When someone says the press must stop giving the Republican Party equal airtime and treating it as a legitimate political entity, he nearly always means the media must stop reporting Democratic scandals.
In recent rants aimed at “fairness” and “balance,” the rants that say our core democracy is under attack because the press have been far too fair to the GOP, it’s nearly always the case that the speaker’s true desire is to see Democratic malfeasance excused or ignored entirely.
Because they don’t care if people in power are bad. They care only that their people have power.
Former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob, for example, struck minor viral gold this week with a tirade claiming the press have done the public a grave disservice by trying to give equal space to both Republicans and Democrats. There’s a lot he gets wrong, including the fantastic claim that legacy media have dealt fairly with Republican lawmakers, but there is something especially illuminating about the part where he downplays Democratic corruption and encourages other journalists to do the same.
“I used to edit Page 1 stories for the Chicago Tribune, including many from Washington. In this thread, I explain why the media (including me) have been unintentionally complicit in the rise of fascism that threatens our democracy,” Jacob said this week. “Mainstream media have long tried to treat Republicans and Democrats equally. Some, like me, thought that was the way to be fair. In fact, it was the way to be lazy and not have to sort out the facts. Just quote a Democrat and quote a Republican and you’re done.”
He added, “When I edited political stories, I went so far as to count the quotes from Republicans and Democrats, thinking an equal number would make us fairer. I didn’t think I was helping either party. I thought I was helping the readers. I was wrong.”
Thinking a 1:1 ratio of quotes equals “fairness” is something a child would believe, not the page one editor of a major newspaper. Fairness is determined by coverage and editorial tone. Did the Chicago Tribune apply to Democratic officials the same vigor it applied to Republican officials? Did it excuse behavior for one side that it would never excuse for the other? Did it cover a certain story while ignoring others? Yes, no, maybe? Coverage, what you choose to report on and what you choose to ignore, and editorial tone are the areas where fairness comes into play and where it, or the lack thereof, is most evident. Gauging balance via quote quotients is just silly.
Speaking of which, getting a quote from both parties is not going above and beyond to maintain fairness and balance. This is just basic journalism. So, congratulations on doing the bare minimum required of your profession.
“If you look back 3 or 4 decades,” Jacob continues, “you see many corrupt pols in both parties. Scandals like Abscam and Keating 5 were mostly Democratic. But in recent decades it’s obvious the GOP is more unethical and anti-democratic. Which means treating the parties equally helps Republicans.”
Then we come to the most revealing part.
“Hillary Clinton mishandled emails,” he writes. “George W. Bush lied to get us into a war. Both were bad. But one was way worse. The media’s self-assigned job to treat Republicans and Democrats equally has compelled them to pump up coverage of Democratic scandals. It’s fairness-signaling.”
First, Clinton didn’t “mishandle” anything. She had a homebrew email server installed in her home bathroom with the explicit intention of skirting federal FOIA laws. This isn’t to say it’s worse or better than the Iraq War. It’s only to say Jacob is grossly mischaracterizing one of two issues. It’s no accident the mischaracterizing benefits one party specifically.
Secondly, was he in a coma for the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections? Does he really believe the coverage of Clinton’s emails in 2016 is remotely comparable to the mountain of coverage the Iraq War inspired during former President George W. Bush’s reelection or Sen. John McCain’s failed run for the White House?
Third, does Jacob believe the press spent too much time in 2016 reporting the Democratic nominee for president was under FBI investigation? Is this a thing newspapers shouldn’t have reported? Does he believe a nominee for president being under federal investigation is a below-the-fold story?
Lastly, is this the best Jacob can come up with? He digs back to 2001 for an example of GOP malfeasance, but he can’t think of a single unethical or corrupt thing Democrats have done since then, except for Clinton “mishandling” emails?
He really can’t think of a single example between 2008 and 2016? Nothing? I can think of at least 324.
Jacob is out here talking about objective truth and protecting democracy, but what he and nearly everyone pushing these anti-“balance” arguments want is for Democratic corruption to be ignored so that Republican corruption becomes the only story. It’ll make it easier for Democrats if Republicans take all the heat.
“What’s needed is new framing,” Jacob continues, claiming Republicans have “overwhelmed” the press with corruption. “Not party-oriented but democracy-oriented. Truth-oriented. The media shouldn’t elevate liars in the interest of ‘fairness.’ Yes, media should be fair — to the readers, to the facts. But not to the 2-party system. To our democracy.”
He added, “We are now in the midst of an assault on democracy unlike any our country has ever seen. Any journalist who doesn’t frame their reports in that context is doing a grievous disservice to our country.”
No amount of high-minded rhetoric can hide the fact that these people don’t care about truth or democracy. They care that their team is free from anything resembling the scrutiny and bad press they want for Republicans.
As I’ve said before, playing up one party’s abuse while conspicuously downplaying another’s suggests you do not care that bad people are in power. You care only that your bad people are not in power.
On Friday, Jacob had another thought: “I long for the days when ‘fascists’ was an over-the-top insult you used for politicians you disliked instead of an accurate description of a major American political party.”
Again, this man used to be a top editor for the Chicago Tribune.
