On this week's @ReliableSources — podcast and Sunday show — I was asked by @brianstelter what the press should do once it recognizes the threat to American democracy coming from a Republican Party overtaken by an authoritarian leader. Here's the clip. 1/ cnn.com/videos/busines…
The first Q. @brianstelter put to me was a little unusual: if I could ask the press a question what would that be?
My reply: Your routines assume two roughly equal parties with different ideologies. What are your plans now that one of the two is exiting the democratic system? 2/
The rest of the interview was about what could and should happen in journalism once it comes to terms with an anti-democratic movement, and the collapse of its taken-for-granted world. For my full answer to that listen to the podcast (34 minutes.) cnn.com/audio/podcasts… 3/
To close the interview, @brianstelter said this: "For the journalists listening now, your challenge to them is... what?" cnn.com/videos/busines… My reply: (at 7:36)
"Don't ask me what to do. What are YOU going to do?"
4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Last week @jonkarl of ABC News was asked this by @brianstelter: "Have you started to think about how you would approach the 2024 candidacy of Donald Trump?"
Karl's replies got too little attention, in my view. This thread tries to correct for that. 1/ cnn.com/videos/busines…
I would call Jon Karl a consensus figure within the US press. I don't mean a public consensus. I mean he's liked and respected by his peers. Seen by them as a "straight shooter." Past president of @whca, the White House Correspondents Association. And elected by its members. 2/
A disclaimer to start. We do not know if Trump is going to run. Everyone around Trump says he will, Jon Karl reported. But he's not so sure.
I'm not sure, either. Say he does not run. What are the chances of a Trumpified Republican Party and candidate in 2024? I would say high.
"There is a tension between a more experienced editorial guard that lives and breathes by the institution and a new, digitally fluent cohort that very much has its own ideas about the relationship between social justice and journalistic integrity." nymag.com/intelligencer/…
"Management effectively let the policy be dictated by the worst elements of the far right. A surefire way to get a Post reporter in trouble at work was to get a critical mass of conservatives mad at that reporter on Twitter.” nymag.com/intelligencer/…
See that little phrase, "the perception of bias?" There's no end to the mischief it causes.
If the perception of critics can drive newsroom policy then the Post has surrendered power to its enemies, who will always perceive bias because it is basic to their interests to do so.
This account by @SangerNYT speaks of "intelligence assessments that wildly overestimated the capabilities of an Afghan Army that disintegrated." nytimes.com/2021/08/15/us/… Which prompts a reader of the news to ask how that over-estimate happened.
But... 1/3
This report from @meekwire of ABC News goes in a different direction. It quotes an unnamed intelligence official: "The intelligence community assessment has always been accurate; they just disregarded it." They = the Biden Administration. 2/3 abcnews.go.com/US/afghanistan… There's more—
Intelligence failure?
"Numerous U.S. officials tell @ABC that the opposite was true, insisting that key intelligence assessments had consistently informed policymakers that the Taliban could overwhelm the country and take the capital within weeks."
Good round-up in @CJR of @AP's poorly reasoned decision to fire 22 year-old Emily Wilder for unspecified violations of its social media policy. cjr.org/the_media_toda… These cases will keep coming until there's a rethink of the policies themselves.
Some places I would start: 1/
By accepting the faulty premise that every public statement from a newsroom worker somehow implicates the company as a whole, you widen the attack surface for hostile actors who want to wreak as much havoc as they can. Instead of protecting the company, you're endangering it. 2/
An alternative is to combine common sense rules for social media — double check your facts, don't troll or needlessly antagonize, don't take positions for the heck of it — with freedom of speech. Which means journalists don't speak for the brand on social, but for themselves. 3/
Brief report on Washington Post's book event with Josh Hawley. It was 30 minutes. About half on 2020 election, half on big tech and Hawley's book. Reading prepared questions, Post reporter @Cat_Zakrzewski did challenge him on his part in the insurrection and did follow up... 1/
The problem was the same one you see on Sunday shows. The guest can turn on his fog machine, lose most of the audience in hand-to-hand combat over important but arcane details, and run out the clock when the push back comes. This is what Hawley did with "election integrity." 2/
"Election integrity" — and the debate he says we needed about it — was Hawley's blanket defense for his actions on January 6. He knew the questions were coming, he knew his fog machine could hande them. He said he had no regrets. He was asked but took no responsibility.... 3/
Wow. A group of disheartened former Denver Post editors and reporters launched an upstart news site two-and-a-half years ago. Today, The Colorado Sun announced it had acquired and would operate a family-owned chain of 24 suburban newspapers around Denver. npr.org/2021/05/03/993…
This part is also key: "The Sun, which will drive the papers editorially, is a public benefit corporation, which means it is a for-profit outfit that promises to perform a civic good in a way that is responsible and sustainable."
For-profit/non-profit are not the only choices.
Here's more on Colorado's save-local-newspapers-from-the-vampire transaction, which is a little complicated. But in a good way. coloradosun.com/2021/05/03/col… It's a "pilot project to show that national funders and local journalists can collaborate to keep newspapers in local hands."