administration have offered the finest selection of reasons from which gullible people can choose and convince themselves that this highly troubling story is actually no big deal at all.

In fact, the “flood the zone” responses to The Atlantic’s scoop cover pretty much all the different possibilities for propagandist responses when a news organization publishes a negative story about a powerful person or group. Here’s a list of the customary options, all of which we’ve heard or seen from one or more administration officials since the Signal story went public on Monday:

  • Attack the accuracy of the story. Even claim fabrication. (In the Signal case, fittingly, one administration official made this claim even after another one had already confirmed authenticity. “Hoax” was a talking point all week but it was never clear which part was the hoax.)

  • Engage in a game of meaningless semantics. (The White House points, for instance, to a contrast between “war plans” and “attack plans,” a distinction without a difference.)

  • Accuse the reporter of political bias or a personal grudge against the subject. Smear the reporter’s character. Make him part of a conspiracy. (The journalist in the group chat, Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, was deemed “highly discredited” by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Donald Trump called him a “sleazebag.” Another administration official also called him a bag, except that official said the bag contained scum, not sleaze. And he was working with Democrats, of course.)

  • Allege illegal or unethical behavior in how the reporter obtained the story. (National Security Adviser Mike Waltz suggested, wrongly, that Goldberg got himself into the meeting by some kind of nefarious plot.)

  • Engage in “whataboutism,” meaning to deflect from the issue at hand to talk about a supposedly parallel case that the media supposedly ignored. (White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt offered world-record non sequiturs by bringing up Hillary Clinton’s private email server and Hunter Biden’s laptop.)

  • Argue that the story isn’t newsworthy. (The White House points to the success of the bombing mission, claims the text messages included no classified information, and argues that use of Signal was perfectly reasonable. And come on, people, haven’t we all texted the wrong person by mistake?)

  • Threaten some kind of legal action. (OK, this is one I haven’t come across regarding The Atlantic – yet.)

Journalists expect responses like these when they do critical stories. The Atlantic offered a dagger of a comeback by publishing a more complete text chain. News outlets ought to push back. Defend the reputation. And because they need to try to build back their diminishing trust among the public, outlets need to share more of their editorial thinking behind controversial reports. That does not mean, however, getting into back-and-forth shouting matches with the subjects of those reports. Stand behind the journalism, explain it, but let the work itself do most of the talking.

The lesson for the public is this: When you see a wrongdoer respond with one or more (or all!) of the tactics listed here, that’s a pretty good sign that the journalist nailed the story.

Trump’s fight with the Associated Press is about more than one word

/

from google maps

The worst part about President Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America is that John Mellencamp has to re-record “Pink Houses” and it isn’t going to rhyme anymore.

That, and the Trump administration trying to bully The Associated Press into conforming.

Many news media are refusing to conform. Some others, such as Axios, have pathetically caved. Some, such as Gannett, will write the world’s longest sentence and acknowledge both names.

But it’s the AP specifically that’s getting punished, with its reporters banned from White House press opportunities for the past week. Trump reiterated the punishment on Tuesday. The AP, which is following Trump’s order to rename Mount Denali as Mount McKinley, says it won’t change its gulf references because Trump can’t dictate the name of a gulf that isn’t completely within the U.S. and because it doesn’t want to confuse its many international readers who still recognize the 400-year-old name “Gulf of Mexico.” The White House seeks to justify its punitive actions by saying the AP is engaging in “misinformation,” which is like a kettle being called black by an oil tank. (And if misinformation is the standard, Fox News should be confined to standing on Pennsylvania Avenue.)

Various media reports say the Trump administration is picking on the AP because it’s annoyed by what it sees as a pattern of progressive language choices in the wire service’s widely followed (but non-binding!) stylebook. The crowd belittling wokeness* remains offended, for instance, about the AP’s decision to begin capitalizing “Black,” but not “white.” Unlike the AP, they see no problem with “illegal immigrants,” for another example. I’ve been using or teaching the AP Stylebook for an entire career and while there’s certainly some silliness, the AP has evolved its recommendations to eliminate language that is understandably offensive to a variety of minority groups. In other cases, the AP made decisions that required wrestling with the often competing considerations of political neutrality and truth.

Word choices are often fraught with politics. Consider “The Civil War” vs. “The War Between the States.” Or “pro-abortion” vs. “pro-choice.” One person’s “militant” is another person’s “terrorist.“ And someone else’s “freedom fighter.”

donald trump called out the ap again on tuesday. community note: his executive order is not a law.

“Gulf of America” is an exercise in ethnocentrism and xenophobia. The White House then chose to use the issue not only to try to bully the AP but also to try to spook all media into obeying on matters of language. In the even bigger picture, Trump’s actions are a dopamine hit for his anti-media voter base, and an attempt to assert power over the press. He hopes that translates into greater reluctance to challenge presidential actions and policies.

News organizations have rightly called out the White House for its treatment of the AP, and they’re quietly pushing the White House behind the scenes, but defense of journalistic independence and free speech demands stronger, collective action. Being ignored is really painful for Trump, as is not having anyone to fight with. So, until the AP’s access gets restored, colleagues should boycott White House press events.** It wouldn’t take everyone to be effective. (Read this for a contrary opinion.)

Media politics and egos would never allow it to happen, but I have long believed that press conferences with presidents and press secretaries, especially the current ones, could be adequately handled by one TV camera and one aggressive pool reporter, while everyone else in the huge White House press corps devotes their time more wisely to finding truth and impactful news stories within the executive branch. What’s funny is, in my imagined scenario, that lone pool reporter was always The Associated Press.

 

* The AP added “woke” to its stylebook in 2023 but discourages its use.

** In 2009 major TV networks refused to interview a top Treasury Department official because the Obama administration had told Fox News it couldn’t participate. The White House eventually changed its mind.

The Trump storyline that reporters must not fail on

/

photo illustration by gerd altmann

After being understandably maligned in the aftermath of November’s presidential election, much of the national news media has responded to President Donald Trump’s early grenade throwing exhibition with some excellent journalism.

Media critics and Trump haters rightly still vent about weak word choices. Trump’s Gaza idea, for instance, is worse than “audacious” (New York Times’ first version) and worse than “brazen” (revised version). They also vent about a seeming routineness to story presentations. One respected critic wondered why TV networks aren’t doing wall-to-wall coverage as they do for natural disasters and why they aren’t writing chyrons that say “America in Crisis.” And corporate media bosses who have bowed down to Trump with Mar-a-Lago visits, lawsuit settlements, inauguration donations and squelched candidate endorsements deserve every ounce of the outrage.

But it’s still possible for ethical newsrooms, where publishers and owners aren’t meddling in day-to-day stories and editors aren’t self-censoring, to do good work. Although it’s mentally hard for many people to read or watch the news these days, the good work has been out there since Trump Part II began. Outlets large and small, legacy and digital-only, are uncovering news and placing it in the necessary contexts of political retaliation, crony enrichment and an attack on the rule of law and the Constitution. The non-stop pace of controversial actions from the White House makes it hard for media and citizens to keep up, but the alarms are audible to anyone listening.

This work needs to continue. But it will not be enough.

The most important story facing the press is just now unfolding: Documenting the impact that presidential actions and policies will have on the lives of people, especially (but not exclusively) groups that are targeted and vulnerable. Like this story. And this one. This crucial reporting must not be done with some sort of artificial, 50-50 balance of good and bad because that’s not going to be the reality.

Nor can it be done to maximum effect through statistics, political opponent sound bites and experts expounding. It means, instead, talking to real people who will lay bare the facts and emotions of their lives at the moment. It should be the most powerful storytelling of the next few years.

The obligation to show consequences, which will demand a commitment over time, belongs not just to national news organizations. Local ones that know their communities and citizens are better positioned to pound the pavement and find the impacts.

All big stories like this have endless angles, of course. Here’s another one the media should not shy away from: the voter remorse angle. It may seem pointless and even antagonistic to ask for self-reflection from Trump voters who don’t like what they’ve seen this time around or, more significantly, discover that their lives got worse. Not easy to admit you got snookered. And they might not even believe that they were.

But remorse, or lack of it, remains a legitimate news angle going forward, with big implications for the election process, for how the news media should play their role, and for understanding the way many Americans think.

How Trump might cripple the news media. Good luck, everyone.

/

photo illustration by Peggy and Marco Lachmann-Anke

After Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, news organizations benefitted from a “Trump bump” in ratings and page views. The aftermath since November, however, has been the opposite. Metrics for media in the non-sycophant category have showed a Trump slump.

That trend might continue, because if the returning president accomplishes even some of the anti-media measures he has talked about, there could be a whole lot less journalism worth paying attention to.

Below are many of the ways that Trump might make it harder for the press to do its job during his second administration. All of these either have precedent from the first administration or represent more recent public statements made by Trump, cabinet nominees or advisers. Some are part of Project 2025. It’s a non-innovative list from the authoritarian handbook used throughout time and the world.

It would be a mistake to dismiss any of these potential actions as mere annoyances. They would translate into obstacles to effective journalism. Let’s also acknowledge that many groups have more to fear during the next four years than the news media. But the victimization of those groups will be made easier by a hampered press.

Anyone who believes the mainstream media as a group deserves retribution for failures and bias should remember, as they read this list, that the best ways to accomplish that are audience protests and denial of patronage, not government interference.

This is quite the frightening list. But the news media have ways to resist, and the reputable ones will want to. That’ll be easier if news consumers help.

If you can afford it, buy a subscription or donate to any local, regional or national outlet that you think is doing a good job. It need not be a big, well-known organization. Even a small amount helps, because proof of grassroots support is often a prerequisite for big grants from national foundations.

Beyond money, there’s value in publicly expressing objections to anti-media actions, preferably before they happen. Do it on social media or, better yet, contact elected representatives. Let them know you’re paying attention and it matters to you.

Finally, we need some better media literacy. While not dismissing journalism’s flaws and the need to do better, it’s crucial that readers and viewers figure out the good news sources from the bad ones, and when faced with critical but credibly reported stories, believe them. And persuade the neighbors to believe them, too.

I’d advocate for this whether the government was in the hands of a crazed authoritarian or a left-wing extremist. Believe those stories. Remember them. Make them part of the democratic process of government accountability. The news media are positioned to help that happen – that is, if they aren’t getting throttled by the heavy hand of an administration that knows it needs to corrupt the process.



“My main concern is that local politicians will take their cue from Trump and harass us.”
— Norine Dworkin, editor of VoxPopuli in Orange County, Florida, to the New York Times, Jan. 13, 2025

Do your journalism professors know anything about real newsrooms?

/

Image by Gerd Altmann

As a new semester begins, I say again that college students do not know enough about the credentials of the professors they’re paying for. Do the profs truly know what they’re teaching?

This question is prompted by a monster-long Facebook thread I saw a few months ago that mostly excoriated journalism schools for having too many professors with minimal or no real experience in the field. “Academics who’ve never worked in a newsroom have no clue what is required to succeed in the field,” one typical comment said. (The thread appeared in a private group for former journalism professionals so the dominant viewpoint isn’t surprising.)

When I began work toward a graduate degree after more than three decades in the business, I remember thinking, “Don’t laugh out loud at the oblivious things my professors say.” Well, guess what. I never had a reason to. In fact, before too long, I was thinking, “Dang, that’s exactly right.” Then, “Dang, that’s really interesting. I didn’t know that.” And then, “Dang, that theory explains everything I did for 30 years.”

I certainly won’t pretend that every teacher in every journalism program is up to speed on the realities and current practices of the business. But most are, and most do have at least some real-world experience even if only for a few years early in their careers.

Conscientious professors make constant efforts to stay abreast, with many ways to do so:

  • Freelance work on the side.

  • Staying in contact with current pros.

  • Guest speakers (and God bless every guest speaker everywhere).

  • Joining professional associations.

  • Professional development workshops.

  • A ton of reading (academic articles, media watchdog articles and the vast production of daily journalism itself).

It’s also worth remembering that with journalism changing so rapidly, even a long resume in the field is no guarantee of an up-to-date teacher.

There are some reasons it’s hard for J-schools to get longtime veterans. The main accrediting agency for journalism says it wants “a balance of academic and professional credentials” among the faculty but the reality is that many small and medium journalism departments hire only professors with a PhD. Although I know at least a half dozen veterans who changed careers and impressively earned doctorates, that’s a hard-to-find combination.

Larger departments have more flexibility, as they can hire instructors with only master’s degrees and some universities allow adjuncts with only a bachelor’s degree. A lot of professional experience gets shared in the classroom because of these teachers.

As important as that is, journalism schools and departments also seek credentials that will fulfill other aspects of their mission. In many cases, academic research into journalism and the resulting publications are considered more important than preparing students for jobs. It may be good that researchers haven’t worked in the field because that detachment allows them to question industry routines and spot innovative solutions to problems.

Research faculty also teach and generally they excel at the “conceptual” courses that any good J-school ought to offer – media effects, theory and ethics, for examples. A journalism major’s education comes from a variety of classes with different missions and that require different backgrounds among professors.

 The smartest comment in that long Facebook ranting and raving I saw came from a journalism professor at Kent State named John Kroll. More important to a journalism student’s success than a professor’s resume, he pointed out, is teaching ability. “And that quality isn’t guaranteed either by a Ph.D. or dozens of years in a newsroom.”

December sports ritual: New coaches, media figure each other out

/

Bill Belichick was friendly with the North Carolina media, at least on Day 1 (UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA ATHLETICS PHOTO)

Watch for a spectacular culture clash between the University of North Carolina’s new head football coach, the famously media-unfriendly Bill Belichick, and the UNC sports media, including student reporters from one of the nation’s best journalism programs. Maybe Belichick’s brief time working in the media this year will change him, but I doubt it.

Part of the annual December “coaching carousel” in college football is figuring out what media relations will be like. On one side, sports information directors let their new coaches know who the favored and disfavored reporters on the beat are. On the other side, beat reporters are talking to beat reporters from wherever the new coach came to assess the friendliness/hostility level they can expect.

Of interest are the coach’s media access policies* – to the coach, to assistants and players, to practice. These are rooted in the coach’s personality, including how paranoid he is, and in his view of the media’s role. Some see the press as irrelevant and annoying, perhaps even as an uncontrollable threat to disrupt the program. Others see it as a good way to communicate with fans, donors, recruits and even their own players. Some like the personal reputation they can build, too.

Sometimes things get out of hand. Last year, in his first year, University of Colorado football coach Deion Sanders called out Colorado sports writers for insufficient positivity about him and the team. I think even Deion knows that’s not their job. Earlier this year, Sanders put out a public statement that he would no longer answer questions from a Denver Post columnist because of “personal attacks” on him. He could have just done that quietly, but the statement served the real purposes of an attempted flaunt of power and of bringing attention to himself.

Last year, USC football coach Lincoln Riley took away a writer’s access to the team for two weeks because the writer reported on a conversation between two players while in an approved media area and also asked a followup question after a press conference had concluded. How dare that reporter engage in basic journalism. Alabama Media Group’s Kevin Scarbinsky called it “a wild, thin-skinned overreaction.”

No equivalent cases happened during Nick Saban’s time at Alabama that I know of, but he certainly acted the ruffian toward the local and state reporters. I wondered if things got any better in Kalen DeBoer’s first year this year. A couple of the UA beat journalists said yes. Much.

In policy, DeBoer differs from Saban in that coordinators and assistant coaches are available weekly rather than off limits during the regular season, according to Nick Kelly of AL.com. And it’s now possible to interview freshmen, which turns out to be a big deal because of the newsworthiness of first-year players Ryan Williams and Zabien Brown. There’s also more media viewing allowed during fall camp.

Unlike Saban, DeBoer is willing to do one-on-one interviews “with pretty much anyone who requests one,” Katie Windham of BamaCentral wrote in an email. “With Saban it was pretty much ESPN or no one.” Reporters appreciate one-on-one interviews as chances to do distinctive work in a highly competitive market where it’s often hard to break from the pack.

Kalen DeBoer's media rules differ greatly from Nick Saban's. (UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA ATHLETICS PHOTO)

In one regard, Windham pointed out, Saban was more accessible because he did two press conferences per week while DeBoer does one. Those press conferences have changed dramatically, Kelly said.

“Any time Saban spoke, a rant was possible,” Kelly wrote in an email. “And you didn't know if your question was going to be the one to set him off. That's not the case with DeBoer. We have yet to get a rant from DeBoer, and I'm not sure we ever will. That's not his style. He's pretty even keel.”

Windham agrees. “I honestly can't even remember a time that he's been visibly angry with a question. If he doesn't like something that was asked, he'll say some words, but not really answer the question. I think DeBoer sees more value in the local media than Saban did and actually wants to help.”   

Yes, some coaches do want to help. And some do not. It makes December job changes impactful not just for fans but also for the reporters whose ability to do their jobs might go way up or, unfortunately, way down.

 

*I think athletics directors should set a consistent media policy for all their sports but that’ll never happen.


Good reasons for journalists to leave X -- and to stay

/

IMAGE BY ENRIQUE FROM PIXABAY

The journalists who have departed from X/Twitter since owner Elon Musk corrupted his social media platform and emerged as a leader of MAGA politics have been rightly unkind in their assessments. Some examples:

  • Magazine/newsletter writer James Fallows (several hundred thousand X followers): “Elon Musk has made it a vehicle of propaganda, hatred, and lies.”

  • Sports book/newsletter author Jeff Pearlman (85,000 followers): “Uniquely ugly and gross and cruel … an unambiguously anti-truth platform.”

  • The Guardian (a whole news organization): “X is a toxic media platform.”

All true. But a question remains: Why aren’t more journalists and newsrooms doing this? The majority aren’t. It essentially comes down to how one weighs the value of a righteous stance against a lot of practical considerations that make remaining on X logical.

Some journalist dissatisfaction with X predates Musk’s purchase in 2022. One journalist wrote that she tried to tough it out “while Twitter’s endemic racist, sexist and transphobic harassment problems grew increasingly more sophisticated and organized.” She signed out in 2017.

Under Musk, X has gotten worse. After he eviscerated content moderation, X now welcomes and amplifies political and demographic hatred, along with blatant disinformation, a lot of it pumped by Musk himself. It has restored users banned by previous ownership, and the algorithm downplays progressive viewpoints. Musk was clearly insincere, if not lying, when he said in April 2022: “For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.”

All of this, along with Musk going more public as a funder and adviser of Donald Trump, has prompted a notable exodus of individuals, including some journalists, to other social media sites such as Threads, Mastodon and Bluesky, which I joined last week while still staying on X*.

X has lost an average of 14% of its daily users every month since Musk bought it. In the 24 hours after the presidential election, its daily user count dropped from 162 million to 157 million. Meanwhile, Bluesky gained 6 million total users since the election, giving it 20 million. Threads** said it has been adding 1 million signups per day for three months.

Despite the shift, you can still find most individual reporters and news outlets on X. The reasons generally relate to their ability to do their jobs and to the promotional benefits.

Reporters find X (and other social media platforms) useful in newsgathering. It’s a common way to gain story ideas, find people to interview, locate witnesses and visuals when news breaks, and assess public reaction to events. And occasionally, prominent figures who are otherwise inaccessible post newsworthy statements.

It’s also effective in getting more eyes on a journalist’s good work. It may seem like the whole world is on X. The reality is that X’s reach has never exceeded 25% of the U.S. adult population. But among the users of X are many influential individuals that journalists want to reach – decision makers, citizen activists, academics, other journalists. They hope to maximize the impact of their work, along with wanting to boost the reputation and relevance of themselves and their organizations. Nothing wrong with that.

AL.com, for one, remains on X. It evaluated circumstances after Musk’s purchase but didn’t see a mass departure of users. Director of Audience Katie Brumbeloe wrote in an email: “Ultimately, we decided we would not leave Twitter/X because we still have a large audience there and we need to continue to have a presence there, sharing our work and listening to and engaging with audiences there.” The newsroom’s political, investigative and sports stories get substantial reach and engagement on X, she said.

AL.com, which does not require its writers to post on any particular social media platform, recently started re-posting work on Bluesky “after taking a break over the summer when we were getting no engagement at all,” Brumbeloe said. It’s “experimenting” with both Bluesky and Threads.

Beyond the visibility, there’s also a good argument that journalists need to stay on X and inject as much truth as they can into the Xosphere, even if it feels like typing in a typhoon of tripe. To go elsewhere seems like a win for Musk and a loss for X users who don’t live permanently in an echo chamber.

Perhaps someday a different social media platform can become a major, credible, safe forum for political discussion that bumps X to the fringe. Part of accomplishing that would have to be a long list of newsrooms willing to make a difficult decision.

 

*I feel obligated to explain why I remain on X, which I use mostly to post links to this blog. The blog is primarily for my students (present and past) and they haven’t moved from X to Threads, Mastodon or Bluesky (I know because I searched). I also take some justification in that my small-community blog discussions do not attract mean and crazy people. I realize that all activity benefits the platform, but I do not subscribe to any of X’s paid services.

 **Threads, owned by Facebook, continues to grow its user count but it de-emphasizes posts about political issues. It has therefore opened a door for Bluesky, a pretty big blunder.

How the news media helped Trump to win

/

photo illustration by gerd altmann

Let’s acknowledge immediately that broader forces than the news media brought about the result of the presidential election. But the victory of a candidate whose demerits were repeatedly spotlighted by responsible news organizations demands retrospection.

So I asked some smart people to assess the campaign coverage by the mainstream media –national print/online outlets and the major TV/cable networks – and to be any combination of complimentary or critical.

Pretty much, it was the latter. And fundamental concerns, too. Donald Trump didn’t win because The New York Times wrote too many euphemistic headlines. It goes deeper than that. 

Dr. Cynthia Peacock, co-director of the Office of Politics, Communication and Media (OPCaM) at the University of Alabama, wrote in an email that the seeming benefit of having more sources of news than ever before – from news media and social media – actually is “fertile ground for highly partisan and misleading information.” That has the unfortunate consequence that different segments of the public make decisions based on different sets of facts, which “sets us up to fail” at the basic requirement of democracy to talk to each other. 

“When Democrats who prefer MSNBC and Republicans who faithfully tune in to Fox News come together, they might as well be speaking different languages,” she said. “The news they consume has presented them not only with different issues but completely different ‘facts’ regarding those issues. No wonder we can’t fathom how the other side could make the decisions they do – we’re living with differing ideas about the nature of reality.”

(I will add my view that this problem is not equally balanced. The partisan outlets on the political right are far more guilty of going beyond presentation of selective, favorable facts to the promotion of falsehoods.)

My department colleague Dr. A.J. Bauer, another OPCaM researcher, believes the news media have become too focused on misinformation and disinformation (false information spread to intentionally deceive). “The commitments to fact checking, to publicizing and exposing lies and false statements, only further circulated those ideas — creating the epistemological (knowledge) crisis it aimed to solve,” he wrote in an email. 

That emphasis, he said, appeals to the “journalistic ego” and reinforces a norm of objectivity that “has always been flawed.” 

“Its presumption that Trump supporters are dupes or operating in an alternative reality has only made it more difficult to understand the Republican Party’s ongoing salience. Right-wing folks didn’t share AI images of Trump wading in hurricane flood waters last month because they were tricked into believing they were real. They did it because they felt those images reflected a deeper truth. They voted based on that truth, while reporters played pedantry.” 

 What’s necessary, he concluded, is for journalists and researchers to pay less attention to disinformation and more attention to “why (Trump supporters) believe what they do.” 

Dr. M. Clay Carey, a professor in the Department of Communication and Media at Samford University, sees “frequent disconnects between people who practice journalism and those who consume or avoid the news.” Citing an article published Wednesday by the Nieman Lab journalism website, he noted that journalists believe readers want media independence and traditional news values. Meanwhile, readers say they actually want the press to offer “empathy and a genuine desire to listen and understand” them. The result of this divide is “distrust and cynicism,” he wrote.

He offered actionable advice for newsrooms. “Journalistic habits of focusing on political extremes and poll-based coverage centered on winners and losers might give way to reporting centered on the challenges our communities face and how government might tackle those challenges. People in those communities might become more important parts of those conversations. Too often, they are shouldered out by pundits, pollsters, and political operatives.” 

Clearly, the news media have some rethinking to do about how they can become more trusted and influential (although I’m sure Fox has no interest in that). I scoffed, however, at the Republicans on social media who declared that Trump’s win had rendered the mainstream press irrelevant. Journalism that is respected plays a vital role in better civics. With democracy under threat, the mainstream press has never been more relevant. That’s why – pronto – it needs to figure out what to do differently.

Believe it or not, some journalists won’t exercise their right

/

AI-generated Image by KP Yamu jayanath

Some people won’t vote Tuesday. Such as lazy people. Sadly oblivious people. People protesting two unacceptable candidates. Ill people. People without transportation. And a small group you might not have thought of: Journalists who believe voting would compromise their impartiality.

New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, whose commitment to impartiality has drawn critical claims that it causes him to soft-pedal his language about Donald Trump, wrote this in 2020: “As reporters, our job is to observe, not participate…. I try hard not to take strong positions on public issues even in private, much to the frustration of friends and family. For me, it’s easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong.”

Dan Gillmor, a former journalism professor at Arizona State University and a well-respected media commentator, called Baker’s perspective “the ‘view from nowhere’ at its most classic – and absurd.”

A few weeks ago, Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple fielded an online question from a reader who wondered why he was seeing more and more reporters state in their online bios that they don’t vote. Wemple called the decision not to vote “a bunch of malarkey…. It’s an empty and performative exercise.”

When Kelly McBride of the Poynter journalism education institute prompted a social media debate in 2020 about whether journalists should vote, one poster responded: “Should food journalists eat?”

Many newsrooms restrict their employees’ political activities, even staff who don’t report on politics. They can’t participate in campaigns or demonstrations, donate money, sign petitions or display bumper stickers or yard signs. On hot-button issues such as the Black Lives Matter movement and the current war in Gaza, the prohibitions clashed with the consciences of some journalists, causing a few news organizations to ease up, but only slightly.

Organizations can’t prohibit voting, and they don’t try to discourage it. Some journalists on the politics beat just choose not to do it out of principle.

That may seem strange when no one is going to know which candidate they voted for. But everyone is going to know that a journalist did pick a side. Primaries are more fraught than general elections, because in almost all states it’s public record whether an individual voted in the Republican or Democratic primary. Cynics could use that against a political reporter’s work even if there’s no basis. It could affect the audience’s perception, too.

My former colleague John Archibald, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner who writes opinions for AL.com, has a longtime policy not to vote. He said a 2008 explanation column cost him more readers than anything he’d written to that point.

The reason for not voting, he wrote in 2012, is that he didn’t want the act of picking a candidate – even in secret – to influence his ability to hold any and all politicians accountable when he wrote columns. And that voting was an act of partisanship that ran counter to the journalistic value of objectivity.

Guess what. John said by email a few days ago that he’s considering voting for president Tuesday.

He’s changed his thinking, he said. He also figures everyone knows where he stands anyway. And he notably adds: “I think it is a critical moment in history.”

Can’t argue with that.

I endorse journalists striving for impartiality and doing whatever they believe is necessary to try to achieve it. But it is possible to engage in this most basic of civic activities and still produce journalism that can’t be legitimately challenged as biased.

That’s not all. Look at the stark differences in Tuesday’s choice of presidential candidates. More candidly, look at the extraordinary dangers posed by the Republican nominee. I think for non-voting journalists, sticking to their principle this year will be harder than ever. It certainly should be.

 

Washington Post suffers foolish, self-inflicted damage

/

UPDATE (Oct. 28, 3:30 p.m.): NPR's David Folkenflik reports The Post has lost 200,000 subscribers (8%) as of midday today. That’s remarkably high.

UPDATE (Oct. 28, 9 p.m.): In a commentary published by The Post tonight, Jeff Bezos said he decided to end presidential candidate endorsements to avoid the appearance of bias and to help improve public trust in media, not because of other business considerations. He wrote that he wished he had made the decision sooner.

One of my more formative experiences as a college journalist was getting to visit The Washington Post newsroom, meeting legendary editor Ben Bradlee of Watergate fame, and attending the Page 1A budget meeting (where I got to hear Bradlee curse, which was really formative).

So it was with some sadness that I found myself on The Post’s website Friday, contemplating canceling my digital subscription.

But the publication had angered a lot of readers and its own journalists earlier in the day by announcing it would not endorse anyone in the current presidential race. According to The New York Times, The Post’s editorial board had written an endorsement of Kamala Harris, then billionaire owner Jeff Bezos killed it. CNN reported Saturday morning that “thousands” of subscribers had cancelled. (Perspective: The Post has about 2.6 million print and digital subscribers.) One longtime columnist resigned. Many other Post journalists went public with their fury. Former editor Martin Baron savaged his old company.

Publisher Will Lewis claimed The Post – 11 days before the election – was simply returning to a tradition of not endorsing presidential candidates and that it wasn’t The Post’s place to tell readers how to vote. But everyone’s highly logical suspicion was that Bezos did this to protect his many business interests – Amazon, Blue Origin – from the wrath and regulatory power of Donald Trump, were he to regain the presidency.

A rising number of news organizations are indeed ending presidential endorsements, and more alarmingly, the much more useful endorsements at the state and local levels. And the growing number of nonprofit news websites are not allowed to endorse candidates. There’s an even bigger picture here: The institutional voices of news organizations that speak to all kinds of issues are disappearing. Fewer organizations have editorial boards to express the views of the organization, instead putting opinion writing almost exclusively into the hands of individual staff columnists and guest commentators. (My former organization, The Alabama Media Group, is one of many examples of this.)

After Friday’s announcement by The Post, Scott Buttram, publisher of The Trussville Tribune, wrote on X that news media endorsements of presidential candidates are “self-indulgent and insulting.” Valid point. If editorial boards think voters need their advice to know how to vote for president, they are mistaken. Research indicates newspaper endorsements in national races don’t move the needle much.

I nonetheless believe Jeff Bezos blundered.

JEFF BEZOS

Journalism is pointless if people believe it’s timid. Bezos, who according to Baron’s book has stood up to Trump many times, might not meddle in negative Trump commentary or news stories ever again. But now the public and even his own newsroom will always suspect that he might have. Or that his top editors will because, well, they got the message. That’s devastating to The Post. Making matters worse for journalism is that the billionaire owner of the LA Times just did the same thing. (In fairness to The Post I should point out that its opinion staff immediately published several pieces critical of the no-endorsement decision.)

Bezos deserves criticism for another reason, too. If ever there was a year not to abandon courage and principle, it’s this one. Faced with the most potentially destructive major-party candidate maybe ever, the country needs its institutions to show some resilience. That ought to be a journalism specialty, and one that can’t get shaken by politics or economics. Take a stand, because once it’s too late, I can’t think of anything worse than being rightly called a coward who helped let it happen.

Oh, I didn’t cancel my Post subscription after all, so maybe I’m a coward, too. I decided that would only hurt the journalists who are doing good and necessary work. Maybe I’ll quit Amazon. In the meantime, I’m hoping top editors, publishers and owners will have the fortitude not to let Donald Trump spook them.