So-Called Journalists
Cheerleading for censorship and suppression means abandoning principles and journalistic integrity
March 23, 2023
Dateline: The day one previously Trump-addicted media member found some self-awareness: “You’d think that we would know better by now, but here we are, being trolled again by Donald Trump.”
Watching this week…
— Media cheerleaders for censorship
— Press invested in old COVID narratives
— How Did This Get Published: NYT’s DeSantis surprise ending
— Rabbit Hold: Elite disdain for Yellowstone
— Great Moments in Objective Supreme Court Journalism
The trend of media members cheerleading for censorship and suppression is getting worse
By now you may have seen the clip of CNBC’s Jim Cramer touting Silicon Valley Bank just a month before it collapsed. “I think the fear’s not justified, it’s a very compelling situation,” he said. “Being a banker to these immense pools of capital has always been a very good business.”
Was what Cramer said dangerous speech that should be policed more heavily? I’d argue no. With Jim Cramer, you should, in theory, know what you’re getting. Freedom of speech, freedom of the audience to watch and take action, or not. That’s America.
But it’s interesting to juxtapose Cramer’s soothing words for a bank on the brink of collapse with an on-air argument his colleague Becky Quick had with GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy from last year, that Ramaswamy surfaced recently. On one level, it was a debate about whether Twitter and other tech platforms could or should police content at the level they’d like. But it quickly morphed into how “dangerous” speech can be if it’s left unchecked. Referring to comments made about Paul Pelosi, Quick said, “The stuff that was said about him definitely leads to additional violence,” said Quick (“without evidence,” the Zucker Era chyron would say). Vivek gave a nice little lecture on the First Amendment, before Quick fired back, “You can have your opinions, but saying that things are ‘facts’ are dangerous.” Click the screenshot to watch the full segment.
This is a really disturbing segment that goes on for many more minutes. “People actually believe it. You have large populations of people that believe things that are absolutely false,” Quick says, ominously.
On a very fundamental level, this presidential candidate understands not just free speech and our First Amendment — which of course also represents a free press — better than Quick and her co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin, but Ramaswamy also understands the role of a journalist better than Quick does. What is it with these anti-speech activists in the media who have become so open about their censorious cheerleading and collusion with tech suppression efforts?
This is not an isolated incident by any means. Do you remember that ridiculous congressional hearing a couple weeks ago when Del. Stacey Plaskett called Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger “so-called journalists” and “a direct threat”? That was bad, but what was worse was the victory lap media tour Plaskett went on after, particularly over at MSNBC. “I’m exhausted for you,” said Mika Brzezinski last week while welcoming Plaskett onto Morning Joe. “Let me commend you on keeping your composure with such ridiculous behavior,” said panelist Al Sharpton, relating to her sparring with Rep. Jim Jordan.
Later in the same segment, she got this from contributor Claire McCaskill: “First of all, I love you. I think you are amazing. I think what you're doing is incredibly important.”
Attack a bunch of journalists in obscene ways? Get rewarded with love and support from your friends…in the media.
But this is where we’re at — under the guise of stopping the spread of “misinformation,” large forces in the corporate press are happy suppressing information flowing to Americans they deem incapable of understanding it. They don’t trust their own audience — and they certainly don’t trust the “other side.” They’re fearful and panicked over losing their grip on the information ecosystem, as the gatekeepers are falling out of relevance while independent media thrives.
But as I wrote a couple years ago in TheHill, misinformation is the tax we all pay for the freedom to say what we think, and the freedom to have unfettered access to as much information as possible. When politicians want to take that away, we shouldn’t be surprised or alarmed. It’s what they do.
But when journalists do it? When that happens, they simply become “so-called journalists” themselves.
Media still struggling with COVID coverage since many are invested in old narratives
It was December 27, 2020, and Dana Bash was mildly pushing back on Dr. Anthony Fauci. While discussing Fauci “moving the goalposts” on herd immunity — initially saying it would take 70-75% combined natural and vaccine immunity and then later admitting it would actually take 80-85% combined — Bash asked, “Why weren’t you straight with the American people about this to begin with?” Fauci claims he based his “guesstimate” on extrapolating out the measles vaccine, which is 98% effective, while the COVID vaccine is “94-95%” effective, according to Fauci.
I was thinking about this telling exchange for a couple reasons recently. First, I remembered watching it again in May 2021, a few months later, as I got my second dose of Moderna, having been convinced that I was doing my part to end the COVID pandemic entirely. But even by May, it became clear that herd immunity wasn’t really realistic at all, because of the “breakthrough” infections we already were starting to see. It was clear I and others had been lied to even then. Obviously now we know the whole charade was a sham — and one without any real media accountability for pushing it.
And the other reason was because I just returned from New York City, where I saw a frankly alarming number of N95 masks, on young and old. Here in Texas, I still see the occasional mask in the grocery stores. But in NYC, there were hordes of people wearing these things outside, while walking down the street. At some point, the “follow the science” people simply became “follow the dogma” — new, emerging science be damned. Their adherence to the COVID extremism has become simply ingrained into their being — their brains have become broken, perhaps irreparably.
On an episode of The View last week, co-host Sunny Hostin said she hadn’t been in a grocery store since COVID started three years ago. How are we supposed to reason with these people?
Take the issue of masks more broadly in our cultural discourse. Earlier this month, Derek Thompson published a column asking “Why Are We Still Arguing About Masks?” and citing lots of new, comprehensive data that shows masks don’t work particularly well when it comes to stopping COVID transmission. It was a nuanced piece, but the point was clear — how is this still an argument?
Well a few days later, the proof for why it’s still an argument appeared in the New York Times. “Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work,” blared the headline:
Yes, it was an opinion column. But it was Zeynep Tufekci, who has developed a reputation as a trustworthy COVID realist during the height of the pandemic. And yet, her dogmatic adherence to masking meant she took the same exact data Thompson used, and made the opposing argument with it. She then proceeded to… argue for days with people on Twitter about her conclusions!
A few days ago, Slate’s Jeff Wise published a massive, eye-opening report on “Long COVID,” upending a lot of the myths on this mysterious side effect. Several studies showed that, based on double-blind studies, “Long COVID” symptoms are rare, and can effect people who haven’t had COVID even more than those who actually have had it. In other words — it’s simply a symptom of the person, not COVID itself. In a rational, curious media landscape — one not made up of COVID extremists — this would be big news. Instead, last month the Washington Post editorial board published a piece warning that “Long covid haunts millions of people.”
Do you think we’re going to be able to convince these people that their religion has been exposed as faith, not science? Will they accept this and move on, for the sake of their audience, if not themselves? I don’t see the thaw coming anytime soon.
Rabbit Hole: Why coastal elites despise “Yellowstone” (but also some conservatives)
I very much do not have my finger on the cultural pulse these days — or at least am a few months behind. But after watching the entire “Yellowstone” series from beginning to end recently, I was blown away — and wanted to explore why the series was so popular in the ratings, yet so (mostly) ignored by the broader corporate press.
I spent more than 1,000 words dissecting the subtle, and not so subtle, ways the series pushes back against the stereotypes coastal elites have about those in the middle of the country. Or the way certain characters that might be protagonists on another prestige show are presented as antagonists here. Or that dirty P word — “progress.”
Check out the latest Rabbit Hole deep dive column here (an extended preview, or pay for the full column):
❓How Did This Get Published❓: NYT’s DeSantis "anti-woke” hit piece has surprise ending
The broader Acela Media is getting a chance to indulge in its favored addiction once again, as it puts Donald Trump front and center. More on that coming in later Fourth Watch pieces. But the likely prime competitor to Trump in the GOP primary, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, is still a target too. You get places like ABC still dubbing that legislation the activist-created “Don’t Say Gay” bill in headlines just yesterday.
And then there’s this piece from the New York Times last week on social studies textbooks in Florida. While DeSantis isn’t personally the focus, he’s mentioned in paragraph two for his “campaign against what he describes as ‘woke indoctrination’ in public schools.” The NYT focuses on the fact that “the state is reviewing curriculum in what is perhaps the most contentious subject in education: social studies.”
The very lengthy article puts a large emphasis on the potential edits of one specific textbook, regarding one specific person — Rosa Parks. It’s also notable that buried in the piece is where this whole article likely originated: “Some of the material was provided by the Florida Freedom to Read Project, a progressive parent group that has fought book ban efforts in the state.”
The edits it shows do appear to water down what Parks did, by de-emphasizing the racial aspect of her civil disobedience. There are other examples too, like a watering-down of the “segregation” section.
But if you somehow make it through 20+ paragraphs, you get to the kicker. “The company’s curriculum is no longer under consideration by the state,” reports the NYT. “The Florida Department of Education said it had already rejected the publisher, citing a bureaucratic snafu in the company’s submission.”
So this entire made-up controversy is just a hypothetical exercise in what might happen in some imaginary future, but not what actually will happen in the actual future. And New York Times readers get that information only if they stick around until the very end. The New York Times… how did this get published?!
WATCH IT… With the 20 year anniversary of the Iraq War here, a lot of retrospectives have been published. But I was stunned watching this throwback clip highlighted by New Republic columnist Osita Nwanevu of the NYT’s Tom Friedman on Charlie Rose in May 2003, where Friedman cavalierly told the Middle East to “suck on this.”
HEAR IT… An absolutely incredible mash-up of media talent, as Tucker Carlson joined the Nelk Boys on the Full Send Podcast for an hour-plus interview on topics ranging from Iraq to aliens to the nicotine pouches Zyn.
READ IT… I love a good mystery, so I got really into this Los Angeles Times story about one block on one street in an LA neighborhood that has been inundated with unwanted Uber Eats deliveries over the past month. Some residents have gotten literally dozens of deliveries from McDonald’s or Starbucks, and no one has any idea who is behind it (the number associated with the deliveries appears to be disconnected).
QUICK HITS
CNN reporter Kyung Lah tweeted that she and her producer were robbed while reporting in San Francisco, “again.”
March Madness means it’s time for Comfortably Smug’s annual “Liberal Hack” tournament. I like Wajahat Ali as a feisty 15-seed.
Hey if you can’t go for quality, you might as well… the Wall Street Journal reports BuzzFeed is encouraging its reporters to file more stories.
Fox News’ Benjamin Hall, who was injured while reporting in Ukraine, has a #1 New York Times’ bestselling book out, and is profiled in the Washington Post.
Anderson Cooper has a new job, hosting a 60 Minutes-style news magazine show for CNN on Sunday nights.
The New York Times writes about how former TheHill owner Jimmy Finkelstein is staffing up a new media outlet, The Messenger, in a big way.
Following a tumultuous few months, ABC News president Kim Godwin sits down for a rare interview with Vanity Fair.
In my opinion, the best feature writer today is Eli Saslow (a former colleague of mine at Syracuse U’s The Daily Orange) — he moves from WashPost to NYT with this incredible piece of reporting on homelessness in Phoenix.
⏪ REWIND // FAST FORWARD: Lab Leak Edition ⏩
⏪ In the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t that long ago when reporting on a possible lab leak out of Wuhan as the origins of COVID was literal disinformation (or being called racist by the New York Times’ COVID reporter).
⏩ Well this week the New York Times is tiptoeing toward the reality that lab leak is a very likely scenario for how COVID started, with a report that has a sub-hed of “A lab leak was once dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory. But the idea is gaining traction…” They’re not there yet — but they’re headed that direction.
MORE TK…
Retired presidential fact-checker Daniel Dale of CNN made a brief return to his previous role last week, inching ever so closely to saying President Biden’s administration lied. He, of course, did not use that term though. It’s something to look for — if you start hearing things like “lies” or actually fact-checking Biden and his administration in earnest, you know the corporate press is starting to sour on Biden as the Dems’ 2024 best chance.
GREAT MOMENTS IN JOURNALISM
Here’s a tweet linking to a news article written by a supposedly objective Supreme Court reporter at CNN. Here’s a quote from it: “Ginsburg’s replacement, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is working expeditiously to reverse much of what Ginsburg stood for in areas such as reproductive health, voting rights, affirmative action, administrative law and religious liberty.” Yeah — it’s a long road back to straight news reporting over at CNN.
Thanks for reading. Back Sunday with a new “Rabbit Hole” deep dive…
—Steve
Steve - I would like to point out that Thompson said on his podcast that he would continue masking from time to time based on certain factors on his podcast "Plain English" - on March 7, 2023. About 1:18 in he talks based on spreading, and he likes the idea that NW Washington DC needs more mandates on masking.