I’m trying not to write primarily about political issues anymore, but the recent unrest in Los Angeles over ICE raids has revealed a frustrating part of our political discourse in America. I refer to this part of the discourse as the “media hall monitors.”
I’ll try to explain my thinking, and then follow up with some examples. Basically, there is this phenomenon, particularly on social media, where Republicans and all the various factions that make up the party today, get their panties twisted in a bunch over the way that legacy media institutions report the news. Often times, the focus is not on whether the reporting is accurate, but rather, if it is sufficiently fair or unbiased.
The above tweet by Drew Holden is a good place to start. He provides a screenshot of four different online articles, from outlets like The New York Times, and CNN. From Drew’s perspective, these articles are partisan in nature, because they dont give enough credence to what he believes the coverage should look like. The idea that the media has a partisan bias in favor of Democrats is not exactly new. This has been the agreed upon consensus for as long as I’ve been alive, and way before I was born. So it’s not new, but, what exactly is the issue with the way these articles were written? Are the headlines too critical of Donald Trump? Are they giving too much credence to the protestors? Are they not sufficiently critical of the bad actors who show up to these protests to cause harm?
I quote tweeted Drew’s post, and he decided to respond, which you can see here:
My original point was that folks like Drew, who criticize legacy media coverage all day long, tend to lump together all legacy media outlets into one amorphous blob called “the media.” I think that’s both lazy, and unhelpful. If you’ve got a beef with a particular outlet for the way it reports, then you should single them out, rather than tossing them into a giant pile with everyone else.
He’s right that we’ve seen a rise in alternative and conservative media, in part due to biased coverage from legacy outlets. I have no argument against that. Most people who go into journalism tend to be liberal, so this is expected. Again, it’s nothing new. Here in Boston, we have the Boston Globe, and the Boston Herald. If you’re a conservative, you’ll probably prefer to read The Herald, because it’s more sympathetic to the arguments and causes on the political right, and it’s far more critical of the Democrats than The Globe. Drew makes two claims in that response, and I want to touch on that for a moment.
“the industry has failed to provide impartial news.”
“what I try to do is hold the self-anointed ‘defenders of democracy’ accountable to tell the truth.”
Which is it? Are legacy news orgs failing to provide impartial news, or failing to tell the truth? Is it both of those things? One is significantly worse than the other, and it’s interesting that folks like Drew continuously hammer the impartiality. I would argue that it’s far more important that news orgs report the facts, and get the story right, than it is for them to be sufficiently non-partisan. The simple fact is, everyone is biased! The people writing the headlines for CNN.com are probably not going to be caught wearing MAGA hats and praying at the altar of Dear Leader.
So that’s one example. Here’s another:
Brian Stelter seems to be the favorite punching bag of a lot of folks on the political right. Personally, I think he’s more like a pair of khaki cargo shorts than a partisan supervillain, but YMMV. Anyway, AG writes with a lot of snark here, in response to Stelter’s claim that most folks in Los Angeles are going about their day, not worried about the unrest. Well, I’m sorry if you don’t like the way Stelter wrote that tweet, but he’s not wrong. LA is massive. The unrest has been primarily focused around 1 square mile in the city, out of an area that is roughly 500 square miles total. It’s true, there were a few cars set on fire, and businesses looted. People were trying to block the freeway, and police were having rocks and pieces of concrete thrown at their cruisers. That behavior is unacceptable, and completely illegal. As of last night, the LAPD had arrested nearly 400 people in response to the violence.
I think what triggered such a snark-filled response from AG, was that Stelter dared to criticize the way that conservative media is portraying the unrest in LA. But nothing he said was inaccurate. It’s true that conservative media is desperate to turn this unrest into the next coming of the summer of 2020, where riots erupted in response to the murder of George Floyd. That was a terrible time, but this is nowhere near that level of chaos. It’s not even on the same planet.
Why would groups be handing out gas masks and face shields? Well, maybe it’s because people dont want to be hit with rubber bullets, like this reporter below:
Or this reporter:
Or this reporter:
There is a fundamental difference between news coverage that is partisan and news coverage that is dishonest. In my personal view, I would much rather get partisan news than dishonest news. Most people are smart enough to understand that journalism is a career that attracts a lot of left-leaning people. And most people are smart enough to ignore partisan nonsense and just focus on what is true, and what actually matters. In the case of the unrest in LA, I don’t care if the reporting gives sufficient criticism to the rioters themselves. I’m not looking for the news to be the judge, jury, and executioner. I just want the information, and then I can make my own judgment accordingly. You should be skeptical of everything you hear and read, but, you shouldn’t completely shut out everything that doesn’t have an explicit ‘pro-Your Side’ slant to it, either.