.@maddow allowed her show in the Trump era to become a modern-day Joe McCarthy.
Every other claim made on her show for 2.5 years was "PUTIN!"
She created a modern-day red scare... and neglected to cover how broken our various systems were the whole time
Every other claim made on her show for 2.5 years was "PUTIN!"
She created a modern-day red scare... and neglected to cover how broken our various systems were the whole time
.@Maddow very intentionally structured her show in the Trump era to whip her viewers into a frenzy instead of soberly educating about systemic problems in many spheres.
That doesn't make her unique, but she has more pull, visibility+centrality, so her choice had more of an effect
That doesn't make her unique, but she has more pull, visibility+centrality, so her choice had more of an effect
Tonight on her show (I am a captive audience @ dinner since Mama Zemek controls the TV in the house), @Maddow is highlighting COVID-19 outbreaks, but only in red states.
She has not criticized @NYGovCuomo or @SpeakerPelosi during this pandemic, reflecting the stance of mass media
She has not criticized @NYGovCuomo or @SpeakerPelosi during this pandemic, reflecting the stance of mass media
In this pandemic, thru her intentional program structuring, tonal emphases, and selection of topics, @Maddow has told her captive audience of boomers--the main demographic for cable news--that ONLY Trump is a bad actor, and Democrats are nothing but saints.
Like Fox, but for Ds.
Like Fox, but for Ds.
It's not a high bar to clear if you are a decent journalist:
If Republicans and Democrats both break laws, both say dumb stuff, both fail to lead well in a crisis, it should be reported -- not with glee, but it should be reported.
@Maddow fails that test as much as @SeanHannity
If Republicans and Democrats both break laws, both say dumb stuff, both fail to lead well in a crisis, it should be reported -- not with glee, but it should be reported.
@Maddow fails that test as much as @SeanHannity
.@Maddow is centrally reflective (because of her centrality in the mainstream media sphere) of the transformation of so-called "news" shows into pure propaganda, basically a form of brainwashing.
When you so brazenly cover stories differently based on party+ideology, that's real
When you so brazenly cover stories differently based on party+ideology, that's real
This is not hard. It is very conceptually clear:
When a public figure does something bad, report it straightforwardly and in a timely manner. That's it.
It should never depend on whether that figure is an R or a D or a socialist or a libertarian.
Just report the story as it is
When a public figure does something bad, report it straightforwardly and in a timely manner. That's it.
It should never depend on whether that figure is an R or a D or a socialist or a libertarian.
Just report the story as it is
Yet, the number of **high-profile** (not low-profile; they're fine) reporters, news show anchors, public commentators, and op-ed columnists who can clear that low bar in this country is conspicuously small.
The same stories are covered so differently based on party or ideology.
The same stories are covered so differently based on party or ideology.
No one should have to be viewed as an unfair partisan actor for merely saying important stories should be reported on, or that facts need to be covered evenly across the political spectrum. Yet, as the #FireChrisHayes episode illustrates (search the hashtag), that's where we are.
Our understanding of the connection between politics/public affairs and good journalism has *completely* collapsed in this country.
Many citizens have tuned out politics, but among those who follow it, most think "good journalism" is little more than "calling out the opposition."
Many citizens have tuned out politics, but among those who follow it, most think "good journalism" is little more than "calling out the opposition."
If journalism means "help my team and hurt the other team," we have totally lost touch with the proper nature and function of journalism.
Opposition research, public relations, and political activism are the same as journalism if viewed and presented in such a manner.
Opposition research, public relations, and political activism are the same as journalism if viewed and presented in such a manner.
.@Maddow has used her time, effort and skill to present journalism precisely as oppo research/PR/activism, instead of being the neutral figure a widely-visible public commentator needs to be in order for the public to trust the veracity and wisdom of the reportage on her show.
When I refer to a "neutral figure," I am NOT saying or implying public commentators should be free of natural bias, free of a worldview, or free of any opinions.
"Neutrality" more precisely means "able and willing to hold every person to the same set of standards when needed."
"Neutrality" more precisely means "able and willing to hold every person to the same set of standards when needed."
Reporters/commentators/anchors are human beings. They have a life experience. To that extent, they all have a NATURAL bias, the product of their experiences+encounters.
NATURAL bias is inherent to every person.
PROFESSIONAL bias is this "help my team, hurt the other team" view.
NATURAL bias is inherent to every person.
PROFESSIONAL bias is this "help my team, hurt the other team" view.
.@DDayen excoriated @BernieSanders for voting 4 the Senate Phase 3 bailout disaster.
@esaagar frequently criticizes @RealDonaldTrump 4 meekly succumbing to Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment plus libertarian economists such as Art Laffer.
They don't play favorites
@esaagar frequently criticizes @RealDonaldTrump 4 meekly succumbing to Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment plus libertarian economists such as Art Laffer.
They don't play favorites
It really isn't asking very much at all.
Good journalists should call BS on any public figure for the same mistake/sin/crime, with the same level of tone, the same degree of timeliness, and the same concern for the public good.
If they can't do that, they're partisan hacks.
Good journalists should call BS on any public figure for the same mistake/sin/crime, with the same level of tone, the same degree of timeliness, and the same concern for the public good.
If they can't do that, they're partisan hacks.
Centrist Democrats/PMC liberals:
I know U hate Trump, but reporting on his opponents or giving Trump a bread crumb of credit (on the rare occasions when he's right) is not a professional sin.
Conservatives:
I know you hate lefties, but maybe employer-based health care is flawed
I know U hate Trump, but reporting on his opponents or giving Trump a bread crumb of credit (on the rare occasions when he's right) is not a professional sin.
Conservatives:
I know you hate lefties, but maybe employer-based health care is flawed
When I was a little boy, my mom--a Robert Kennedy Democrat--and my grandfather, a Goldwater Republican, would argue politics at the lunch table *every single Sunday*.
My brother and I loved these (friendly but spirited) fights.
My grandmother couldn't stand them.
My dad was bored
My brother and I loved these (friendly but spirited) fights.
My grandmother couldn't stand them.
My dad was bored
My mom went to college in the 1960s; my grandpa went to college in the Great Depression. The age divide we see in contemporary politics was also evident whenever Mom and Grandpa argued politics. To a large extent, their arguments were cultural. They emphasized different things.
However, in the mid-1980s, cable news had not yet taken off. American journalism wasn't a paradigm of full enlightenment.
However, it was a time when the citizenry -- though very divided on a cultural level -- could generally (not unanimously) agree on basic facts and reports.
However, it was a time when the citizenry -- though very divided on a cultural level -- could generally (not unanimously) agree on basic facts and reports.
In the 1980s, when John Chancellor/Tom Brokaw (NBC) or Peter Jennings and then Ted Koppel on Nightline (ABC), and Robert MacNeil & Jim Lehrer (PBS) reported something:
1) Americans trusted them;
2) they weren't seen as partisan actors;
3) they didn't try to stir/provoke emotions
1) Americans trusted them;
2) they weren't seen as partisan actors;
3) they didn't try to stir/provoke emotions
In the 1980s, the news broadcasts sent to the vast majority of the populace were:
* tonally restrained
* in search of the facts of an issue and what the issue meant for citizens
* not blatantly desirous of a specific electoral/partisan outcome or shift
* tonally restrained
* in search of the facts of an issue and what the issue meant for citizens
* not blatantly desirous of a specific electoral/partisan outcome or shift
It seems impossible today to imagine a newscast--or a newscaster--which can matter-of-factly report on and examine the news, following the facts wherever they lead (no matter how inconvenient), and letting that be the final word.
Yet, we have to at least recapture that standard.
Yet, we have to at least recapture that standard.
We have to recapture that standard in our minds and our inner emotional worlds so that we can recognize the standard when a journalist or a program actually applies it.
Journalists and programs which apply the right standard are the ones we should watch/read & materially support
Journalists and programs which apply the right standard are the ones we should watch/read & materially support
Many will view this as a defeat of a given ideology, based on their own life experiences, but the whole point of insisting on broadly followed, consistently applied standards is to REMOVE the notion that "truth" has a specific label.
Truth isn't leftist or right-wing; it's truth
Truth isn't leftist or right-wing; it's truth
.@Maddow 4 centrist Democrats, just like @SeanHannity 4 Trump voters, is the exact antithesis of a public commentator who treats truth as truth; for her, it is and has been couched in a specific identity.
Truth, for Rachel, is what the DNC wants.
For Sean, it's what Trump wants.
Truth, for Rachel, is what the DNC wants.
For Sean, it's what Trump wants.
Wanting the full truth to be reported--evenly, in a timely way, regardless of party or ideology--should not be seen as a leftist or right-wing point of principle. It should simply be a universal journalistic principle.
Nearly all major media figures fall WELL short of applying it
Nearly all major media figures fall WELL short of applying it
We're in a pandemic.
If ever there was a time 4 the media, writ large, to report on the truth evenly and consistently, & to not play favorites, it is now... but @Maddow + our cable networks very nakedly show they have no interest in that.
Hopefully more will be able to see this.
If ever there was a time 4 the media, writ large, to report on the truth evenly and consistently, & to not play favorites, it is now... but @Maddow + our cable networks very nakedly show they have no interest in that.
Hopefully more will be able to see this.
The refusal of @SpeakerPelosi to apply remote voting to the House--& her accompanying refusal to fiercely advocate for monthly UBI->all Americans--would be POUNCED on by @Maddow if a Republican was guilty of the same failures of leadership...but of course, Pelosi escapes scrutiny
If 3 people in a room -- in this case, Trump, McConnell, and Pelosi -- all share responsibility for a failure of governance in a moment of national crisis, and you only call out the two people from one party while excusing the third, you're a hack, and not a journalist.
If 3 people in a room share responsibility for a national disgrace, and their party affiliations and ideologies are different, simply call all 3 people out.
That's really what this is all about, nothing more.
Just meet that standard. If you can't, go into public relations.
Fin
That's really what this is all about, nothing more.
Just meet that standard. If you can't, go into public relations.
Fin
