Go, and do thou likewise.
The New York Times, writes Jamison Foser after years of reading “is, politically, a Republican newspaper.”
Okay, so I’m on a rant about the media’s obsession with Biden’s age. Thankfully, Jamison Foser offers suggestions on how to do more than complain or suggest, as lefties regularly do, that the left build its own media platforms. (In the next few months?)
Foser writes at his substack, Finding Gravity:
First, it is important to note that there is a difference between acknowledging that the Times and its ilk won’t change much in response to criticism and thinking they won’t change at all. Forceful, reasoned media critiques can shift behavior around the margins — a little more coverage of something that’s been underplayed, a little less of something over-played, a reconsideration of a unsupported assumption or an underlying bias. It isn’t particularly efficient, it isn’t going to lead to the wholesale changes it should, but in a closely-divided country changes at the margins can be decisive. (It should also be noted that marginal changes work both ways, and if the anti-Trump coalition were to stop working the refs, media coverage might get even worse.)
Second: Changing the news media is not the only goal of media criticism. Another is changing the way people react to the news media. We might not be able to get the media to stop applying a deeply stupid double-standard to Biden and Trump, but if we can get some of their audience to understand that double-standard, we can reduce the harm it causes.
Third: Not only are “Yelling about political coverage” and “telling people how their lives would be different under a Trump presidency vs. a Biden presidency” not mutually exclusive, the former can actually be an effective tool in the latter. And I don’t just mean indirectly, via the marginal improvements discussed above. I mean that media criticism is often a useful vehicle for carrying other messages. When people criticize the New York Times for, for example, downplaying the threat of Donald Trump banning abortion, we aren’t just ineffectually criticizing the Times: We’re telling our audience that Donald Trump will ban abortion.
That might seem like an absurd bank shot; like a really inefficient way of spreading a message. Why not just say Trump will ban abortion? Well, obviously, we should do that, and do it often. The primary way the anti-Trump coalition communicates with voters should not be via media criticism; it should be more direct than that. But we know that a lot of people are mad about the media doing big things badly. We know that, as John Lydon said, anger is an energy. That anger is contagious, and when you’re in the message-spreading business, contagiousness is extremely valuable.
The goal, as Anat Shenker-Osorio says often, is to get your side to sing like a choir, in unison. If your team won’t repeat your message, if they won’t repeat or retweet it, it’s not a good message.
Foser adds, “The news media is not the only audience for media criticism, nor is media criticism qua media criticism completely futile. Don’t stop.”
But don’t be mules for carrying the other team’s message either. Here’s how he suggests professional Democrats likely to be quoted use the media to push back and transmit a counter-message:
If you’re a professional Democrat who supports Joe Biden and a reporter asks you about the politics of Biden’s age, your job is to tell the truth: “Donald Trump is a delusional, addled imbecile who confused a photo of the woman he sexually assaulted for a photo of his own wife, but you biased jackasses in the media are disproportionately obsessed with Biden, just like you helped Trump win in 2016.” Your job is not to sound like some third-tier pundit straining to sound as neutral as possible6 in order to win a PBS contract; it’s to tell the damn truth and help stave off fascism.
It’s a start. A spicy start. Go, and do thou likewise.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.