A commenter on my last post — the one about the “unfiltered voices” video that The New York Times compiled from Donald Trump rallies during the past year — raised the question of balanced reporting, asserting that The Times’ video contained no balance whatsoever.
The commenter’s point is unarguable because Times reporters set out, video devices in hand, to record the most objectionable behavior and most contemptuous things that people shouted out at Trump rallies. For example, when Trump referenced President Obama at one rally, someone in the crowd shouted, “Fuck that nigger.” At another rally, a smiling, young Trump supporter held up for the camera a hand-printed T-shirt that said, “Trump that Bitch,” referring, of course, to Hillary Clinton.
That kind of stuff is shocking, and I, for one, am grateful to The Times for pulling back the curtain and giving us an inside look at those rallies.
No, there was no effort to “present both sides” in that video. The point — totally valid — was that some people in the Trump crowds have so far eclipsed reasonable and appropriate expression that, in some cases, two long-held tenets of journalism, fairness and balance, must be suspended. Otherwise, you would never get to the truth.
The public certainly has a right to know this type of vulgar and disgusting expression is taking place…out loud and in public. It’s not like it’s a group of seething rednecks and KKK members getting together around a campfire and cutting loose, with lookouts stationed around the perimeter to make sure no one was pointing an iPhone through the trees.
…Dovetailing with (but not stemming from) publication of the “unfiltered voices” video, NYT chief media reporter Jim Rutenberg today had an excellent commentary titled, “Trump is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism.”
Here’s how Rutenberg begins his piece:
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
Jim Rutenberg
Covering Trump, Rutenberg said, upsets the balance of the “idealistic form of journalism” that working journalists have long been trained to aspire to.
“But let’s face it,” Rutenberg goes on to say. “Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.”
Rutenberg says that now Trump is the Republican nominee for president, commentators — even some known to be friendly to him — have been analyzing him through a different lens, that is, how his temperament and grandiose policy statements would play out in the White House.
Rutenberg cited a report that former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough made on his “Morning Joe” show on MSNBC. Scarborough told his audience about an alarming conversation he had with a “foreign policy expert” who had given Mr. Trump a national security briefing.
Three times, Scarborough said, the expert asked about the use of nuclear weapons, and one of the questions was: “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”
Yikes!
It’s worth noting that, in his column, Rutenberg also points an accusing finger at Hillary Clinton. He said that covering Trump as a potentially dangerous candidate “threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent…who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself.”
“She proved that again last week,” Rutenberg said, “with her assertion on “Fox News Sunday” that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation of an F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations.”
…I’ve said all along that Hillary Clinton’s evasion of the truth and cutting of corners have made my blood boil, and I will not cast my vote for her with great joy. But after all I’ve learned about Trump and the type of people who seem to support him, I will vote for Clinton enthusiastically.
**
Fifty years ago, in 1966, the writer Gay Talese revolutionized journalism with what still ranks today as one of the greatest magazine stories ever written — a very long profile of Frank Sinatra, titled “Frank Sinatra Has a Cold.”
A lead-in to an online version of the story says when Talese arrived in Los Angeles, Sinatra was “under the weather, out of sorts, and unwilling to be interviewed.” But Talese was undeterred; he stayed in L.A. and began talking to people in Sinatra’s circle and through them finally gained access to The Man himself.
The lead-in goes on to say the resulting profile (which I hope many of you will take the time to read, if you haven’t seen it before) “became one of the most celebrated magazine stories ever published, a pioneering example of what came to be called New Journalism—a work of rigorously faithful fact enlivened with the kind of vivid storytelling that had previously been reserved for fiction.”
Yes, journalism has changed in the past and continues to change and evolve. In this presidential election cycle, we can thank Donald Trump for triggering a new round of changes in covering the candidates who seek to lead the greatest and strongest nation in the world. We need to know, as best we can and with the veneer removed, what they are like and what they do to inspire support and dedication among their followers. As we’ve seen, it can be scary, and we deserve to know that before Nov. 8.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Jim in late May Debra and I attended in Los Angeles a 100th anniversary of Pulitzer Prizes. The panels of Pulitzer winners were excellent. At one point during the Q & A, the journalists were flogging themselves for not having done more in depth reporting about Trump as he was about to claim the Republican nomination. I for one, appreciate a departure from “He said, She said” reporting even if my friends at the Brookings Institution were in The New York Times’ cross hairs this morning.
What a great opportunity to hear top-notch journalists reflect on and analyze their craft, Tom…There are certainly some advantages to living in downtown L.A.
Jim:
Who are you quoting in the sentence that says, “After all I’ve learned about Trump and the people who support him, I will cast that vote enthusiastically.”
Is it Rutenberg? I hope not.
As I’ve said before, if Trump gets to the Oval Office, God help us!
All best,
Laura
I can see how that phrasing could be confusing, Laura….That is I talking, not Rutenberg. I ended the quote and italicized my own thoughts in the next paragraph. What I mean — and I will clarify — is that while I will not vote for Hillary joyfully, I will do so enthusiastically because of what I’ve learned about Trump and his supporters. It’s a a nuance but expresses my feelings.
“The point — totally valid — was that some people in the Trump crowds have so far eclipsed reasonable and appropriate expression that, in some cases, two long-held tenets of journalism, fairness and balance, must be suspended. Otherwise, you would never get to the truth.”
No. “Suspending” “fairness and balance” does not get you closer “to the truth.”
What the Times did was show us a fraction of “the truth.” They knew — or should have known — that from that fraction of truth their readers would form conclusions that are false. False and dangerous.
NY Times readers, I gather, formed the opinion that foul-mouthed, angry, hostile, aggressive, ugly, violent behavior is a special characteristic of Trump supporters.
I think the NY Times knew — or should have known — that this is false. I think the NY Times intended for its readers to draw that false conclusion. I think that is not “journalism.” I think that is shameful.
The NY Times is doing exactly what it (rightly, IMO) criticizes Trump for doing: whipping up fear. Leading people to draw a false conclusion about all the members of a group, based on the behavior of a few.
I would have hoped that the NY Times were capable of honestly reporting a very complex story. For all our sakes. I’m not a Trump supporter, but by God I want their views to be as accurately and fairly reported as mine or anybody else’s.
ANTI-Trump demonstrators have behaved in the same ways. The NY Times must be aware of this, since it’s been broadcast — yes, even on mainstream media — for months.
So look. Here we are — we who are not Trump supporters — in the following videos. Are we all comfortable being represented by these of our fellow non-Trump-supporters? I mean, come on. Do we want Trump’s supporters lumping all of us in with these folks who are pepper-spraying children, smashing eggs on people, chasing and punching them, tearing and burning their clothing, rocking their cars, screaming obscenities? And even if we DO do those things, is that ALL we do — I mean, could we be entirely summedil (and dismissed) on the basis of those activities alone???
Look:
ANTI-Trump protesters pepper sprayed Trump supporters, including two children aged 8 and 11, in Anaheim, CA, on April 26, according to Anaheim police. ANTI-Trump protesters bloody the face of a Trump supporter, smash the window of a police car, Costa Mesa, CA, April 29:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/04/29/crowd-protesters-jam-streets-outside-trump-rally-calif/83689674/
ANTI-Trump protesters punched supporters, rocked cars occupied with Trump supporters, threw eggs and water balloons at supporters, in San Jose, CA, June 2.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-california-protesters/
One risk of the NY Times video, and it’s a serious risk, is we may puff outselves up smugly and feel WE could never behave like that. But really, I think we each have the capacity to go off the rails.
I think we need more empathy and understanding, and the NY Times has done us a huge disservice.
I’m overwrought.
Well expressed, Laura…Welcome to the Comments Dept.
Trump is a candidate tailor-made for Hunter S. Thompson, though Pierce is doing his damnedest…
Note that the events cited by Laura are the ones I referred to in the previous discussion. While I too question the credibility of The Post, CNN and USA Today there are also credible conservative sites that support their stories ;-)
I’m delighted that my comments have caused further reflection on the NYT piece. Apparently we’ve reached consensus that the piece is completely one-sided and makes no attempt at either fairness, or balance. Where we disagree is whether or not such an article can ever reach a truthful conclusion.
Fortunately, Laura Eckert has already demonstrated that, at best, the Times video is a half truth and a pathetically hateful one at that. The real damage done by such “journalism” is that they create the very polarization that has given us arguably the worst pair of presidential candidates in American history, two world class liars neither of whom are fit to hold any office, much less the highest office in the land.
By only presenting one side of the story the Times has implicitly surrendered any claim to journalistic credibility (yet again) and in so doing given permission to those who disagree with its agenda to find a source that supports their beliefs to the exclusion of all others.
As long as those on the left fail to hold CNN and MSNBC to any standard of fairness their whining about Fox News will fall on deaf ears. By abandoning their role as honest brokers journalists reduce themselves to the level of Trump’s propaganda sites where Ted Cruz’ wife is a call girl and his father a co-conspirator in the Kennedy assassination.
What you fail to understand is that acts of journalism that provide both sides of the story and then give the reader the credit to evaluate for themselves which side is more appropriate for their lives is worth its weight in gold.
One of the few times the Star has had any influence on my decision making was an article written by Mike Hendricks on the handling of the T-Bones stadium by the UG. I can’t recall even bothering to read one of Mike’s opinion pieces, but the writing in that article was so well done that I did a complete 180 on my previous position.
Journalists need to do their jobs, their whole job, not just the half of it they prefer if we’re ever to bring our society back together again and away from charlatans like the Clintons and Trumps.
The other thing that will help reduce polarization are blogs like this one where a diverse group of people can come together and respectfully discuss the issues of the day. Again, glad that my comments encouraged further reflection on this important issue.
I didn’t reveal this yesterday but Laura Eckert is a first cousin who lives in Napa. She was as strong a Bernie Sanders supporter as there was. Obviously, she is a strong independent thinker, too…Love you, cousin!
We need people on both sides to hold their candidates to high standards. If you don’t start with honesty and integrity nothing else they say matters much, does it? Kudos to cousin Laura and her interesting analysis.
Here’s another aspect of this story that hasn’t been touched on.
In the recently ended primary for 3rd District there was a candidate for Congress on the Republican side who had an extensive history of legal activity involving domestic violence and yet not one media outlet in this area touched that story. In 2014 Milton Wolf was a complete fraud. his personna of the warrior martyred for conservative causes was manufactured out of whole cloth and yet only the Cap-Journal and one other minor Kansas newspaper touched that aspect of his campaign. The Star for its part even after Wolf was clobbered in the primary and even his most devoted followers abandoned him, did not one, but two puff pieces trying to give him a boost.
The same goes for Trump early on. Just as in the case of candidates Wolf and Goode here in Kansas I think the media deliberately soft peddles any opposition to these highly flawed candidates simply because they serve as good stalking horses to attack the quality candidates running for office. The hope seems to be that that will weaken the eventual primary winner in the general election against candidates from the left.
Well surprise, you got your wish, Trump trashed all 16 of his primary opponents virtually everyone of whom would have been a more rational and qualified candidate for the office and now you’re stuck with him. Perhaps owing to he fact that we’re distrustful of the establishment media, Kansans overwhelming rejected Trump in favor of Ted Cruz.
For my own good I intended to give a measured response to Laura’s thoughtful comment.
I can’t. Tonight’s latest Trump sound bite with it’s thinly veiled encouragement for 2nd amendment gun owners to find a solution is just more illustration that ya can’t fix crazy.
If something smells bad everyone should report it. You don’t have to dissect it to explain just how bad it smells. Simple statement of fact should do.
This evenings latest Muppet News Flash just tells me that clearly this outsider is a narcissistic manipulative nutter whose every new utterance tops the bafflement generated by the ones before. Seems, to me, just plain disingenuous & dangerous not to call it what it is.
“After candidates who masqueraded as champions of the people get into office, voters and pundits who believed the politicians’ election season rhetoric and imagery express surprise and disappointment at the citizenry’s betrayal by those in whom they placed hope for change. But before the election, these disillusioned citizens had failed to notice numerous clues to the candidates’ plutocratic, imperial and authoritarian essences. ”
http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/the_shell_game_of_the_economic_elites_hamilton_project_20160809
Jayson, this is the aspect of Trump’s candidacy that John Altevogt & others are either a.) blind to, or b.) willfully turn away from. Either action is as dangerous as trump himself, though I’m sure they also don’t perceive that.
Excellent comments, Jayson and Will…And, Jayson, thanks for that link from truthdig. Very insightful. I’ll have to start going to it.
With that, we’ll close the comments and move on…(See next post on Verruckt.)