Okay, students, journalism class is now in session.
No belching, farting or carbonated drinks. I can tell you students from experience that carbonated drinks in the classroom can be a problem. Once, in a post-graduate class, I spilled a bottle of soda and spent 15 minutes running to the restroom for paper towels while the teacher did his best to ignore the debacle on the far side of the room.
Also, put those phones away. No! I said away! Not on your desks…in your pockets or purses.
Okay, now we can begin.
Today we’re going to dissect a news analysis written by Peter Baker, one of The New York Times’ top reporters.
Everybody likes a dissection, right, whether it’s a frog or a news story?
We’ll be talking about Baker’s Friday-morning analysis of the U.S. House committee’s hearing the night before on the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
Now, we all know, right, that you’ve got to get the reader’s attention right up top?
Baker does that beautifully with his first paragraph…
In the entire 246-year history of the United States, there was surely never a more damning indictment presented against an American president than outlined on Thursday night in a cavernous congressional hearing room where the future of democracy felt on the line.
Note the two adjectives, “damning” and “cavernous.” The first lends gravity to the charge against the former president; the other transports you into the hearing room momentarily.
In the second paragraph, Baker advances the theory that “the future of democracy” might be on the line…
Other presidents have been accused of wrongdoing, even high crimes and misdemeanors, but the case against Donald J. Trump mounted by the bipartisan House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol described not just a rogue president but a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power at all costs.
If, for some reason, you glided over the first paragraph — and I don’t know how you could — Baker grabs you by the throat with Paragraph 2.
Moving ahead, what exactly did Trump do that could be viewed as attempting to shred the Constitution? Baker explains…
According to the panel, he lied to the American people, ignored all evidence refuting his false fraud claims, pressured state and federal officials to throw out election results favoring his challenger, encouraged a violent mob to storm the Capitol and even signaled support for the execution of his own vice president.
At that last phrase, even though you knew the situation was bad on Jan. 6, you’re inclined to exclaim, “What — support the execution of the vice president?”
Then, Baker introduces Liz Cheney, the lead Republican on the panel, describing her “unwavering” prosecution of Trump and repeated her withering, seminal quote…
I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone but your dishonor will remain.
Those words could hardly have been more damning if a sonorous voice from above had broken the clouds with them.
Baker then takes a step back and gives the hearing a striking contrast by quoting a pre-hearing, social-media post by Trump in which he said, “January 6th was not simply a protest, it represented the greatest movement in the history of our Country to Make America Great Again.”
Switching back to the hearing, Baker acknowledges that the damning indictment delivered by the select committee probably will not move public opinion very much. “With a more fragmented media and a more polarized society,” he said, “most Americans have decided what they think about Jan. 6 and are only listening to those who share their attitudes.”
Nevertheless, he points out that one person who had to be paying close attention, Attorney General Merrick Garland, holds the power to bring charges against Trump.
That set up Baker’s kicker. Even if Garland did not bring charges and the select panel’s hearings turned out to be Trump’s only days in court…
“Ms. Cheney and her fellow committee members were resolved to make sure that they will at least win a conviction with the jury of history.”
**
There, students, you have a seasoned journalist capturing the depth, breadth and historical significance of an event that lived up to its high expectations, proving to be momentous.
…Okay, the bell’s about to ring, so get your things together, and I’ll see you next Tuesday. And remember, keep those phones away when you’re in this classroom!
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
No, it’s a pathetic advertorial that ignores the basic trampling of civil liberties since the left decided on this Stalinist show trial. Where is any semblance of due process? Where in the leftist media is any outrage at the way Peter Navarro was treated, or Roger Stone or any of the dozens of political prisoners held in the DC concentration camp without bail?
Leftists can set cities on fire and Kamala and her pals raise bail for the rioters (if any is asked) without a word of condemnation from these media hypocrites. So, while you may have enjoyed the broadcast, I was recalling the record high prices at the pumps, the poorly stocked shelves and rising prices at the grocery store while I watched the cat lick its ass. Fuck Joe Biden and Fuck Peter Baker for his ignorance of basic American jurisprudence ;-)
John, which of these points do you dispute?
According to the panel, he lied to the American people, ignored all evidence refuting his false fraud claims, pressured state and federal officials to throw out election results favoring his challenger, encouraged a violent mob to storm the Capitol and even signaled support for the execution of his own vice president.
Bravo Jimmy!
How many credits do I get for this class?
Tom Coleman
Six credits, Tom…That pushes you over the top for your PhD. Congratulations.
Altevogt, on the other hand, is my most wayward, incorrigible student. On the plus side, he’s attentive in class and seethes silently.
The above proves what Baker said: We’re in a polarized society that has already decided what to think and who to listen to…Ignore the evidence, John, and join the damned in history.
Praise the wordsmithing, if you will, but at least recognize the bias. The students in your fantasy class would be ill served by your analysis.
I will give you every point if you’ll just step back with me and look at first principles. November is not going to be kind to you, and I can think of all sorts of things to investigate Obama, both Clintons and the Biden crime family for. Or consider Schumer’s poorly chosen comments about Kavanaugh in light of the assassination attempt on his life. The possibilities are endless for recrimination, and I would not support them either.
History does not look kindly on regimes that persecute their predecessors and political opponents, well deserved or not. This is a show trial. It is an insult to due process. Serious prosecutions are undertaken by attorney’s, not former ABC producers. It’s a disgrace and every episode they broadcast makes Trump all the stronger. Even the satirical Babylon Bee site is now suggesting that maybe January 6th wasn’t such a bad idea.
The lesson that should be learned journalistically is that procedural red flags were flying for anyone willing to look and this bozo chose to wallow in dicta instead.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this, John. Have a good weekend.
You too my friend.
Hey, teacher! Thanks for a paradigm of great journalism — reporting and writing. Thanks for offering Baker as a superb model. But I wonder if the nation needs something more.
Rarely, except in the candy “Conversation” of Gail Collins and Bret Stephens, do we get genuine debate (and Gail and Bret often bounce around from agreement to agreement). The PBS News Hour may present paired GOP-DEM interviews, and papers offer significant opinion articles, but seldom are there routine real debates between opponents. Why can’t journalists, electronic or print, shame Liz Cheney and Kevin McCarthy into a such a contest? Or am I falling into the trap of “equivalence,” giving “falsehood” the respect that should be given only to “truth”? But is there a better way to explore truth in political questions than transparent debate, engaging the public, presented by faithful journalists?
And I mean real debates on specific propositions such as “Donald Trump is responsible for the Jan 6 insurrection,” with pro and con and rebuttals, not questions about various subjects from moderators.
Maybe the future will give us a legal trial, a form of debate, on this proposition. Congress seldom offers more than talking points. Is there any way the Fourth Estate can expand its service to democracy by grabbing the attention of, and pulling together, a readership or audience of the several factions of the electorate, as opposing sports teams bring together their respective supporters (such as some of the respondents to your class–Stalinist show trial v. bipartisan hearing) in a single area where a fair testing can be presented?
Thanks for these comments. I am wondering, although not related to this, if you saw the 60 Minutes broadcast last night about the newspaper industry. I know it is something you are really passionate about. May have been a repeat broadcast.
“It is a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word.”
― Andrew Jackson