The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Dear Journalists: Stop Trying to Save Democracy"
A very good Substack post by Yascha Mounk; two short excerpts:
The aspiration of many journalists to save democracy has not just proven counterproductive because it drove a big part of their readership away from mainstream outlets. It has also deprived Democrats of key facts they would have needed to make good strategic decisions—which, ironically, has helped to strengthen the very political forces that the journalists who were self-consciously striving to preserve democracy were trying to contain.
Over the last months, I have heard from multiple European diplomats that the extent of Joe Biden's struggles has long been well-known. In meetings with a number of senior statesmen, Biden repeated the same anecdotes, or seemed unsure about his own whereabouts, as early as 2021. Is it really plausible that American journalists were unable to learn something that has been known in capitals across Europe for so long—something that, as it happens, tens of millions of American voters have long cited as a serious concern in opinion polls?
No. The obvious truth of it is that, for the most part, journalists simply did not want to go there. Part of that reluctance may have been rooted in an understandable (if misplaced) sense of propriety. But another part of it was rooted in the unspoken suspicion that open consideration of this topic would somehow wind up helping Donald Trump.
As it happens, the reluctance to level with readers ultimately accomplished the opposite of what was intended. It allowed Biden to stay in the race long enough to make the entire Democratic establishment complicit in covering up the true state of his mental health. And it made it virtually impossible to stage an open primary to choose his successor….
But the truth of it is that the American mainstream itself now suffers from a serious epistemological crisis. If you were a faithful reader of The New York Times or a frequent listener of NPR, you were less likely than the average American citizen to believe that Biden was suffering from serious mental decline or that Harris was an unpopular politician with a steeply uphill path towards winning the presidential election. You were also less likely to recognize that school closures would exact a big toll on students' educational outcomes and mental health or to realize that a lot of Latinos were embracing the Republican Party. And you would, even now, be less likely than most voters to recognize how utterly simplistic it is to believe that America can meaningfully be divided into two opposing blocks of "whites" and "people of color."
Americans have lost trust in many of their institutions in good part because, despite their assurances to be the arbiters of truth and science, legacy news outlets and establishment institutions fundamentally misconstrue and misunderstand basic aspects of American life. The reasons for this sorry state of affairs go well beyond the decision by many journalists to flatter themselves into thinking that their task was to save democracy. But the first step towards fixing the problem is for journalists to re-embrace the humdrum conception of their own work that served them comparatively well in the past: to cultivate a healthy distrust of everyone, including those you may secretly believe to be on the right side of history, and report the news without fear or favor.
The whole post is much worth reading.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That is a very, very good essay.
He's wrong though. Journalists should definitely stay the course and
go down with the shipride it out.They're like Icarus, and they're lucky their wings have lasted this long.
I disagree in almost every aspect. Just as I want bigots to openly advertise NO IRISH NO DOGS so I know what to expect and who to avoid, I want
journalistscommentators and the media to be open and upfront about their opinions so I know who are beyond worth trying to decipher and how to decipher and read between the lines of the rest. I'll decide who is "fair and balanced" not them.Mounk may have taken the media to the woodshed, but he didn't use the hickory switch. Far beyond not reporting Biden's decline, they lied up until the debate. Then it became impossible to label the video a "cheap fake" or deceptively edited.
They ain’t misconstruing and misapprehending. They’re telling porkies and censoring.
To be fair, they’re serving a market that prefers an alternative reality, it’s just that they’ve lost the market that prefers the actual reality.
I do not think the New York Times's coverage of Biden's decline fits the pattern the essay thinks it's found. The Times addressed searching health questions to both Biden and Trump back in early April.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/us/politics/biden-trump-health.html
With hindsight that wasn't early enough, but it's something the essay should have mentioned and dealt with.
The NY Times also had dozens of articles saying that Trump is a fascist, and must be stopped by any means, in order to preserve democracy.
I do not think the New York Times’s coverage of Biden’s decline fits the pattern you think you found.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/biden-age-videos.html
“And then there is the distorted, online version of himself, a product of often misleading videos that play into and reinforce voters’ longstanding concerns about his age and abilities.”
Yeah, NYT was all over his decline; they blamed conservative media.
On thing this election has made clear to me that supposed liberal media bias is vastly more perception than reality.
Your sarcasm is getting harder to detect. For a moment there, I thought you meant it.
His serious comments have brackets around them.
And it made it virtually impossible to stage an open primary to choose his successor….
While technically true, I don't think that mattered in the end. She was always going to be his replacement candidate. The real mistake was his making her his VP choice to begin with.
I don’t think that massaging their messaging would have helped the Democrats/media win the election. This is the sort of thing that people who work with words like to think: that they could have moved the swing voters to the Democrats with better rhetorical strategy, maybe some limited hangouts to reinforce credibility (“OK, Biden is less acute than he used to be, but he’s still better than Trump! OK, Harris isn’t the best candidate, but Trump is the worst!”). I’m not convinced.
The most effective strategy is the one Biden tried to pull off – use censorship to restrict the flow of information so that stuff unfavorable to the regime simply doesn’t get widely reported. Didn’t work this time, but there’s always next time.