Why the Mainstream News Media Keep Failing the American People
It's a shame that the MSM doesn't spend as much time reflecting on their own mistakes and shortcomings as they do creating whatever narrative will generate the most clicks
This story leading the Washington Post’s home page this morning is the perfect example of why I'm so glad that I have absolutely NOTHING to do with the mainstream news media anymore. It’s so indicative of how the modern news media, preoccupied with appearing “objective” and chasing whatever “gotcha” narrative will produce clicks, has unwittingly aided the efforts to undermine democracy by fomenting faux scandals even when none exist, and stoking public cynicism even when it’s not justified by facts.
The result is that REAL scandals and REAL assaults on democracy and decency in public life get blended in with media-fueled hyperbole, to the point that the average citizen has trouble discerning what is worthy of true outrage and disillusionment and what is simply a reflection of the basic human flaws and missteps we are all subject to.
Let’s explore the headline and lead paragraphs to this piece:
Ahead of Maui visit, Biden’s governmental and personal response scrutinized
More than 120 hours passed between when President Biden first spoke publicly about the devastating Maui fires on Aug. 10 and his next substantive remarks about the tragedy the following week.
During that five-day stretch of presidential reticence — which Biden spent in part on vacation in Delaware as his son faced fresh legal jeopardy — the full scope of the crisis in Hawaii came into clearer view. The embers of the deadliest wildfires in modern American history left a seaside town completely scorched and caused thousands of grief-stricken survivors to question the competence and capability of the government.
Yes, Biden dropped the ball, as the presidential historians in the piece point out, about his role in communicating to the American public the gravity of this disaster. Guilty as charged. But that in itself doesn’t warrant the tone and scope of this piece of journalistic hyperbole, because ultimately what WaPo is taking him to task for is public relations, not really the operations of his government in responding to this disaster. It’s fine to call into question “the competence and capability of the government” when you actually have the facts to back it up, but when you actually read the story, you see that by most accounts, the president has been highly engaged in the response of his government from Day One of this disaster and that the response has been generally swift and competent.
But before we get to that, you know who else dropped the ball when it came to grasping and communicating the magnitude of this disaster? The news media, who for the first day or two of this horror, treated it like just another news story, and who failed (as usual) to report BEFORE THE DISASTER how such a tragedy was growing more and more likely through head-in-the-sand incompetence by local authorities in Hawaii (a state-of-the-art warning system that didn’t work; a utility that failed to heed the lessons of California’s disasters and refused to shut off its power when it clearly should have; failure to prepare for the effects of climate change; the failure to mitigate and remove non-native species that covered the island and provided the fuel for the inferno, and on and on). As usual, the media preferred to swoop in when the dead bodies mounted to cash in on their precious clicks and then play Monday Morning Quarterback, instead of raising the alarm beforehand about a disaster that was waiting in plain sight for years.
Now, back to the misleading headline about governmental response being "scrutinized." The reporting in the story indicates that, for the most part, this has been a by-the-book, highly competent federal response to the disaster, with only a small amount of criticism by some locals about the speed of some actions that we have no way of knowing is even justified (it's understandably common for those in the midst of a disaster to want quicker action than may actually be logistically feasible in the moment). Then, it conflates the frustration of some residents over some elements of the the federal response with the local failures by Maui authorities to warn residents of the impending catastrophe, which Biden’s government had no role in. Yet, the headline and opening of the story imply that this might be some Katrina-type fiasco in terms of the response, and there's really no reporting in the article to suggest that. I call Media B.S.
And then the kicker. This article about a horrific human tragedy decides to insult the gravity of that tragedy by making it about Biden's treatment of the White House Press Corps, and then shamelessly, even about his son’s legal problems and whether Biden avoided talking to the media about Maui to avoid talking to them about Hunter. If I were Biden, I'd have as little interaction with the White House Press Corps as possible, too, given the way they've debased their profession in recent years with their obsession with horse race political B.S. and “gotcha” narratives over real issues such as the existential threat to American democracy itself. So Biden didn't issue more emotional statements about the tragedy through the self-absorbed White House Press Corps because he didn't want to also address the latest news about his son's legal problems? Why should he debase the presidency and the real issues facing our country by engaging in such Media B.S.
Yeah, you got him, MSM. Biden dropped the public relations ball on this. But trust me, the greater danger is when government officials become so obsessed with their own image and reputation that they put PR spin ahead of actually doing their job to serve the public interest and protect and save lives. I've seen that dynamic play out more times than I can count over the years, from city councils and county agencies to the federal government. I'd much rather see government say too little and do enough than say a lot and do too little (which is usually the way it turns out, as I've seen first-hand with the B.S. government response to and similar B.S. media coverage of a major refinery accident in my hometown last Thanksgiving).
This tragedy, and the coverage of it, should prompt some self-reflection not only among government but the news media as well. But the idea that this will happen is laughable. They're largely incapable of such self-reflection. Too busy pointing fingers and playing their "gotcha" games to look in the mirror at their own shortcomings and the role they’ve played themselves in enabling the problems gripping our society, from police violence to assaults on democracy itself.
Case in point. Did they ever really look at why George Floyd and all the other tragedies of police violence were allowed to happened over the course of decades? Did it have something to do with them prioritizing relationships with police so that they could get their "if it bleeds, it leads" scoops ahead of objective reporting and holding police accountable for the unjust taking of human lives, just as everyone else in society is expected to be held accountable? Did it have anything to do with too often letting government pick and choose who got leaked "public information" that the public is entitled to, meaning that the journalists most likely to kiss their asses and look away from their transgressions would get the special treatment and the details on the latest inner-city, gang-related homicide? (while the communities who suffer the impacts of that violence are largely treated as clickbait pawns?) Any self-reflection over all the times the news media treated the lives of officers lost in the line of duty as so much more valuable, and worthy of sorrow, than the lives they take in the line of duty? Nah. Would require some self-reflection, and who has time for that when you've got to figure out how to cash in on the next tale of death and destruction and point fingers at everyone else, even if the pointing of fingers is about PR, which is what this story is really about, than the actual functioning of government that impacts people's lives.
Thanks, WaPo, for reminding me again why I'm so glad I have nothing to do with this industry anymore. I'll keep my subscription, though, because at least you've shown yourself to be better than The New York Times in this regard and still do more work, on the whole, that actually serves the public interest than undermines it. The same can’t be said, I’m sorry to say, for more corporate news media organizations these days. I canceled my NYT subscription during the Afghanistan withdrawal, when in piling on about the mistakes that were made (and there were many) and the chaos that ensued, the Times conveniently ignored the fact that one of the greatest humanitarian evacuations in human history was going on.
The best insights from this piece actually come from the "Comments" section. Here are a few of my favorites so far:
"Let's condense this down: 'Press industrial complex is deeply wounded that they are not being regarded as a Very Big Deal, demands additional sound clips from President.'"
"Maui resident here. What's important is that the president authorized federal help as soon as possible. Words on TV would have helped no one here. I'm also disgusted by mainland media that looks for drama and focuses on every aspect of the response that wasn't perfect - without reporting on the big picture."
"Oh for heaven's sake, WaPo, haven't you gotten your blood money out of this crap pieces of yellow journalism yet? Not enough views and clicks? Why is deplorable article designed to draw MAGAs like flies to a dog pile still at the top of the headlines?"
"If the purpose of this story was to inform, it failed miserably. Can someone explain what was the purpose of this article?"
Of course, the last question is rhetorical. We all know what the purpose of this overblown article was. The same purpose behind the overblown coverage of Hillary’s emails that equated those mistakes and missteps with the pure corruption embodied by Donald Trump and his sycophants from 2016 to the present day, even to the point that they’ve tried to destroy democracy itself and justify it by creating a mirage of B.S., enabled in part by the mainstream media. To generate clicks and page views by creating the narrative that they’re all failing us in exactly the same way, that they’re all really the same, crooked and corrupt, aloof and uncaring, when the reality couldn’t be any further from the truth.
Yes yes and YES! Love the way you have called NYT and WaPo out. The major news stations are equally complicit in not covering real happenings, real facts. Sensationalism is what it’s called. More bang for the buck, unfortunately. I too, like WaPo better than NYT.
Bravo, Craig! Your superb, incisive scrutiny of WAPO’s misleading article and of major news in general merits ample broadcasting! Bravo! Please consider sending it to WAPO’s Editor.