This is a perfect example of the type of distorted coverage the mainstream media’s “neutrality” dogma produces: “We’ve been plenty critical of those Republicans – better demonstrate how neutral we are by really going hard after this Fetterman thing!”
https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1580197415319408641
In the specific case of CNN, there may well be a more deliberate anti-progressive / anti-left element at work – it would certainly be in line with what we’ve seen from the new CNN regime over the past two months or so. But the issue on display here goes well beyond CNN.
It’s the same dynamic that brought us Hillary’s emails: In a desperate attempt to “prove” how there is no liberal bias, mainstream media are playing up “issues” about Democratic candidates and end up amplifying and legitimizing rightwing talking points and attack lines.
This type of coverage is a manifestation of mainstream journalism being predicated on the idea that politics is a game between two teams that are essentially the same and journalists aspire to “neutrality,” which they define as equidistance from either side.
Empirically, however, there is no equivalent on the “Left” / in the Democratic camp to the increasingly radical and/or radically unqualified slate of candidates that is emerging from Republican primaries.
But if journalists cover, assess, and interpret these candidates and these races as objectively, accurately, and adequately as possible (which they should!), they will be criticized as “partisan” – there it is, that liberal media bias! – and risk losing credibility and access.
The solution is not necessarily to ignore what’s happening on the Right: It’s not like there hasn’t been any critical coverage of Oz, for instance (although it is often presented in a way that obscures rather than clarifies).
In general, the “solution” is to create “balance” by, on the reporting side, dedicating a lot of resources to covering left-wing threats – the supposed spread of “trans ideology,” perhaps; and, on the opinion side, by platforming utterly disingenuous attacks on the “Far Left.”
And in the case of specific races like the one between Oz and Fetterman, “neutrality” is created by “balancing” the criticism of the rightwing candidate (Oz) with a completely disproportionate focus on whatever “issue” might be plaguing the Democrat (Fetterman).
It’s remarkable how successful the Right has been in planting and propagating this idea of “liberal media bias,” to the point where much of mainstream journalism is constantly trying to disprove this supposed bias and appease those conservative critics.
The much-desired approval from the Right is never coming, of course – because the goal of this decades-long campaign to discredit the “liberal media” was never to achieve fairness, but to undermine trust in and all the institutions of American life conservatives don’t control.
There is another factor at work here, of course: a dislike of the leftwing progressivism Fetterman stands for that is widespread among many of those in positions of power, those with the influence to shape media coverage – certain reactionary sensibilities among America’s elites.
The Republican dogma – that the world works best if it’s run by wealthy white men and thus should always be run by wealthy white men - has a certain appeal to wealthy white elites, regardless of party (or, at the very least, is simply less threatening to them).
As a matter of fact, from the perspective of America’s traditional elites, and white male elites specifically, it is entirely reasonable to see Fetterman and the political project he stands for as the bigger status threat than Oz or (almost?) anyone in the GOP.
Combine this kind of elite status quo fundamentalism with mainstream journalism’s eternal quest for “neutrality” and “balance,” its overwhelming desire to signal “nonpartisanship,” and the result is the type of political coverage that keeps producing “But her emails…” stories.
Addendum, for the “You’re just making stuff up” crowd: This NBC headline should go straight to the #BothSides Hall of Infamy - just a perfect example of how to completely obscure what’s actually going on and obliterate all distinctions in the name of “neutrality.” Beyond parody.
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1580213857120751616
The rule seems to that it’s totally fine to side against someone (under the guise of “just asking questions,” of course) if it serves to “balance” a profound imbalance between the candidates or parties, which makes “neutrality” journalism dogmatists deeply uncomfortable.
https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1580185161336963072
In the current reality of American politics, that usually means strict “neutrality” towards the GOP and Republican candidates, while taking a dig at Democrats or Democratic policies is totally fine. Helps create a semblance of “balance” where there is none to be found.
To be clear: I focused on specific #BothSides dynamics in this thread that often lead to distorting coverage. But there is also a stark ableism on display here that is just profoundly not ok. If that’s unintentional, people should learn; if it’s deliberate, it’s disqualifying.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
