While everyone else (including me) was watching the Artemis II crew's bull's-eye splashdown,
safely and successfully ending their historic mission, over in the pocket
universe of PBS three relics of a bygone media age sat around a table asking,
"What the fuck happened to our profession?"
Geoff Bennett:
And, Jonathan, 61 percent of Americans, including 30 percent of
Republicans, now say that President Trump has become erratic with age.
That's according to a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll.
The press corps -- I guess we should hold up a mirror to ourselves. The
press corps spent two years making President Biden's mental fitness, his
acuity the story. Why isn't that same scrutiny now being applied to
President Trump broadly?
Jonathan Capehart:
Yes. Yes, exactly.
That has been my question since -- excuse me -- since January 20 of last
year. We, the press, spent a lot of time talking about President Biden and
his age because he looked old. He moved slowly. He wasn't as vigorous and
agile, supposedly, as the guy he pushed out of office and then the guy who
was running against him.
And even little slips of the tongue were used to show, see, aha, he's not
all there. He's losing his mind.
How does that compare to what we're going through right now? I wish people
who have written books -- people who have gone on air talking about
President Biden nonstop, where are they now? Where are those books now
that we have a president who has given ample evidence, ample evidence that
something is not right?
Where are the people who are standing up and saying, you know what,
something needs to be done? And that goes back to some -- you were talking
about the founders. They were prepared for something like this. What they
weren't prepared for was the Article I branch just ceding all authority.
What they weren't prepared for were people from the president's own party
willing to either turn a blind eye or enable him to run roughshod over the
Constitution. Even when you have got him out there threatening
annihilation of a civilization, even when he's started a war for no reason
and the enemy is in a stronger position now than it was before he started
this war of his own choosing?
At some point, Republicans writ large and those on Capitol Hill have to
start standing up for the Article I prerogatives, but also start standing
up for the country. I don't know how much longer we as a nation can
withstand this. And I know the world is beyond done with us, but I think
they're also frightened of us.
David Brooks:
I wouldn't say that we in the mainstream media have been exactly pro-Trump
Cheering section. I mean, our business model is bashing Trump. We know we
can get clicks and ratings if we bash Trump enough. So we do it over and
over and over and again, without having anything interesting to say half
the time.
And, by the way, if we did do everything we could, it wouldn't -- it
wouldn't make a difference. The people who need to be persuaded are not
persuaded by us. We have been doing this since 2015. And so I'm not
totally persuaded it would make a huge difference if we challenged his age
and mental acuity, because we have been doing it morally for 10 years.
So, to summarize, in this creaky, ancient ritual, as the moderator, Bennet, is constrained to never state an opinion about anything. If a meteor smacked into the
studio during taping, his contractually obligated response would be,
"Some people say that a meteor has just crashed through our ceiling.
What, if any, are the political implications?"
The other participants, one supposedly "Right" and the other putatively "Left"
then engage in a civil exchange in which David Brooks says something absurd or
ridiculous or false on its face, and the other party is required by the rules
of this kabuki to never raise their voice or call into question Mr. Brooks'
honesty or integrity.
Thus the illusion of a free press operating
in an open marketplace of ideas is maintained for the eleven people who still
watch this routinized diorama.
However, on any given Friday there are theoretically an unlimited number of
questions that could be posed by the moderator. And usually those
questions are designed to be very...beige. Tepid. Bland, poorly seasoned
potato salad at the barbecue, served up so as not to raise the blood pressure of the
eleven senior citizens for whom this is Friday evening must-see teevee.
But this time the question was about the media itself. Specifically -- and
swaddled in carefully neutral tones -- about how the media has
catastrophically failed us all.
To be clear, according to the arcane rules under which this ritual operates, Mr. Capehart could not come right out and say, "Fuck you Jake Tapper." But he
might as well have. Also taking pains to specify that the Republican party is the problem is always appreciated.
Of course, finishing with
"At some point, Republicans writ large and those on Capitol Hill have to
start standing up for..."
yadda yadda is just sheer wish-casting nonsense. The GOP Capehart dreams
of is long dead and its zombie corpse is trying to drag the rest of us into
the grave with it.
But the real prize here is the bitter, post-facto nihilism of David
Brooks.
As Judd Legum
amply documents here...
Manufacturing a political crisis
...
But while Hur's views about Biden's memory were worth mentioning, the
media instead treated Hur's amateur medical judgments as a political
crisis for Biden and an existential threat to his reelection campaign. But
the actual threat to Biden's political prospects is the deluge of negative
media coverage based on Hur's conjecture. A Popular Information analysis
found that just three major papers — the New York Times, the Washington
Post, and the Wall Street Journal — collectively published 81 articles
about Hur's assessment of Biden's memory in the four days following the
release of Hur's report. Incidents that raised questions about former
President Trump's mental state received far less coverage by the same
outlets.
Overall, The New York Times published 30 stories about Biden's alleged
memory issues between February 7 and February 10. Over those four days,
the story was covered by 24 reporters (some of whom filed multiple
stories), four opinion columnists, and the New York Times Editorial Board.
Hur's report legally clearing Biden was described in the New York Times
as "a political disaster," "a political nightmare," "a new political crisis," and "a political mess." The paper said the report inflicted "searing political damage," placed "Mr. Biden’s advanced age… back at the center of America’s political
conversation," and constituted "a gift" to Republicans. And that's just what was included in purportedly
objective "news" reports. After Hur's report, New York Times opinion
columnists with no medical credentials said Biden showed "signs of senescence" and suggested he was sliding "into dementia." Another said Hur's report proved "Biden should not be running for re-election" and blamed Biden's mental state for "the emboldenment of America’s
rivals." The New York Times Editorial Board described the report ominously
as "a dark moment for Mr. Biden’s presidency."
Only one of those stories mentioned a key fact: Hur is completely
unqualified to render a judgment on Biden's mental capacity.
...and Margaret Sullivan
documents here...
The media's circular logic and destructive obsession with Biden's
age
Yes, it's fast becoming the 2024 version of the media's obsession with
Hillary's emails
The New York Times was, of course, just asking questions.
Why, oh why, do Joe Biden’s age, memory failures and gaffes seem to
hurt him so much more than Donald Trump’s age, memory failures and
gaffes hurt him?
These questions were being pondered in the most influential real estate
in all of media: a front-page news article, above the fold, on Sunday.
(Even in this digital age, that print front page, especially on Sunday,
packs a punch.)
The sub-headline summarized the issue: “Biden Is Hurt by Flubs More
Than Trump Is.”
And the article stated: “While Mr. Biden, 81, has been dogged by doubts
and concerns about his advancing years from voters, Mr. Trump, who is
77, has not felt the same blowback.”
“Dogged by,” you say? Who, exactly, is doing the dogging?
Maybe the Times and other major media outlets ought to look in the
mirror.
CNN, meanwhile, was running this chyron: “Is Biden’s Age Now a Bigger
Problem Than Trump’s Indictments?” A panel gave this question every due
consideration, and then some.
And then there was the rundown of Times opinion offerings — one piece
after another, all in a neat row, about Biden’s age and memory.
...The New York Times led the pack of "Biden is old" legacy media
jackals trying to kneecap the 2024 Biden campaign, at a time when Mr. Brooks
was the apex op-ed writer at that publication.
Also Margaret Sullivan's comparison was spot-on: "Biden is old" did become the 2024 version of
the media's obsession with Hillary's emails.
And, as long-time readers may recall, Mr. Brooks was also the apex op-ed
writer at
The New York Times as it led the pack of "But her
emails" legacy media jackals trying to kneecap the 2016 Hillary Clinton
campaign. First, when it looked like Bernie Sanders might win the
Democratic nomination, Brooks cranked out 700 words of drivel "Both
Sidesing" Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. And when Hillary Clinton
won the Democratic nomination, Brooks immediately pivoted, cranking out 700
words of drivel "Both Sidesing" Hillary and Trump (see
"David Brooks: Both Siderism Is a Farce that Gives Us Meaning").
And this was not a one-off. After the Bush regime collapsed and
all of Brooks' Neocon National Greatness dreams died with it, Brooks spent the rest of his career literally doing nothing but vomiting out one
column of Both Sides garbage after another on the op-ed page of The New York
Times.
And now that the mask has dropped and the beating heart of Brooks' former party has shown itself
to be the fascist monster Liberals warned that it was?
Now that it is unequivocally clear that the media's "Both Sides" fetish is
what helped keep MAGA bigots and imbeciles on-side, and lowered the bar far
enough for America's feckless, clueless "Undecides" and "Independents" to
vote to put the worst person in the world back in the White House?
After all that, where does Mr. Brooks land?
First, he renders his profession down to what clowns like Brooks have made
of it: the crass pursuit of "clicks and ratings".
Second, and most pathetically of all, he reduces his entire, toxic career to
a giant shrug emoji. Claiming as his alibi for his poisonous career choices
that none of it made any difference. That even if clowns like Brooks
had actually tried harder, it wouldn't have matter.
And, by the way, if we did do everything we could, it wouldn't -- it
wouldn't make a difference. The people who need to be persuaded are not
persuaded by us.
This is a lie so immense that it's genuinely hard to quantify.
Sure, the MAGA
zombies are unpersuadable, but that's because they're wired that way.
Their impregnable ignorance? Their impervious bigotry. Son,
those were features, not bugs. These MAGA zombies were drawn into the
party precisely because they found a welcome home there. Their
ignorance was flattered. Their intolerance was praised as
patriotism. They became the GOP's reliably reprogrammable meatbags, in
a process that unfolded over decades right in front of David Brooks --
America's most ubiquitous public "intellectual" -- who went right on
pretending that everything was fine and/or that Both Sides were equally
awful.
But as for the "Both Sides Do It" media cult that Brooks piloted? Take
it from someone who has been documenting its deleterious effects on our
politics for 21 years, that has been wildly successful.
We may never know how many millions of wobbly Republicans who were having
doubts about the GOP were persuaded to stay on Team Evil because they
believed the Both Sides lie. And we may never know how many additional
millions of those feckless, clueless "Undecide" and "Independent" voters --
people who actually watch things like PBS and Meet the Press and read
publications like The New York Times and believe what they see
and read -- cast their ballot for the worst people in the world or pissed
their vote away on doomed third-party candidates because scum like Brooks
spent a professional lifetime telling them that it didn't matter because
speech codes at Cornell University were somehow as bad and dangerous as an armed insurrection waged against the United States government.
But we can say with confidence that the Both Sides lie has been incredibly
persuasive. That it has helped determine the outcome of critical
elections. And that it has done real and permanent damage to this
country.
And for his sins, Mr. David Brooks has been lured away from the
Times by The Atlantic, where he will spend his declining years
cranking out the same drivel as always, but instead of being paid a princely
sum to perform his little dance twice a week,
The Atlantic appears to be happy paying him a princely sum to do his
thing once every few months.
Funny old world.
I Am The Liberal Media
