I find pieces like this utterly surreal. Thousands of words on Biden's approval rating & at no point is the tone, tenor, or character of the media's coverage even *mentioned*. Everyone pretends voters are responding directly to what Biden actually does. washingtonpost.com/politics/biden…
The US political media treats itself as a transparent eyeball, simply reporting facts, not as a volitional agent directing the public's attention & coloring its perceptions. It's so common I don't think people even notice any more. But it's bizarre when you think about it.
The average individual's experience of most issues of political significance is 100% mediated. Even if you disagree with me about the character of the mediation in Biden's case (relentlessly negative), it's wild just to ignore mediation entirely as a factor.
I don't know how much this is institutionally reinforced by editors & owners vs. being internalized by journalists. I suspect some of both. If journalists acknowledge their own role then they have to take *responsibility* for it & its effects, and they really don't want to.
To take one familiar example (& then I'll shut up about this): I'm not aware of a single journalist who a) acknowledged the political effects of Her Emails coverage & b) acknowledged (much less lamented) their own role in driving that coverage. Is there one?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
