Joe Biden will be giving a big speech on the anniversary of January 6th. Its themes could not be more important. And yet, we have every reason to anticipate the media covering it by discussion whether or not it actually helps Trump in the opinion polls for Biden to lay out the stakes in this campaign. It’s what they do. They’ll poll the speech and then spend hours and hours and spill buckets of pixels on whether or not “it works.”
Margaret Sullivan explains why that’s wrong and what they should do instead:
When Joe Biden talks on Friday about US democracy on the brink, there’s no doubt that it will be a campaign speech. Maybe the most important one of his life.
But the speech will be more than that. It’s intended as a warning and a red alert, delivered on the anniversary of the violent January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
The date was chosen for good reason – to make the point that more mayhem and more flagrant disregard for the rule of law and fair elections, are just around the corner if Donald Trump is re-elected.
Can the political media in America get that reality across? Or will their addiction to “horserace” coverage prevail?
So far, the signs aren’t particularly promising.
A line high up in the New York Times’ advance coverage of what Biden plans to say is typical of the mainstream media’s tone and focus: “The two speeches are part of an effort to redirect attention from Mr. Biden’s low approval numbers and remind Democrats and independent voters of the alternative to his reelection.” (Biden is speaking on Saturday at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and Monday at the South Carolina church where a young white supremacist murdered nine black parishioners in late 2016.)
CNN offered an advance headline that emphasized the presidential race, not the message: “Biden opens campaign push …”
USA Today did better, putting the emphasis where it belongs: “Biden will mark Jan 6 anniversary with speech warning Trump is a threat to democracy.”
We all know there’s a campaign happening. And remember, many readers don’t get beyond the headlines or news alerts. Those bulletins have to be short, true, but they also have to get the larger job done.
I’m not suggesting that Biden’s speech be covered as something separate from his presidential campaign. It’s obvious that November’s election and the fragility of American democracy are intertwined.
Even Biden campaign officials are making that point. “We are running a campaign like the fate of our democracy depends upon it. Because it does,” campaign manager Julia Chavez Rodriguez has said.
But there is another element that is more subtle.
“The choice for voters,” Rodriguez said, “will not simply be between competing philosophies of government. The choice will be about protecting our democracy and every American’s fundamental freedom.”
That’s where the media gets tripped up. In a constant show of performative neutrality, journalists tend to equalize the unequal, taking coverage down the middle even though that’s not where true fairness lies.
She goes on to discuss how the media is always afraid of being accused of liberal bias etc. etc. But she ends the piece with a quote from a media figure that actually tells it like it is:
In an NPR interview, former Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron laid out the facts clearly:
“He’s the only politician I’ve heard actually talk about suspending the constitution. He’s talked about using the military to suppress entirely legitimate protests using the Insurrection Act. He’s talked about bringing treason charges against the then-outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He’s talked about bringing treason charges against Comcast, the owner of NBC and MSNBC. He’s talked explicitly about weaponizing the government against his political enemies. And, of course, he continues to talk about crushing an independent press.”
And, as Baron concluded, no editorializing is necessary because “all of those [threats], by nature, by definition, are authoritarian”.
That’s what’s going on here. It’s not a “both sides issue.” As she says:
Reporters and their bosses – both in newsrooms and in glossy corporate offices – should remember that being in favor of democracy isn’t a journalistic crime. In fact, it’s a journalistic obligation.
I know that there are some who are trying very hard to do this. But it has to be consistent and it has to be relentless. This message won’t break through the noise unless they make a commitment to doing that.