Thread by @asymmetricinfo

Since the debate, people outside of Washington have been asking me the same question over and over: how did the media miss the Biden story?

So I asked a bunch of savvy political reporters that question, and wrote a column on it

I know, conservatives, you think you know the answer: Democratic journalists were covering for a Democratic president. But that's not quite right, as I wrote in my column:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/…

There was no conspiracy. There were a lot of tiny decisions about what to cover today, who to trust, and how blunt to be that collectively added up to a giant mistake that left our readers in the dark.

A lot of those decisions were influenced by partisanship, but they weren't driven by it, just slightly nudged in one direction. But because all the nudges were running one way, the cumulative effect was huge.

A good way to think about this comes from @JonHaidt: when we see evidence that flatters our political views, we think "Can I believe this?"

When we see evidence that cuts against our views, we think "Must I believe it?"

That distinction is huge--it is the difference between accepting some mediocre, small-sample research study as conclusive proof, and rejecting a study that undercuts your beliefs because you have issues with how the research subject consent form was worded.

But it's so subtle we rarely realize we're doing it.

@JonHaidt To be clear, everyone does this. Conservative media's excess credulity and skepticism run in the opposite direction, but it's the same phenomenon.

Which is why the only cure is more viewpoint diversity in newsrooms.