Thread by @MattZemek

I haven't had one of these in a few months, but with everything going on re: China, the NBA, the media, and the Democratic primary, it is time for a long thread.

Don't want to put it on Patreon, since that's college sports.

Not ready to start blogging about politics, but close.

The first and biggest thesis I wish to put forth -- which I will spend time explaining here -- is that if you are unsure of whether the media and public figures are either:

1 dumb

or

2 dodging the truth...

... you should almost always pick No. 2.

It's usually not stupidity.

Two very common current examples begin this thread:

A) People think the media are dumb, and that the media haven't learned from 2016 how to cover Trump or politics at large.

B) People think Steve Kerr is dumb for what he has said and not said about China.

To be sure, the media do not cover politics in an enlightened way.
To be sure, Steve Kerr made some statements which a reasonable person could easily tear apart and identify as fallacious, shortsighted, and much more.

The surface appearance certainly looks dumb, I grant you that

Important early clarification:

None of what I am about to say should be taken to mean that what media outlets do, or what Steve Kerr said on China, are *appropriate*.
It is important, however, to understand *why* media outlets, institutions, and public figures say what they say.

Let's start with the media's coverage of politics, because that has been an especially prominent conversation point in American life for four years... not that it wasn't prominent in 2014 or earlier, but it has picked up more momentum and centrality in our national discourse.

Is the media dumb, or do media outlets and personalities know exactly what they are doing when they say what they say on camera or in columns?
We need to realize -- as citizens, as news consumers, as students of power and greed -- that what seems like stupidity is very calculated

Look around at the journalism industry.

You see the mass layoffs. You see the mergers, the consolidation, the shrinkage of independent, smaller-scale, more localized voices.

You see hedge funds buying papers and then gutting them in the name of profit.

All obviously bad things

The nuance:

These aren't bad things for the people/forces/outlets setting these forces in motion. A few people are making big money.

They don't much care that localized community journalism is suffering, or that staffing is being cut, or that the pay is worse, any of that.

What is bad for the quality & durability of journalism -- the way Murrow or Halberstam or any great journalist practiced it and articulated it -- is not necessarily bad for the narrow yet powerful interests laying siege to the profession and its structure.
Those interests prosper

What is good journalism, very broadly defined?
How would a good owner/publisher run a good outlet?
S/he would build a robust staff with a wide array of skills, committed to the truth first, with reduced emphasis on ideology and increased emphasis on urgent matters in a community.

A good owner--and outlet--would not give an obscenely large amount of $ to a few people while slashing dozens of jobs elsewhere in a newsroom.

Yet, as we can see in both sports and politics, this is a rather prevalent reality today.

Prominent news hosts make million-$ salaries.

In these Democratic debates -- No. 4 is next week -- plenty of Democrats (both progressives such as myself and centrists/moderates unlike myself) have been upset at the line of questioning.

However, are these "dumb" questions or intentional ones?

Plenty of people have said -- and currently believe -- that the media hasn't learned anything from 2016.

Narrowly, that statement might be true, but it suggests that the media is an honest broker in national conversations and should naturally, obviously, learn from "mistakes."

"These are journalists," this line of thought generally goes. "Why aren't they adjusting and studying 2016 to ask better questions and cover the 2020 campaign more responsibly?"

The frustration is widely felt, and people SHOULD be angry at modern political coverage.

However...

Mass media outlets and the news anchors asking questions to the Democratic candidates are not "making mistakes."

These questions, these points of emphasis in coverage, the selection of content for air time on nightly broadcasts: They're not mistakes.
This is all very intentional

Plenty of you reading this thread might say, "Gee, I already knew THAT, Matt."

Okay... but do your friends know that?

Do your children or parents know that?

Do your work colleagues (if you talk politics with them) know that?

Take these concepts and *share* them with others.

You might not be a progressive (nothing wrong with that), but many progressive figures--who either work in journalism or once did--have been witheringly critical of mass media and prominent media personalities from a left perspective, focusing on the economics of media practices.

Why do anchors/hosts/personalities ask questions which seem, on the surface, to be so dumb, or needlessly combative, or so contrary to what might seem like the public interest?

The bottom line: They have no economic incentive to do otherwise.

It hurts, but the truth often does.

The bottom line about these 2020 Democratic presidential debates, and the questions asked of the candidates, and how the race at large is being covered, is that billionaires sign the paychecks of the millionaire anchors leading the daily flow of coverage.

Start there.

Stop and ask yourself why people making 6, 7-, or 8-figure salaries are the only people asking questions to candidates for president.

Did *we* have a say in this? Did *we,* the people, get a vote here?

No.

A few narrow and powerful interests got -- and get -- what they want.

It's not as simple as the CEO/president of a network personally delivering notes to anchors or producers that they have to ask Question X to Candidate Z, but there is an unspoken reality that one is expected to write within certain lines and drive within a relatively narrow lane.

If one of these anchors started asking a lot of Bill Moyers-style questions or did a good Amy Goodman impersonation, chances are that anchor would at least get a stern talking to the next day. If s/he didn't adjust, s/he would soon be demoted within or phased out of that network.

When billion-dollar forces/people pay million-$ anchors to ask questions, chances are the questions will not reflect a working-class point of view.

This is rather obvious.

We can hope for benevolent media moguls, but they don't inhabit any of the main outlets covering 2020.

The point is plain:

Anchors have every personal *financial* incentive to ask questions which are supportive of entrenched powerful interests (the military-industrial complex) and opposed to any overthrow/overhaul of the establishment as it generally exists.

With more media mergers and media consolidation, there are fewer outlets being owned by fewer--& larger--forces.

In this landscape, there is no financial incentive for anyone at the top of the industry pyramid (ABC/NBC/CBS, the big cable nets+papers) to oppose the establishment.

What might seem to be bad/dumb questions are really just natural extensions of money and power, preserving a system which gives a few people a truckload of money, not caring that working-class journalists get pushed out of the business and working-class people get a worse product

Now, let's move all of this to Steve Kerr, the NBA, and the Democratic Party.

This will be the shorter part of the thread since a link will explain a lot of this.

Or rather, multiple links.

Start with this thread from @MatthewStoller earlier this week:

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1181201528964730886

Continue with this 9-minute segment from @HillTVLive's Rising show.

@MatthewStoller talks to @KrystalBall and @esaagar on China and how establishment Democratic Party leaders (former POTUSes) helped create the current reality:

thehill.com/hilltv/rising/…

When you're done there, go to @MatthewStoller's own newsletter, where he unpacks in greater detail what he said to @KrystalBall and @esaagar on TV:

mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-joe-bide…

Just a few brief notes to wrap up the thread, next.

The NBA and the Democratic Party have really become very similar -- this week's news on China and the NBA has really hammered home that point.

The only profound difference is that the NBA is living in a larger world the Democratic Party (the establishment wing) set in motion.

Steve Kerr's remarks might *sound* dumb, but I ask you, in light of everything I have outlined on political journalism, and in light of all the materials from Matt Stoller upthread:

What financial incentive does Kerr have to say, "F*** it, I'm going to blast China regardless"?

If Kerr said what he REALLY FELT AND THOUGHT about China and Hong Kong (he has been to China multiple times), do you think there would be no consequences or fallout?

Do you think it wouldn't be a huge PR crisis for the NBA, especially given the Warriors' elevated profile?

If Kerr said what he REALLY FELT on China, he would spend the upcoming NBA season constantly being asked those questions... and undercutting future opportunities outside of coaching if he did want to step away at some point.

The financial and industry-related incentives for Kerr to refrain from criticizing China far outweigh the incentives for him to criticize China.

As with million-$ anchors in politics, this isn't stupidity.

It's dodging the truth, cowardice in the preservation of a career.

That last point -- exhibiting cowardice in the preservation of a career -- is a very simple summation of what the establishment Democratic Party is and has become.

This is painfully obvious, but let me make two obvious notes on the matter.

Note 1: Regardless of what you think of her or her politics, it is a plain reality that Nancy Pelosi refused to impeach Trump for so long because it was much easier to fundraise vs. Trump for 2020 (and have him in place) rather than try to remove him from office.

Very clear.

Note 2: Democrats know that if young voters voted in huge numbers, they would win elections for decades.
They very obviously choose not to promote policies popular with young voters because money is not found there.
The party leadership would rather make $ for themselves than win

It might seem stupid, but if you have money and power, and you know that not courting young voters -- even if it means losing at the polls -- preserves your cushy connections and keeps familiar fundraising pipelines going, that is a powerful financial incentive to NOT win.

This brings me to my ultimate conclusion:

The national Democratic Party leadership -- DNC, Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer, Perez --would rather see Donald Trump get re-elected than see Bernie Sanders get elected.

Is it dumb... or is it intentional?

The answer is clear.

Fin.