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
The most important and urgent journalistic task--one that no one else can accomplish--is for us to properly diagnose the problem. (Photo: iStock / Getty Images Plus)
The Biggest Story of Our Time Requires an Army of Journalists to Tell
The role of the free press in the world’s leading democracy is not to sit by and watch as authoritarianism takes root.
Nov 03, 2020
I was so wrong. I was so naive.
I thought that if mainstream journalists were simply more courageous about calling out Donald Trump for who he really is -- and more assertive about confronting disinformation -- then the American public would overwhelmingly reject him.
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies.
The journalism disappointed. Reporters too often normalized Trump's conduct and covered the campaign more or less like any other -- rather than one in which the choice was between a return to norms and a failed state. Their passive truth-telling was no match for the aggressive lies of Fox News and the right-wing media ecosystem.
But that doesn't explain the fact that nearly half of the American public affirmatively voted for Donald Trump - way more voters, in fact, than in 2016 -- and did it during the middle of a pandemic that he is disastrously mismanaging, for good measure.
Whether Joe Biden can eek out a win or not doesn't change the fact that an extremely large subsection of our fellow Americans is that deluded, racist, and/or eager to submit to a strongman.
So it's no longer enough for journalists to simply do a better job.
We've got to take on some new jobs.
It's no longer enough to passively and politely chronicle what's happening.
We need to delve deeply into the pathology of this huge chunk of American voters.
Pluralism is a legitimate journalistic value, and it is under attack.
So we need to actively fight racism - starting by reporting much more vigorously about systemic oppression and white nationalism.
The role of the free press in the world's leading democracy is not to sit by and watch as authoritarianism takes root.
We need to actively promote democratic values, remind people of the importance of constitutional checks and balances, support human rights, and advocate for a government that is responsive to the people's needs.
The appropriate role of a journalist is not to sit by as the very notion of truth is undermined.
We need to crusade for reality. While Washington Post editor Marty Baron famously said "we're not at war, we're at work," we need to go to war - against disinformation.
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies.
It's us or them.
As Janine Zacharia, who teaches journalism at Stanford, tweeted on Wednesday: "We're never ending polarization in this country or support for Trumpism unless we restore respect for credible, fact-based news and ensure every American gets quality information."
The Diagnosis
The most important and urgent journalistic task - one that no one else can accomplish -- is for us to properly diagnose the problem.
What upsets me most as a journalist is that even after a seemingly endless, four-year parade of articles about how Trump supporters still support Trump, we continue to lack anything like an accurate, widely agreed-upon consensus about what motivates them.
Those articles almost exclusively entail credulous stenography, passing along quotes from Trump supporters that - if you stop to think about them - don't really explain their support at all.
Much of the time, these supporters say things that simply aren't true - like Kathleen Skeins, the Michigan voter who told the New York Times that over the past four years, Trump had been "straightening out" government corruption. Or like the Ohio construction worker who told the Economist that Trump "got health care done, which the Democrats could never do. He built the wall." (More examples here.)
Profiling Trump supporters like this Nebraska farmer, reporters at the Times engage in euphemisms: writing about a "sense of Trumpian kinship," for instance, rather than openly addressing white nationalist feelings of victimization.
Journalists need to stop buying transparently bogus explanations for why people support Trump and figure out what's really going on.
As I've written before, this requires a different - actually, more empathetic, and certainly more time-consuming - kind of interviewing style. It means taking a more sociological approach, asking about formative moments, about cultural background and value systems, about education, and, perhaps most importantly, about media diets. It means diving deep into the "comforting simplicity of tribe," as the Washington Post's Margaret Sullivan put it.
And in addition to exploring - and countering - disinformation at the macro level, we need reporters to examine how disinformation infects individuals and groups, leading to what I call fact rejection. How does fact-rejection manifest within our communities? How widespread is it really? How is it transmitted? Who is susceptible and why? How persistent is it? What effect does it have? And perhaps most importantly: Is there any way for people to recover? We need to understand this in order to fix it.
I believe these are essential tasks for journalists in the coming years. I call on existing newsrooms and philanthropically-supported initiatives to field an army of reporters - god knows, enough of them are unemployed right now - and have them fan out to communities all over the country and truly figure out what is happening to our country.
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 |
Dan Froomkin
Dan Froomkin is a political journalist and founder and editor of Press Watch, a site focusing on coverage of U.S. politics and media. Previously, Froomkin covered politics for the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and The Intercept.
I was so wrong. I was so naive.
I thought that if mainstream journalists were simply more courageous about calling out Donald Trump for who he really is -- and more assertive about confronting disinformation -- then the American public would overwhelmingly reject him.
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies.
The journalism disappointed. Reporters too often normalized Trump's conduct and covered the campaign more or less like any other -- rather than one in which the choice was between a return to norms and a failed state. Their passive truth-telling was no match for the aggressive lies of Fox News and the right-wing media ecosystem.
But that doesn't explain the fact that nearly half of the American public affirmatively voted for Donald Trump - way more voters, in fact, than in 2016 -- and did it during the middle of a pandemic that he is disastrously mismanaging, for good measure.
Whether Joe Biden can eek out a win or not doesn't change the fact that an extremely large subsection of our fellow Americans is that deluded, racist, and/or eager to submit to a strongman.
So it's no longer enough for journalists to simply do a better job.
We've got to take on some new jobs.
It's no longer enough to passively and politely chronicle what's happening.
We need to delve deeply into the pathology of this huge chunk of American voters.
Pluralism is a legitimate journalistic value, and it is under attack.
So we need to actively fight racism - starting by reporting much more vigorously about systemic oppression and white nationalism.
The role of the free press in the world's leading democracy is not to sit by and watch as authoritarianism takes root.
We need to actively promote democratic values, remind people of the importance of constitutional checks and balances, support human rights, and advocate for a government that is responsive to the people's needs.
The appropriate role of a journalist is not to sit by as the very notion of truth is undermined.
We need to crusade for reality. While Washington Post editor Marty Baron famously said "we're not at war, we're at work," we need to go to war - against disinformation.
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies.
It's us or them.
As Janine Zacharia, who teaches journalism at Stanford, tweeted on Wednesday: "We're never ending polarization in this country or support for Trumpism unless we restore respect for credible, fact-based news and ensure every American gets quality information."
The Diagnosis
The most important and urgent journalistic task - one that no one else can accomplish -- is for us to properly diagnose the problem.
What upsets me most as a journalist is that even after a seemingly endless, four-year parade of articles about how Trump supporters still support Trump, we continue to lack anything like an accurate, widely agreed-upon consensus about what motivates them.
Those articles almost exclusively entail credulous stenography, passing along quotes from Trump supporters that - if you stop to think about them - don't really explain their support at all.
Much of the time, these supporters say things that simply aren't true - like Kathleen Skeins, the Michigan voter who told the New York Times that over the past four years, Trump had been "straightening out" government corruption. Or like the Ohio construction worker who told the Economist that Trump "got health care done, which the Democrats could never do. He built the wall." (More examples here.)
Profiling Trump supporters like this Nebraska farmer, reporters at the Times engage in euphemisms: writing about a "sense of Trumpian kinship," for instance, rather than openly addressing white nationalist feelings of victimization.
Journalists need to stop buying transparently bogus explanations for why people support Trump and figure out what's really going on.
As I've written before, this requires a different - actually, more empathetic, and certainly more time-consuming - kind of interviewing style. It means taking a more sociological approach, asking about formative moments, about cultural background and value systems, about education, and, perhaps most importantly, about media diets. It means diving deep into the "comforting simplicity of tribe," as the Washington Post's Margaret Sullivan put it.
And in addition to exploring - and countering - disinformation at the macro level, we need reporters to examine how disinformation infects individuals and groups, leading to what I call fact rejection. How does fact-rejection manifest within our communities? How widespread is it really? How is it transmitted? Who is susceptible and why? How persistent is it? What effect does it have? And perhaps most importantly: Is there any way for people to recover? We need to understand this in order to fix it.
I believe these are essential tasks for journalists in the coming years. I call on existing newsrooms and philanthropically-supported initiatives to field an army of reporters - god knows, enough of them are unemployed right now - and have them fan out to communities all over the country and truly figure out what is happening to our country.
Dan Froomkin
Dan Froomkin is a political journalist and founder and editor of Press Watch, a site focusing on coverage of U.S. politics and media. Previously, Froomkin covered politics for the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and The Intercept.
I was so wrong. I was so naive.
I thought that if mainstream journalists were simply more courageous about calling out Donald Trump for who he really is -- and more assertive about confronting disinformation -- then the American public would overwhelmingly reject him.
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies.
The journalism disappointed. Reporters too often normalized Trump's conduct and covered the campaign more or less like any other -- rather than one in which the choice was between a return to norms and a failed state. Their passive truth-telling was no match for the aggressive lies of Fox News and the right-wing media ecosystem.
But that doesn't explain the fact that nearly half of the American public affirmatively voted for Donald Trump - way more voters, in fact, than in 2016 -- and did it during the middle of a pandemic that he is disastrously mismanaging, for good measure.
Whether Joe Biden can eek out a win or not doesn't change the fact that an extremely large subsection of our fellow Americans is that deluded, racist, and/or eager to submit to a strongman.
So it's no longer enough for journalists to simply do a better job.
We've got to take on some new jobs.
It's no longer enough to passively and politely chronicle what's happening.
We need to delve deeply into the pathology of this huge chunk of American voters.
Pluralism is a legitimate journalistic value, and it is under attack.
So we need to actively fight racism - starting by reporting much more vigorously about systemic oppression and white nationalism.
The role of the free press in the world's leading democracy is not to sit by and watch as authoritarianism takes root.
We need to actively promote democratic values, remind people of the importance of constitutional checks and balances, support human rights, and advocate for a government that is responsive to the people's needs.
The appropriate role of a journalist is not to sit by as the very notion of truth is undermined.
We need to crusade for reality. While Washington Post editor Marty Baron famously said "we're not at war, we're at work," we need to go to war - against disinformation.
We need to go to war against Fox News and a right-wing media ecosystem that traffics in partisan lies.
It's us or them.
As Janine Zacharia, who teaches journalism at Stanford, tweeted on Wednesday: "We're never ending polarization in this country or support for Trumpism unless we restore respect for credible, fact-based news and ensure every American gets quality information."
The Diagnosis
The most important and urgent journalistic task - one that no one else can accomplish -- is for us to properly diagnose the problem.
What upsets me most as a journalist is that even after a seemingly endless, four-year parade of articles about how Trump supporters still support Trump, we continue to lack anything like an accurate, widely agreed-upon consensus about what motivates them.
Those articles almost exclusively entail credulous stenography, passing along quotes from Trump supporters that - if you stop to think about them - don't really explain their support at all.
Much of the time, these supporters say things that simply aren't true - like Kathleen Skeins, the Michigan voter who told the New York Times that over the past four years, Trump had been "straightening out" government corruption. Or like the Ohio construction worker who told the Economist that Trump "got health care done, which the Democrats could never do. He built the wall." (More examples here.)
Profiling Trump supporters like this Nebraska farmer, reporters at the Times engage in euphemisms: writing about a "sense of Trumpian kinship," for instance, rather than openly addressing white nationalist feelings of victimization.
Journalists need to stop buying transparently bogus explanations for why people support Trump and figure out what's really going on.
As I've written before, this requires a different - actually, more empathetic, and certainly more time-consuming - kind of interviewing style. It means taking a more sociological approach, asking about formative moments, about cultural background and value systems, about education, and, perhaps most importantly, about media diets. It means diving deep into the "comforting simplicity of tribe," as the Washington Post's Margaret Sullivan put it.
And in addition to exploring - and countering - disinformation at the macro level, we need reporters to examine how disinformation infects individuals and groups, leading to what I call fact rejection. How does fact-rejection manifest within our communities? How widespread is it really? How is it transmitted? Who is susceptible and why? How persistent is it? What effect does it have? And perhaps most importantly: Is there any way for people to recover? We need to understand this in order to fix it.
I believe these are essential tasks for journalists in the coming years. I call on existing newsrooms and philanthropically-supported initiatives to field an army of reporters - god knows, enough of them are unemployed right now - and have them fan out to communities all over the country and truly figure out what is happening to our country.
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.