In About this Blog we refer to red flags as public statements or actions by public officials or their supporters that are better explained by the Six Points model than the current left-right equivalence model.". We can overcome the problems indicated by these red flags if other responsible parties understand how their role needs to adapt to this environment. An example of a red flag is the singling out of opponents such as the Washington Post (usually personalized by Trump in Jeff Bezos or Amazon as a corporation) and CNN's Jim Acosta.
When journalists continue to behave in accord with outmoded journalistic standards of objectivity, certain missteps and shortcuts that worked in the distant past stand out as warning signs.
Certain phrases frequently used by journalists are such warning signs.
Without evidence has been discussed here. Journalists who use that phrase in their reporting are ducking responsibility.
Both sides has been discussed extensively in posts with the label False Balance.
"The president believes" is a phrase journalists frequently use. But reporters have no idea what the president believes, or anyone else for that matter. We know what people say and do and may draw conclusions, but those conclusions are opinions, at least if these same reporters cared to apply their standards regarding the separation of fact from opinion consistently. In the case of this president, who appears to have no core beliefs in the sense we expect of most all human beings, attempting to isolate "beliefs" he may have and to state that he has them is a convenient shortcut, but such a statement is unprovable and likely false or meaningless.
Kevin Cirilli is guilty of this journalistic malpractice. Today he reported from the Capitol that "This is a president who believes that that type of rhetoric will help him not just with his base but in swing states..." If that is the case, where is the quote from Trump? Why not play the video of that statement? Because the video does not exist, Cirilli is observing Trump's behavior and attributing both motive and calculation, when a reasonable observer might otherwise observe ---this is the president's behavior. He fires up the base. Win or lose, he claims victory. The reality is that this president lies all the time and as Paul Krugman writes today[emphasis added]:
"Do Republicans really believe that there were vast numbers of fraudulent or forged ballots? Even asking that question is a category error. They don’t “really believe” anything, except that they should get what they want. Any vote count that might favor a Democrat is bad for them; therefore it’s fraudulent, no evidence needed."
So what's the big deal with these journalistic shortcuts? They occur right at the juncture where the lies and reality collide. When honest reporting fails there, it fails at exactly the place where the public record can most readily be set straight. Attributing beliefs to Trump, ironically without evidence, out of journalistic laziness normalizes him without justification. Journalists and their editors consider this acceptable, not just for convenience, but because covering Trump without always trying to normalize grossly abnormal human behavior, even accurately, would violate their requirement to soften factual reporting that might come across as opinion because it is grossly negative - critical of Trump by its very nature, which we cover in The Problem with Appearances.
In the end, instead of fact checking the statements made by Trump, journalists need to reality check their own writing.
More to follow in a related vein: "Critics of the president" and "What Democrats need to do"
No comments:
Post a Comment