Is the media covering the sexual misconduct allegations against Biden, or covering for him?
It has been 20 days since Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden staffer, went public on a podcast with allegations of a 1993 sexual assault by the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee. In that time, media coverage has been decidedly muted. That changed this weekend, as the New York Times first, and then the Washington Post, went public with lengthy, reported pieces on the matter. In some ways, the reporting was worthy of praise - thorough, serious.
But there are several notable facts about the coverage - and the coverage of the coverage. First, the idea that major media outlets would be extremely cautious with potentially explosive allegations against prominent public figures is a new phenomenon. The Reade coverage shows the hypocrisy of media outlets, when you compare coverage, for example, to the accusers of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. The same journalistic standards were clearly not being applied. For example, this one detail, about corroboration, is more evidence against Biden than there ever was against Kavanaugh.
But digging into the Times and Post stories this week reveals some key elements that are worth exploring - and exposes the way our supposed objective media treats certain figures. For one, how Democratic operatives are able to control the media message in ways the same media outlets would never allow a GOP operative to do. This tweet from the New York Times was also a line from the article - the line was changed, and the tweet later deleted. | |
How did this happen? In a fascinating, must-read Q&A, new Times media columnist Ben Smith grills his editor Dean Baquet on a variety of topics related to the delayed publication of the Reade article. Baquet readily admits the Biden campaign led to the change in article and deleted tweet. "I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct," he told Smith.
Baquet also touched on a detail I noticed in both the Times and Post stories - a strange addendum line about the fact that filing a false police report is a crime. Smith pressed if that line was meant to convey skepticism about Reade's claim, since she filed a police report on Thursday, and Baquet said, "I could read it as the opposite. That we were saying that filing a police report is not a frivolous matter. That's how I interpreted it."
I suppose that's true, but I can't recall that fact making its way into any other story like this. I really have no idea what Baquet is getting at when he compares the cautious way the Times treated the Reade story with the way they dealt with the accusations of Julie Swetnick in the Kavanaugh story: "Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way. Kavanaugh's status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation. And when I say in a public way, I don't mean in the public way of Tara Reade's. If you ask the average person in America, they didn't know about the Tara Reade case. So I thought in that case, if The New York Times was going to introduce this to readers, we needed to introduce it with some reporting and perspective. Kavanaugh was in a very different situation. It was a live, ongoing story that had become the biggest political story in the country. It was just a different news judgment moment." (If you don't understand what he's saying here, that makes two of us.)
The Times and the Post also each made sure to note the sexual assault allegations against President Trump - which is relevant to Reade's accusations how exactly?
But it's not just the way the Times and Post covered the story. So often now in the media, a story breaks in one of these two newspapers - maybe about the Russia investigation, or Mueller, or some other Trump story - and suddenly it's non-stop wall-to-wall coverage on CNN and MSNBC. This story has been different. Reade has been mentioned once on Sunday and once today on MSNBC. CNN has covered the story exactly zero times, on TV and online. Even just the media angle - which seems at the very least extremely relevant - got a brief mention 2,000 words down in CNN's widely-read media newsletter tonight.
I don't know if Reade is telling the truth, just like I don't know if Kavanaugh's accusers were. But what I do know is the media coverage has been glaringly different. Do you know why? Me too. | | Today's coronavirus briefing was the low point of the crisis - for Trump, and the media
The daily coronavirus briefings have been an opportunity to see the worst instincts of both sides of our current political-entertainment complex - President Trump, and his sadomasochistic relationship with the media. Today's briefing was a new low.
It started with a continuation of an ongoing saga, a media invention about a wedge between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Trump. Now - it certainly makes things more complicated when Trump quote-RTs someone who used a #FireFauci hashtag. But Fauci took the podium early in the briefing to dispel the notion that there's any daylight between his recommendations and Trump's actions during this crisis. After making his case, CBS' Paula Reid took the opportunity to ask if Fauci was "doing this voluntarily," to which Fauci fired back, in a rare display of emotion, "Everything I do is voluntary. Please. Don't even imply that."
So, point Trump. Then, came a Trump administration created video presentation that the former "Apprentice" host had prepared - he dimmed the lights, and really let the media have it, pointing out when they downplayed the coronavirus crisis, and when he took action. This petty display veered far too close to literal campaign material. I've said it's the wrong choice for cable news outlets not to air the briefings in full. If I was in a control room today, I may have cut away during this absurd moment.
So, point media. Then CNN took it to another level, with a series of chyrons calling the briefing a "propaganda session" both in text and verbally. | | You have Reid again, an hour or so into the briefing, who has been praised for this contentious exchange with Trump pressing him on what actions he took in February to combat the coronavirus pandemic. It's April 13.
This petty, sophomoric, unserious display by both sides of this show - and that's what it was today, a show - is especially infuriating given the stakes that we're dealing with. That goes for the snarky CNN chyrons, the useless questions, the Trump campaign ad he should stick to tweeting instead of airing during a supposed coronavirus briefing.
Thankfully, it appears the massive social distancing efforts by Americans are working, and the curve is being flattened. But we are still facing thousands dying on a daily basis.
This isn't a game. This isn't a show. Whoever you hate - they did not take the coronavirus crisis serious enough early on. I didn't. You probably didn't. Everyone didn't. So enough looking back, and let's deal with what we're facing as Americans, today. We need a press that cares enough to ask important, relevant questions. We need a President who quits campaigning and focuses on how he's helping Americans. Get serious, because the show isn't entertaining anymore. | | Folks, Joe Biden's podcast needs some work Speaking of Joe Biden, did you know that he now hosts a podcast? " Here's the Deal" has had four episodes so far, and they are... not must-listen. New York Magazine's Will Leitch describes it this way: "The enterprise feels less like an actual podcast and more like a weekly proof-of-life reminder for Biden." Which is certainly true - Biden is stuck at home, unable to campaign, at least not in the traditional way. So sure, why not host a podcast? But if you're going to do it, shouldn't it add some value to the conversation? Alex Shephard of The New Republic writes, "Biden does backflips to avoid saying anything incendiary, leaving nothing for people to write or talk about—except, that is, how boring the podcast is." Leitch gives several ways to fix the podcast, which mostly consist of finding ways to hear less of Biden (Get a co-host! Biden doesn't have to be on every episode!). But the truth is, every media choice a politician makes should be purposeful. What is the goal here? If the goal can't be articulated, it should be avoided. We have a long campaign ahead, and Biden is up against a guy who has a preternatural ability to control the media narrative. His choices now - even whether to have a podcast - need to be intentional, and productive. Otherwise, who is he serving? | | | QUICK HITS
- I'm fascinated by Bob Iger's career - his book is my next one to read - Ben Smith of the New York Times talks to Iger about what's next for Disney.
- Quibi had 1.7 million downloads in week 1. A decent start, but still a long way to go.
- Selena Gomez has an interesting Q&A in "Interview" Magazine this month, in which Amy Schumer gets personal with the pop megastar. | | WATCH IT... It's week 3 of "Some Good News," the incredible makeshift talk show from John Krasinski. And I will continue to share every episode - particularly this heartwarming Boston-themed episode.
HEAR IT... I'm a little behind on my podcast listening, but I enjoyed this Joe Rogan episode with Rep. Dan Crenshaw - particularly the discussion of "tactical retreat" in dealing with the coronavirus crisis early in the episode.
READ IT... Peter Kafka of Vox's Recode has an excellent, long read on what went wrong with the media's coverage of coronavirus - looking at all sides. | |
⏪REWIND // FAST FORWARD ⏩
⏪ Hey remember the media's favorite Trump foil, Michael Avenatti? He got released from jail to ride out coronavirus.
⏩ Now that Bernie Sanders has endorsed Joe Biden, will Biden and Bernie hit the trail together when this social distancing subsides? | | | MORE TK On the news that professor Lawrence Lessig has dropped his lawsuit against the New York Times over their portrayal of his position about Jeffrey Epstein, it got me thinking... you know who we haven't heard about in awhile? Jeffrey Epstein. I'll dig into the media coverage - or lack thereof - of Epstein, and look at what's on the horizon, in Sunday's newsletter. | | | GREAT MOMENTS IN JOURNALISM | | | I'm sorry, what? So...it's not a stunt, then? The article isn't any better. | | Thanks for reading. Stay safe, talk to you later this week...
- Steve Krakauer
@SteveKrak | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment