What political reporters (and, perhaps more importantly, their editors) need to realize is that when Trump says something this ridiculous, what he said exactly isn’t as important as that he said it.
With Trump unbound and Sanders rising, leading media thinkers make powerful arguments for urgent reconsiderations of how our dominant media organizations practice political journalism.
If the elite political journalist mindset is that the big question is how can Sanders be stopped, and Bloomberg is the only hope, then of course you can’t dump on Bloomberg without dumping on Sanders, too. Regardless of the actual facts.
In a sign of how clickbait values have triumphed over journalistic skepticism, a rumor that Attorney General William Barr told some people that he was thinking of possibly resigning over President Trump’s Twitter habit was eagerly spread by the city’s top political journalists Tuesday night.
Buttigieg portrays Sanders as a "my way or the highway" absolutist who turns away anyone who doesn’t agree with him "100 percent of the time" and rejects any progress short of revolution. But the only people Sanders is spurning are billionaires and influence peddlers.
Even after a real-time public scolding from their peers, reporters at major news outlets persisted in taking Barr's plainly disingenuous comments at face value, playing up an imaginary breach between the attorney general and the president who are in fact actively colluding in the perversion of justice.
A major pillar of our democracy -- equal protection under the law -- is crumbling under Donald Trump’s increasingly brazen assaults. And it’s the free press’s job to sound the alarm, expose the damage, and champion its restoration. Some journalists are doing just that.
if it had been anyone but him, the headlines would have been less grudging. Instead, as far as the Washington Post and the New York Times were concerned, it was only a partial victory – of the Democratic left.
Progressive podcaster Benjamin Dixon posted the audio on Monday afternoon, explaining how Bloomberg’s “racist explanation and justification… shows that he operates from a deeply troubling framework,” and calling for its widespread dissemination. It worked.
How do you normalize something as appalling as Donald Trump’s purge of truth tellers? If you’re a star reporter at the New York Times, you make it sound like he’s just fighting back.
Director Bong Joon Ho’s movie is profoundly angry. But the media coverage of its stunning triumph at Sunday night’s Oscars focused mostly on less controversial things.
Almost every day, he publicly demonstrates that he's not capable of holding anything back. Meanwhile, he treats the media as the enemy. So why would self-respecting journalist let him go off the record?
Nancy Pelosi decided the whole thing was abnormal enough that she did something overtly transgressive. So yeah, debate among yourselves: Is it time to be transgressive? I would certainly argue that it is.
Talking to Michael Barbaro on the Times’s “The Daily” podcast, Baquet refused to in any way condemn a recent Times article that was widely and appropriately cited as a canonical example of bothesidesism, and instead reiterated that Times reporters will not be “taking sides” -- even when one side is the truth and the other side is a lie.
