Want to Discourage the Mainstream Media’s Dangerous “Both Sidesism”? Call Out the Associated Press

current events, insurrection, mainstream media, Uncategorized 1 Minute

Does that infuriate you as much as it does me? The AP’s lunkheadedness certainly awakened others.

Here’s one example.

There were also various clever, wry analogies that I failed to capture in time.

This one’s my favorite.

As for how important this type of frequently weird media equivalency is, David Kurtz at TPM Morning Memo linked it to Trump’s “latest gambit” before Judge Chutkin in the insurrection case.

Trump’s lawyers had asked the judge to find Smith and his colleagues in contempt of court because they made a filing while the case has been stayed. Kurtz notes that Smith had been forthright about his plans to make motions, and Chutkin hadn’t objected.

The fact that the Trump motion is absurd and won’t be considered is beside the point. As TPM’s headline states: “Trump’s Latest Gambit In Jan. 6 Case Already Kinda Worked.”

The point was to link Smith’s name with “contempt” in news headlines, and TPM cites the news sources that fell for the bait: Axios, CBS News, CNN, and–of course–Fox.

TPM’s “Headline Fail of the Week” wasn’t even a tough decision. With a drum roll and congratulations, they awarded that dubious distinction to the Associated Press.

I was able to make my views known to AP by contacting @AP via Twitter. If you’re on any social media, I hope you’ll contact AP directly. There’s always http://www.ap.org.

If you’re feeling surly enough, you can make your point to Axios, CBS News, CNN, and yes–even Fox–as well.

These false equivalencies matter because they influence public opinion. I hope you’ll join me in reminding the press that they have a strong stake in preserving our fragile democracy, and such blatantly irresponsible journalistic decision-making has got to stop.

Annie

Published by annieasksyou

I've been a nonfiction writer for many years, exploring diverse topics that pique my curiosity, as noted in my first blog posting (Greetings!). I'm seeking dialogue with others committed to joining me in this exploration, sharing my conviction that different views can be exchanged in a respectful, civil discourse where we can learn from one another and be agreeable, even when we disagree. These postings depend for their enrichment on your participation: your ideas, insights, knowledge, opinions, and personal stories.

Published

47 thoughts on “Want to Discourage the Mainstream Media’s Dangerous “Both Sidesism”? Call Out the Associated Press”

  2. Since the Associated Press is indeed a non-profit, or not-for-profit news cooperative, this is a tricky argument. BUT…

    but even the AP is susceptible to profit-generating news headlines for their own benefit. Unfortunately, that true status isn’t ultimately left up to the AP or its executives. It is left up to the readers, the audience they cater to… us. And do most Americans have reasonable critical-thinking skills and possess the tools to evaluate MANY points-of-view objectively? To compare and contrast several opposing as well as agreeable postures?

    NO. The answer is disturbingly and flat out, no. Most of American news consumers cannot distinguish between opinion versus facts, or boring facts even with accurate, verifiable historical context easily available. 😔

    I hate to say it Annie, but calling out our national news agencies doesn’t really attack the crux of our American Consumerism for hype, drama, and pandering by PRIVATE and some non-profit reporting organizations.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. While i agree with Professor T that “Most of American news consumers cannot distinguish….”, how did they get that way? I suggest one of the reasons is that many of them don’t know any better BECAUSE of media equivalency. This problem, like many problems, won’t be addressed (much less fixed) by not coming to grips with the cause(s). The media needs to get their head out of their massive moral stupor and act like they know the difference between right and wrong.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

      1. The media needs to get their head out of their massive moral stupor and act like they know the difference between right and wrong.

        Indeed mistermuse. And not only to pull their heads out, but also know how to practice professional journalism at such high levels as to win consistently awards like the Pulitzer Prize, the Goldsmith Prize, or at international levels like the Knight International Journalism Award (ICFJ) or the CPJ International Press Freedom Awards… to name a few.

        But when has prestigious global recognition and acclaim for excellence in American journalism out done revenues, profits, and a “numbers domination” of viewers, readers, and paying subscribers over competitors? 🙄😔

        Liked by 5 people

      3. Couldn’t agree more Annie. I haven’t done any extensive research/investigation as to why it a very different newspaper today than when he was at the helm, or how it changed in whatever ways. But I’m sure that if I/we did a deep dive into it transition it would probably shock and/or disappoint us.

        Liked by 3 people

      5. “…the difference between right and wrong”
        Could that become the MSM’s song?
        In place of “massive moral stupor,”
        True reporting would be super!!

        Sorry, mm; seeing your name makes me want to rhyme…

        Liked by 4 people

    2. I understand your argument, Dwain, but even if we assume the worst about American consumers’/voters’ limitations–or maybe especially if we assume the worst–it seems to me even more important that we use our voices to tell those who are presenting and editing content that we think they are ill-serving our nation at this critical time. It takes very little effort; see my response to a bayliss below. I see no down side.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

      1. Oh! Annie, we must never stay silent or inactive! I agree with you 100% there. 🙂 After all, discourse, debate, disagreeing as well as equitably finding common ground are all necessary healthy ingredients for a delicious, fragrant, functioning democracy, if you will. 😉 However, it must always be evolving with the times, which requires, demands its populace to be participants in its health, not disinterested spectators.

        …it seems to me even more important that we use our voices to tell those who are presenting and editing content that we think they are ill-serving our nation…

        In my own personal opinion, that is spot-on true Annie. The hard part for us, the addressing, the deciphering, the debugging or debunking of misinformation, intentional disinformation (or propaganda) by these for-profit institutions of journalism-media can be daunting, to say the least. Why? Millions and billions of dollars, both from the private and public sectors, talks and walks all thanks to the landmark decision in 2010 of Citizens United vs FEC. This blew open the floodgates for our federal and state governments to literally be bought-off or bribed for special interests and the interests of the wealthiest in our country to turn our democracy into an oligarchy, using government as their puppets. Sad to say, that is not much different, if at all, than modern Russia and Vladimir Putin.

        But this is the reality of the U.S.A. in the 21st-century, especially when the “Information War” is controlled primarily by that aforementioned oligarchy. 😔

        Liked by 3 people

      2. I agree about the vast corrosive influence of Citizens United, Dwain. I strongly disagree that we’re “not much different, if at all” from modern Russia and Vladimir Putin. That’s what we could be if Trump gets in the White House, which I think we must all do our damndest to prevent from happening.

        Liked by 4 people

      3. Well, you’ve correctly called me out on my slight exaggeration. 😉 But I wanted the point to be impactful for at least a close introspection of ourselves, our government, and how big corporate billions have bought off our federal & state legislatures, and with indifference or ignorance what we Americans COULD end up looking like. 🙂

        Liked by 4 people

      4. I don’t dispute that there are American oligarchs, Dwain. They’ve reshaped our Supreme Court and a number of lower courts, and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 describes their America quite clearly. That’s why I find it so frustrating that Biden’s economic policies, which are really beginning to eat into the gross inequity of the past forty years, are so poorly understood by most Americans–and why there are alleged third party efforts paid for by Republicans to defeat Biden.

        Liked by 4 people

    3. ” Most of American news consumers cannot distinguish between opinion versus facts, or boring facts even with accurate, verifiable historical context easily available. 😔”
      I blame addled ronnie killing the “Fairness Doctrine” that limited one sided opinion inudateing the media.
      No longer is there a need for media to clearly distingush betweeen opinion and reporting of facts.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      2. AnyNameLeft, I agree that (although the original is outdated now) the Fairness Doctrine merely needed several reformations by 1985–87 primarily because of the advent of then modern cable/satellite network conglomerates (que the Koch Brothers) using their millions and billions of dollars to sway the public via propaganda campaigns and tactics, some of or many of which were/are blatant disinformation bombardments, e.g. QAnon, America Project, and ReAwaken America, all using “Q” theories to devastating effect.

        These campaigns have long been a staple in American political discourse, and today, extremists like Steve Bannon, Daniel Scavino, and Hope Hicks, will or continue to peddle these narratives casting doubt on democratic processes and institutions. And modern social-media has only exacerbated the problem of “fairness” and rampant disinformation. Currently these expert propagandists DISGUISE their special interests (as opposed to the greater common interest of Americans) as “Free Speech” under and by the protection of the First Amendment. Hogwash I say!

        Today, there is no doubt whatsoever that some sort of strong, unflawed Legislative Act needs to find specific ways of limiting big news conglomerates’ highly influential mega-money bags during national (and state?) campaigns. From Steve Rendall of the media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR):

        The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost It and Why We Need It Back

        American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these [platforms], for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group, is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting [platforms] throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears [and eyes] of the American people.

        — https://sisyphuslitmag.org/2018/07/the-fairness-doctrine-how-we-lost-it-and-why-we-need-it-back/

        It is obvious to most reasonable, level-headed, well-educated Americans, moderates or progressives, that the Fairness Doctrine pendulum, if you will, has now swayed to the far other extreme with big money “donations” (Dark Money) doing the walking while Cult Leaders do the talking. What a cluster-f*ck Ronald Reagan has left us in now.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The failure of the mainstream media to hold trump to account is proof negative that vulture capitalism is alive (and not well). While I understand that newspapers in particular has a separation between reporting and editorializing, I believe that by giving trump equal coverage from the reporting side conveys a message that trump’s point(s) of view deserve equal treatment. Did Alex Jones deserve equal coverage with the parents of Sandy Hook?
    Annie, I’m with you 100%.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Steve. That’s the issue in a nutshell: by conveying the message that Trump’s views deserve equal treatment, the MSM is normalizing his outrageous speech, actions, and stated intentions–at our nation’s peril.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  4. Oh yes … I am absolutely feeling surly enough … Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr … I’m not on Twitter anymore, but I will let the Associated Press know my thoughts on this. I’ve let the New York Times know a few times about their damned “moral equivalency” comparing peanuts to watermelons! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr …

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Ahhh, I was somewhat ambivalent about stirring up the Grrrrrrrrrrrrr…factor so early in the year, Jill. We’ve got a long way to go, and we need to pace ourselves–and not wear out our hip waders too soon!!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. I know what you mean, Annie. We need to pace ourselves, conserve some of our energy and ‘grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs’ for the final push. But we also need to start now on two fronts: getting the Democratic Party to stop pissing around and present a united front behind Biden, and getting the media to call a spade a spade. Maybe I should invest in a 2nd pair of hip waders? 😉

        Liked by 3 people

  5. I’m afraid the mainstream has been captured. Reinforcements from their side will not be forthcoming. We will have to accept the loss and fight without them. I couldn’t understand why. Money ain’t political. Mr. Rosenberg hit it, vulture capitalism. Vultures don’t like live prey.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      1. It should not surprise you that you were NOT on the list of people I’m worried about.😉 I’ve long struggled to understand why we must always test to destruction.😒

        Liked by 3 people

      2. A valid point, Richard. It would be nice to think we could, for example, have secured women’s reproductive freedom once–and not have to battle for it again. Ditto voting rights. Ditto LGBTQ rights. Ditto ditto…

        Liked by 3 people

  6. In my opinion false equivslencies are made on purpose to confuse those people who don’t care if their intelligence is abused. I don’t know much about AP, but I presume they too have wealthy owners. It behoves them to confuse straightforward issues. The media is not what it once was, trustworthy. It takes political sides now, it just tries to hide that fact.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. It seems quite a few people, including me, disagree with you about that headline, William. The word “interpretations” strikes me as astonishing considering the circumstances. And headlines are “click bait.” On Twitter, AP posted just the headline; I had to go elsewhere to read the article.

      The article itself begins with Trump and his rally; it’s not til the fifth paragraph that it talks about the insurrection. Then it quotes Republicans who normalize or underplay the attempted government overthrow, cites a bunch of polls about partisanship–and only then, assuming people are still reading, details Biden’s efforts. It concludes by quoting the author of “How Democracies Die.” I think this kind of journalism is a serious factor in the dangers we face.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Robert Hubble writes: “Let’s not be distracted by events over which we have no control; instead, we should focus on those outcomes where our efforts will make a difference…” George Lakoff advises against refuting false claims. Instead, frame the debate to advantage. Biden won’t win or lose based on news articles, even those which are blatantly unfair. He has the bully pulpit; he should make good use of it, as I think he will.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Matthew, I’m not sure I understand. Are you talking about the BBC’s coverage of US politics?

      In general, the idea of journalism impartially covering both sides is important and just. Our Trumpian nightmare is that the man and his ilk are using our institutions to defeat/replace our institutions, and journalists haven’t figured out after all this time how to be true to their purpose without pretending they’re unaware what’s going on.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. Oh I totally agree with the principle on general, but the BBC sometimes takes impartiality to mean that even the most benign idea must have someone arguing against it, and the result is sometimes a prioritisation of ‘balance’ over simple facts.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Let them know what you think! I’ll sit here & smoke a fatty & wait for them to change their ways. Let me know how it turns out. (wondering how many ounces I’ll have to smoke & if I’ll live that long)

    Sunday snark

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. That’s fine with me, Polly. Snark and smoke to your heart’s content! I’m in part inspired by your old friend Jay Rosen at NYU, who has done a lot to criticize the mainstream media for failing our democracy, and in part by my union-organizing grandfather, who did heavy lifting for equity that I could never achieve. But still I try.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  10. The comments suggest that some want reporters, editors, and media moguls to digest news and opinion for us much like “Cliff’s Notes” explains Hamlet, which of course some media outlets do. Complaining about one form of censorship, they advocate for another. With a free press, it is our job to gather information, judge its reliability, and form our opinion before we vote.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment