SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Signs Look Grim for Media Picking the Side of Liberty and Dissent
This is a kind of "which side are you on?" moment for journalists. Will they defend the rights and liberties of the many communities under threat--Muslims, women, those reliant on government assistance? Will they keep alive a space for dissent and critical questioning in the face of a White House that declares itself indifferent to rules about conflicts of interest, among many other things, and that threatens revenge on those it calls "enemies"?
Let's just say: Signs bode poorly.
Jan 07, 2017
This is a kind of "which side are you on?" moment for journalists. Will they defend the rights and liberties of the many communities under threat--Muslims, women, those reliant on government assistance? Will they keep alive a space for dissent and critical questioning in the face of a White House that declares itself indifferent to rules about conflicts of interest, among many other things, and that threatens revenge on those it calls "enemies"?
Let's just say: Signs bode poorly.
One sign: The editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker, told Meet the Press (1/1/17) that it wouldn't be "objective" to use the word "lie" to refer to patently false statements from Donald Trump. That would imply "a deliberate intent to mislead," Baker explained, and that's lacking, in his view, in things like Trump's claim that "thousands and thousands" of Muslim Americans "celebrated" the attacks of September 11, 2001. It's "up to the reader," he contended, to weigh that statement against the fact that nobody has ever found any evidence of it whatsoever.
The Journal has run articles containing criticism of Trump; that's presumably why he called it "a piece of garbage" at a campaign rally. Baker called that "strange tough love," suggesting he has a creative relationship to language generally.
Note that this isn't a new thing. In 2005, FAIR reported a talk in which the New York Times' Elizabeth Bumiller and Susan Page of USA Today detailed how they construct absurd word salads to avoid breaking what they present as a firm rule: In Bumiller's words, "You can't say the president is lying."
Bumiller elaborated: "You can say Mr. Bush's statement was not factually accurate. You can't say the president is lying--that's a judgement call." Over the increasingly outraged murmurs of the audience of journalism students, Page underscored the idea, adding, "I think it's much more powerful to say, 'However, the president's statement did not reflect the record.'"
Keep in mind, both outlets are comfortable saying other people are lying--it's only when it comes to some of the most powerful people on the planet that the rules change.
Another sign: The Washington Post's Paul Farhi (12/9/16) reports that the nation's newspapers are stumped by even conservative columnists' unwillingness to endorse Donald Trump or his ideas, and rather than explore and explain that, they think the answer is to dig up folks who will. "We struggled to find voices" that would advocate for Trump, the New York Times' editorial page editor says; "I'm still waiting" for pro-Trump op-eds to come in, says his counterpart at the Des Moines Register. Our editor "ought to be aggressively seeking smart, articulate people who have positive things to say," says the LA Times.
USA Today solved the problem, we're told, by getting Trump and Pence themselves to write for them. Maybe the New York Times will adopt that strategy, given its editor's statement that his paper "could have done better."
And of a piece with that: NBC has decided that a good place to seek talent for its news division is Fox News. Megyn Kelly will soon host a daytime news show, anchor an "in-depth" Sunday night news show, and take part in NBC's special political programming and event coverage. Kelly was subjected to the creepy predations of Fox head Roger Ailes, and of course was the target of Donald Trump for daring to broach his overt sexism in a debate question.
But one wonders what was so attractive about her journalistic record (which Jamelle Bouie detailed in Slate--1/4/17). Was it the doggedness reflected in the 45 segments she dedicated to conspiracy-mongering that the New Black Panther Party was carrying out a campaign of voter intimidation and anti-white racism on behalf of the Obama Justice Department? Her repeated dismissal of racism as a factor in police violence, a topic she often discussed with favored guest the LAPD's Mark Fuhrman, or her reference to the "anti-cop, thug mentality" she detected in black communities? Or maybe it was the journalistic mettle evidenced by her insistence that Santa Claus is white. She was firm on that one, adding: "Jesus was a white man too. He's a historical figure and that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa."
Yes, Santa is white and Trump can be a newspaper's source on Trump and there's no such thing as a president lying. Buckle up.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
This is a kind of "which side are you on?" moment for journalists. Will they defend the rights and liberties of the many communities under threat--Muslims, women, those reliant on government assistance? Will they keep alive a space for dissent and critical questioning in the face of a White House that declares itself indifferent to rules about conflicts of interest, among many other things, and that threatens revenge on those it calls "enemies"?
Let's just say: Signs bode poorly.
One sign: The editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker, told Meet the Press (1/1/17) that it wouldn't be "objective" to use the word "lie" to refer to patently false statements from Donald Trump. That would imply "a deliberate intent to mislead," Baker explained, and that's lacking, in his view, in things like Trump's claim that "thousands and thousands" of Muslim Americans "celebrated" the attacks of September 11, 2001. It's "up to the reader," he contended, to weigh that statement against the fact that nobody has ever found any evidence of it whatsoever.
The Journal has run articles containing criticism of Trump; that's presumably why he called it "a piece of garbage" at a campaign rally. Baker called that "strange tough love," suggesting he has a creative relationship to language generally.
Note that this isn't a new thing. In 2005, FAIR reported a talk in which the New York Times' Elizabeth Bumiller and Susan Page of USA Today detailed how they construct absurd word salads to avoid breaking what they present as a firm rule: In Bumiller's words, "You can't say the president is lying."
Bumiller elaborated: "You can say Mr. Bush's statement was not factually accurate. You can't say the president is lying--that's a judgement call." Over the increasingly outraged murmurs of the audience of journalism students, Page underscored the idea, adding, "I think it's much more powerful to say, 'However, the president's statement did not reflect the record.'"
Keep in mind, both outlets are comfortable saying other people are lying--it's only when it comes to some of the most powerful people on the planet that the rules change.
Another sign: The Washington Post's Paul Farhi (12/9/16) reports that the nation's newspapers are stumped by even conservative columnists' unwillingness to endorse Donald Trump or his ideas, and rather than explore and explain that, they think the answer is to dig up folks who will. "We struggled to find voices" that would advocate for Trump, the New York Times' editorial page editor says; "I'm still waiting" for pro-Trump op-eds to come in, says his counterpart at the Des Moines Register. Our editor "ought to be aggressively seeking smart, articulate people who have positive things to say," says the LA Times.
USA Today solved the problem, we're told, by getting Trump and Pence themselves to write for them. Maybe the New York Times will adopt that strategy, given its editor's statement that his paper "could have done better."
And of a piece with that: NBC has decided that a good place to seek talent for its news division is Fox News. Megyn Kelly will soon host a daytime news show, anchor an "in-depth" Sunday night news show, and take part in NBC's special political programming and event coverage. Kelly was subjected to the creepy predations of Fox head Roger Ailes, and of course was the target of Donald Trump for daring to broach his overt sexism in a debate question.
But one wonders what was so attractive about her journalistic record (which Jamelle Bouie detailed in Slate--1/4/17). Was it the doggedness reflected in the 45 segments she dedicated to conspiracy-mongering that the New Black Panther Party was carrying out a campaign of voter intimidation and anti-white racism on behalf of the Obama Justice Department? Her repeated dismissal of racism as a factor in police violence, a topic she often discussed with favored guest the LAPD's Mark Fuhrman, or her reference to the "anti-cop, thug mentality" she detected in black communities? Or maybe it was the journalistic mettle evidenced by her insistence that Santa Claus is white. She was firm on that one, adding: "Jesus was a white man too. He's a historical figure and that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa."
Yes, Santa is white and Trump can be a newspaper's source on Trump and there's no such thing as a president lying. Buckle up.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
This is a kind of "which side are you on?" moment for journalists. Will they defend the rights and liberties of the many communities under threat--Muslims, women, those reliant on government assistance? Will they keep alive a space for dissent and critical questioning in the face of a White House that declares itself indifferent to rules about conflicts of interest, among many other things, and that threatens revenge on those it calls "enemies"?
Let's just say: Signs bode poorly.
One sign: The editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker, told Meet the Press (1/1/17) that it wouldn't be "objective" to use the word "lie" to refer to patently false statements from Donald Trump. That would imply "a deliberate intent to mislead," Baker explained, and that's lacking, in his view, in things like Trump's claim that "thousands and thousands" of Muslim Americans "celebrated" the attacks of September 11, 2001. It's "up to the reader," he contended, to weigh that statement against the fact that nobody has ever found any evidence of it whatsoever.
The Journal has run articles containing criticism of Trump; that's presumably why he called it "a piece of garbage" at a campaign rally. Baker called that "strange tough love," suggesting he has a creative relationship to language generally.
Note that this isn't a new thing. In 2005, FAIR reported a talk in which the New York Times' Elizabeth Bumiller and Susan Page of USA Today detailed how they construct absurd word salads to avoid breaking what they present as a firm rule: In Bumiller's words, "You can't say the president is lying."
Bumiller elaborated: "You can say Mr. Bush's statement was not factually accurate. You can't say the president is lying--that's a judgement call." Over the increasingly outraged murmurs of the audience of journalism students, Page underscored the idea, adding, "I think it's much more powerful to say, 'However, the president's statement did not reflect the record.'"
Keep in mind, both outlets are comfortable saying other people are lying--it's only when it comes to some of the most powerful people on the planet that the rules change.
Another sign: The Washington Post's Paul Farhi (12/9/16) reports that the nation's newspapers are stumped by even conservative columnists' unwillingness to endorse Donald Trump or his ideas, and rather than explore and explain that, they think the answer is to dig up folks who will. "We struggled to find voices" that would advocate for Trump, the New York Times' editorial page editor says; "I'm still waiting" for pro-Trump op-eds to come in, says his counterpart at the Des Moines Register. Our editor "ought to be aggressively seeking smart, articulate people who have positive things to say," says the LA Times.
USA Today solved the problem, we're told, by getting Trump and Pence themselves to write for them. Maybe the New York Times will adopt that strategy, given its editor's statement that his paper "could have done better."
And of a piece with that: NBC has decided that a good place to seek talent for its news division is Fox News. Megyn Kelly will soon host a daytime news show, anchor an "in-depth" Sunday night news show, and take part in NBC's special political programming and event coverage. Kelly was subjected to the creepy predations of Fox head Roger Ailes, and of course was the target of Donald Trump for daring to broach his overt sexism in a debate question.
But one wonders what was so attractive about her journalistic record (which Jamelle Bouie detailed in Slate--1/4/17). Was it the doggedness reflected in the 45 segments she dedicated to conspiracy-mongering that the New Black Panther Party was carrying out a campaign of voter intimidation and anti-white racism on behalf of the Obama Justice Department? Her repeated dismissal of racism as a factor in police violence, a topic she often discussed with favored guest the LAPD's Mark Fuhrman, or her reference to the "anti-cop, thug mentality" she detected in black communities? Or maybe it was the journalistic mettle evidenced by her insistence that Santa Claus is white. She was firm on that one, adding: "Jesus was a white man too. He's a historical figure and that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa."
Yes, Santa is white and Trump can be a newspaper's source on Trump and there's no such thing as a president lying. Buckle up.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.