Ever wonder what journalists themselves think about patterns like bothsidezing, he said/she said, leaving it there, and an indifference to creeping fascism?
I interviewed an experienced editor and journalist about all of those things, none of which he denies. THREAD. 1/
Let me introduce you to @MarkJacob16. He was a newspaper editor for his entire career. At the Chicago Tribune he was nation/world news editor, which meant he edited political stories most nights.
It's one thing when an outside critic (like me) says it. When someone who worked inside newsrooms their entire adult life comes to a conclusion like this, it's different:
And, yes, I asked him if he spoke up while he was still working in journalism. 4/
I asked @MarkJacob16 about a practice in which he joined: quote a D., quote an R., and you're done.
He said he had erred "in thinking of a news story as a stage that allowed Republicans and Democrats to perform their talking points, rather than as a way to inform readers." 5/
"...Owners would like to keep customers of various political stripes paying them money. It’s safer and thus more profitable to avoid coming to conclusions – to produce stories that are in essence 'he says this, she says this, you figure it out yourself.'" —@MarkJacob16 6/
You can read the whole interview with former @chicagotribune and @Suntimes editor Mark Jacob at my site, PressThink. No paywall.
"He used to edit political stories at the Chicago Tribune. Now he says the press is failing our democracy." pressthink.org/2022/06/he-use… 7/
"Many of us suspected that the Bush administration was lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but we couldn’t prove it either way. So we published what, in retrospect, were a bunch of government lies."
A few notes about Fox deciding not to carry this week's January 6th commitee hearing on FNC:
* Under U.S. law, freedom of the press means that Fox absolutely has the right to do this.
* The hearings are news by any reasonable standard. (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN will all carry.)
1/
* Among people who produce news for a living, agreement on the basic news worthiness of the hearings would probably reach 95 percent. (My guess.)
* Among those people there should be no question that Fox is not a news network at its core, but something different.
2/
* I assure you that CBS is not expecting Thursday's prime-time hearing to be a ratings winner. They are carrying it to maintain legitimacy as a private business that occasionally recognizes a duty to the public sphere. And not to do so would be a blow to their news division.
3/
Key point here by @AlexKoppelman, an editor at CNN. To continue with business as usual — while sprinkling in stories about how a Trumpified GOP may be a threat to democracy — does not show the world as it actually is. In fact, it's a kind of distortion. view.newsletters.cnn.com/messages/16522…
The point is often made, but it takes years to register in newsrooms. @sulliview: "Mainstream journalists want their work to be perceived as fair-minded and nonpartisan. They want to defend themselves against charges of bias. So they equalize the unequal." washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…
The Post asked me about Dean Baquet's legacy. I said he gets credit for steering the Times to digital excellence and subscription success, for adding investigative capacity, for enlarging newsroom employment. All major victories. washingtonpost.com/media/2022/04/… Demerits: next slide. 1/2
2/2 Baquet gets poor marks for misrule over the Times normalizing political coverage, for failing to rise to the challenge of an authoritarian leader and party, for mistreatment of HRC, and for his inability to listen to public criticism, hear what it's saying, and learn from it.
Kyle Pope, editor of @CJR Columbia Journalism Review, said the appointment of Joe Kahn as next editor of the New York Times sent a clear signal that it has "no plans to rethink its approach."
This the heart of Baquet's reasoning: Twitter's influence on Times journalists has become too great. niemanlab.org/2022/04/the-ne…
Dean Baquet: "I do not like it when somebody at The New York Times criticizes somebody at The Washington Post. I don’t do that in any setting — it makes me uncomfortable when people do that." niemanlab.org/2022/04/the-ne…
Todd Gitlin has died. I knew him. He had a huge influence on me, and helped me become a critic. One of those people who are always out there, a few years — well, 13, half a generation — and several steps ahead of you, showing you the way to do it. nytimes.com/2022/02/05/us/…
Two ways Todd Gitlin influenced me as a critic: First, his 1990 essay for Dissent magazine, "Blips, Bites & Savvy Talk," describes how "insider" coverage turns viewers into "cognoscenti of their own bamboozlement." It led directly to my critique of the savvy style in journalism.
Gitlin's 1983 book, "Inside Prime Time," based on interviews with 200 makers of commercial TV, introduced me to the concept of "audience lore," which meant stories about what viewers want, often wielded by higher ups to justify their programming decisions. From then on I was—
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/