Here's a headline: "The Capitol Riot Killed 'Both-Sides' Journalism". And while it is easy enough to hope this is true, nothing is ever so simple. Meredith Shiner↱ explains:
The Soapbox piece for The New Republic immediately grabbed the attention of some journalism professors, and is stirring some muttering in journalistic circles, but for the rest of us, an important aspect to observe is the question of practical implications.
The view from nowhere, as such, is not unfamiliar to us; there are occasions I recall Rob Corddry on The Daily Show, in 2004, and Jim Lehrer in Columbia Journalism Review, a few years later. The comedy bit talked around the actual facts of the Swiftboat controversy in the presidential race in order to pretend journalistic duty to both sides; the more serious and journalistic iteration pretty much affirmed the point of what is not a reporter's job.
One of the things about asking who benefits from informational dilution, dysfunctional equivocation, and other aspects of this view from nowhere, the answer is the same as it ever was. If the particular answer in our moment is Republicans, the more historical answer is conservatism or even rightism.
Ceteris paribus is not in effect; that is, not all else is equal. Here are the two sides to "antivax": The actual medical reality speaks virtually irrefutably in favor of mass vaccination; the argument against is a mix of superstition and misinformation fueling a hunger for personal empowerment.
Here are two sides of a political question: Should the fact of someone being some manner of "liberal" be more important than the apparent fact of someone else misinforming? To wit, Steve Benen chronicled Mitt Romney's alleged mendacity throughout the 2012 campaign, and it really is a breathtaking heap, all told. In the end, Benen's running tally was credible; Romney, having lost the presidential election, still has credibility sufficient to not only be elected to the U.S. Senate, but also be looked upon as one of the more honest Republicans in D.C. These circumstances can coexist, but if Lehrer, for instance, was reluctant to call out a lie, it seems clear the mendacious would stand to benefit.
Inasmuch as not all else is equal, who or what benefits from superstition, misinformation, and disinformation?
Senator Romney, at least, voted to convict. It's one thing to wonder, about those forty-three Republicans who voted for Donald Trump's acquittal, how they will get along with staffers and law enforcement in their day to day experience, but so also is it fair to consider journalists. It's one thing if a reporter is scribbling notes on what Romney says about something, and knows the articles about mundane pressers will never simply say, "He stood at the podium for five minutes, bullshitting the press on every question and all but telling them to fuck off." To the other, CNN just shrugged and ran with the chyron, "McConnell makes case for convicting Trump after voting Not Guilty". As a view from nowhere moment, this is what it comes to. "McConnell blames Trump but voted Not Guilty anyway". That shouldn't be a view from nowhere chyron, nor should, "McConnell tries to have it both ways; voted Not Guilty". And while that last one might strain the pretense of a view from nowhere, it also shouldn't even be possible. That is how far the equivocating, sniffing, deliberately contrabiased view from nowhere has gone. It's one thing for someone covering Romney day after day to just groan inwardly that he's completely full of shit; at least Romney recognizes that something happened, and has tried to do the right thing. But there will also be many days when the Senator or Representative at the podium is as full of shit as ever, and that now includes making excuses for Donald Trump or even sympathizing with the insurrection. It's not just the law enforcement and facility workers at the Capitol; the politicians also must face the press in mundane events.
"If reporters have to contort themselves into a sanitized, 'objective' view of what happened on January 6," Shiner asserts, "we all lose." And she asks, "If this is not the event that frees reporters from the chains of 'both-sidesism', when one side, the Republicans, contributed to an attack in which reporters almost died, what will?"
And if Shiner laments the "orthodoxy of separating morality from regular coverage of Congress", any equivocation that both sides might calculate the rules constraining journalists should also acknowledge the result. If we consider it was 2010 when we learned of Sen. McConnell's plan to simply stonewall Obama and Democrats at every turn, some of the subsequent GOP theatrics read considerably differently than the view from nowhere might otherwise describe. There was McConnell filibustering his own amendment, and however many times the process waited on Boehner's insistence only to have him pull legislation because he didn't know his whip count. And that includes pulling an immigration bill and telling Obama to use his executive authority; when the president did, Republicans sued to stop him. And perhaps that is a seemingly political telling of the tale, but it is, to the one, a tale about politics, and, to the other, it is neither inaccurate nor irrelevant to the present. Equivocating our way through what Benen, the liberal longtime msnbc blogger, describes as post-policy governance—(he even wrote a book about it)—is not an insignificant factor in discussing the Trump presidency and insurrection.
Who or what benefits from the "orthodoxy of separating morality from regular coverage of Congress"? The view from nowhere would find the question inappropriate.
____________________
Notes:
Shiner, Meredith. "The Capitol Riot Killed 'Both-Sides' Journalism". The New Republic. 15 February 2021. NewRepublic.com. 17 February 2021. http://bit.ly/3jW9Mlr
On January 6, terrorists—encouraged by former President Donald Trump and enabled by his Republican supporters in Congress—attacked the United States Capitol. And as they came for the republic, they also came for something else: Beltway journalists.
This is true in the literal sense, as rioters etched “Murder the Media” into a Capitol door. But it is also true in a more challenging philosophical sense, as this violence imploded at the very altar of political journalism: the shrine of detached, “both-sides” reportage erected by media outlets to avoid specious accusations of bias and provide cover for Republican politics that were, at best, deeply shameful and, at worst, lethally illiberal.
Mainstream media editors of political coverage in Washington are at a crossroads, though they may not yet have fully realized their predicament. After years of investing in an approach to politics popularly characterized as the “view from nowhere”—in which “objectivity” is performed by reporters as a “he said, she said” dance without regard to either news value or truth—they have had their once-comfortable performance space invaded by the rioters. To move forward from here without confronting the long-deflating bubble of “both-sides” journalism, which is profitable for the D.C. book party circuit but ill-suited to maintaining both good government and a public trust in the media, is to ensure that illiberalism will continue to flourish.
This is true in the literal sense, as rioters etched “Murder the Media” into a Capitol door. But it is also true in a more challenging philosophical sense, as this violence imploded at the very altar of political journalism: the shrine of detached, “both-sides” reportage erected by media outlets to avoid specious accusations of bias and provide cover for Republican politics that were, at best, deeply shameful and, at worst, lethally illiberal.
Mainstream media editors of political coverage in Washington are at a crossroads, though they may not yet have fully realized their predicament. After years of investing in an approach to politics popularly characterized as the “view from nowhere”—in which “objectivity” is performed by reporters as a “he said, she said” dance without regard to either news value or truth—they have had their once-comfortable performance space invaded by the rioters. To move forward from here without confronting the long-deflating bubble of “both-sides” journalism, which is profitable for the D.C. book party circuit but ill-suited to maintaining both good government and a public trust in the media, is to ensure that illiberalism will continue to flourish.
The Soapbox piece for The New Republic immediately grabbed the attention of some journalism professors, and is stirring some muttering in journalistic circles, but for the rest of us, an important aspect to observe is the question of practical implications.
The view from nowhere, as such, is not unfamiliar to us; there are occasions I recall Rob Corddry on The Daily Show, in 2004, and Jim Lehrer in Columbia Journalism Review, a few years later. The comedy bit talked around the actual facts of the Swiftboat controversy in the presidential race in order to pretend journalistic duty to both sides; the more serious and journalistic iteration pretty much affirmed the point of what is not a reporter's job.
Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recognized years ago that “the view from nowhere” media doctrine could work to his advantage. With no lens of “right” or “wrong” imposed on political reporting—the entire idea of moral arbitration replaced with a meaningless array of horse-race or process coverage that treated both sides as equal regardless of who acted in good faith—he could manipulate the media into any outcome he wanted while avoiding critical skepticism ....
.... But with clashes and bangs, tear gas and Confederate flags breaching the Capitol for the first time in our nation's history, the game of treating Republicans and Democrats as equivalent should come to a violent end. The media's powerbrokers should, at long last, confront the way their previous decisions in the Trump era brought us here and the signal it sends to the reporters they're tasked with protecting if they continue to stay the course.
Should journalists doing live shots from roughly the same place where they thought they might die, divorce themselves and their lived experience from coverage of the current group of congressional Republicans or future investigations of the Capitol riot, as if they were not witnesses to, and survivors of, this very traumatic case at hand? Should they pretend now that there are two sides to this story, that a retreat to a nowhere-view is rational or defensible? Who is actually served by continuing this approach? (Hint: It's the people who tried to overturn a free and fair election, who now want to get off scot-free.)
When the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted against convicting Trump—just as the vast majority of House Republicans voted against impeachment—it was a dark day for America. But let us not overlook that it also was an invalidation of the trauma experienced by those who thought they would perish in the attack that day, including reporters who will have to ask these same lawmakers questions every day, in perpetuity, as if nothing happened. What once were benign queries in a Capitol hallway on matters such as future omnibus spending packages will be something different to the framers of the questions, who will be forced to look in the eyes of people who were complicit in their attempted murder, and who allowed themselves to be recorded for posterity voicing their indifference toward the lives of others.
.... But with clashes and bangs, tear gas and Confederate flags breaching the Capitol for the first time in our nation's history, the game of treating Republicans and Democrats as equivalent should come to a violent end. The media's powerbrokers should, at long last, confront the way their previous decisions in the Trump era brought us here and the signal it sends to the reporters they're tasked with protecting if they continue to stay the course.
‡
Should journalists doing live shots from roughly the same place where they thought they might die, divorce themselves and their lived experience from coverage of the current group of congressional Republicans or future investigations of the Capitol riot, as if they were not witnesses to, and survivors of, this very traumatic case at hand? Should they pretend now that there are two sides to this story, that a retreat to a nowhere-view is rational or defensible? Who is actually served by continuing this approach? (Hint: It's the people who tried to overturn a free and fair election, who now want to get off scot-free.)
When the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted against convicting Trump—just as the vast majority of House Republicans voted against impeachment—it was a dark day for America. But let us not overlook that it also was an invalidation of the trauma experienced by those who thought they would perish in the attack that day, including reporters who will have to ask these same lawmakers questions every day, in perpetuity, as if nothing happened. What once were benign queries in a Capitol hallway on matters such as future omnibus spending packages will be something different to the framers of the questions, who will be forced to look in the eyes of people who were complicit in their attempted murder, and who allowed themselves to be recorded for posterity voicing their indifference toward the lives of others.
One of the things about asking who benefits from informational dilution, dysfunctional equivocation, and other aspects of this view from nowhere, the answer is the same as it ever was. If the particular answer in our moment is Republicans, the more historical answer is conservatism or even rightism.
†
Ceteris paribus is not in effect; that is, not all else is equal. Here are the two sides to "antivax": The actual medical reality speaks virtually irrefutably in favor of mass vaccination; the argument against is a mix of superstition and misinformation fueling a hunger for personal empowerment.
Here are two sides of a political question: Should the fact of someone being some manner of "liberal" be more important than the apparent fact of someone else misinforming? To wit, Steve Benen chronicled Mitt Romney's alleged mendacity throughout the 2012 campaign, and it really is a breathtaking heap, all told. In the end, Benen's running tally was credible; Romney, having lost the presidential election, still has credibility sufficient to not only be elected to the U.S. Senate, but also be looked upon as one of the more honest Republicans in D.C. These circumstances can coexist, but if Lehrer, for instance, was reluctant to call out a lie, it seems clear the mendacious would stand to benefit.
Inasmuch as not all else is equal, who or what benefits from superstition, misinformation, and disinformation?
Senator Romney, at least, voted to convict. It's one thing to wonder, about those forty-three Republicans who voted for Donald Trump's acquittal, how they will get along with staffers and law enforcement in their day to day experience, but so also is it fair to consider journalists. It's one thing if a reporter is scribbling notes on what Romney says about something, and knows the articles about mundane pressers will never simply say, "He stood at the podium for five minutes, bullshitting the press on every question and all but telling them to fuck off." To the other, CNN just shrugged and ran with the chyron, "McConnell makes case for convicting Trump after voting Not Guilty". As a view from nowhere moment, this is what it comes to. "McConnell blames Trump but voted Not Guilty anyway". That shouldn't be a view from nowhere chyron, nor should, "McConnell tries to have it both ways; voted Not Guilty". And while that last one might strain the pretense of a view from nowhere, it also shouldn't even be possible. That is how far the equivocating, sniffing, deliberately contrabiased view from nowhere has gone. It's one thing for someone covering Romney day after day to just groan inwardly that he's completely full of shit; at least Romney recognizes that something happened, and has tried to do the right thing. But there will also be many days when the Senator or Representative at the podium is as full of shit as ever, and that now includes making excuses for Donald Trump or even sympathizing with the insurrection. It's not just the law enforcement and facility workers at the Capitol; the politicians also must face the press in mundane events.
"If reporters have to contort themselves into a sanitized, 'objective' view of what happened on January 6," Shiner asserts, "we all lose." And she asks, "If this is not the event that frees reporters from the chains of 'both-sidesism', when one side, the Republicans, contributed to an attack in which reporters almost died, what will?"
And if Shiner laments the "orthodoxy of separating morality from regular coverage of Congress", any equivocation that both sides might calculate the rules constraining journalists should also acknowledge the result. If we consider it was 2010 when we learned of Sen. McConnell's plan to simply stonewall Obama and Democrats at every turn, some of the subsequent GOP theatrics read considerably differently than the view from nowhere might otherwise describe. There was McConnell filibustering his own amendment, and however many times the process waited on Boehner's insistence only to have him pull legislation because he didn't know his whip count. And that includes pulling an immigration bill and telling Obama to use his executive authority; when the president did, Republicans sued to stop him. And perhaps that is a seemingly political telling of the tale, but it is, to the one, a tale about politics, and, to the other, it is neither inaccurate nor irrelevant to the present. Equivocating our way through what Benen, the liberal longtime msnbc blogger, describes as post-policy governance—(he even wrote a book about it)—is not an insignificant factor in discussing the Trump presidency and insurrection.
Who or what benefits from the "orthodoxy of separating morality from regular coverage of Congress"? The view from nowhere would find the question inappropriate.
____________________
Notes:
Shiner, Meredith. "The Capitol Riot Killed 'Both-Sides' Journalism". The New Republic. 15 February 2021. NewRepublic.com. 17 February 2021. http://bit.ly/3jW9Mlr
