When Joe Biden talks on Saturday about US democracy on the brink, there’s no doubt that it will be a campaign speech. Maybe the most important one of his life.
But the speech will be more than that. It’s intended as a warning and a red alert, delivered on the anniversary of the violent January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
The date was chosen for good reason – to make the point that more mayhem and more flagrant disregard for the rule of law and fair elections, are just around the corner if Donald Trump is re-elected.
Can the political media in America get that reality across? Or will their addiction to “horserace” coverage prevail?
So far, the signs aren’t particularly promising.
A line high up in the New York Times’ advance coverage of what Biden plans to say is typical of the mainstream media’s tone and focus: “The two speeches are part of an effort to redirect attention from Mr. Biden’s low approval numbers and remind Democrats and independent voters of the alternative to his reelection.” (Biden is speaking on Saturday at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and Monday at the South Carolina church where a young white supremacist murdered nine black parishioners in late 2016.)
CNN offered an advance headline that emphasized the presidential race, not the message: “Biden opens campaign push …”
USA Today did better, putting the emphasis where it belongs: “Biden will mark Jan. 6 anniversary with speech warning Trump is a threat to democracy.”
We all know there’s a campaign happening. And remember, many readers don’t get beyond the headlines or news alerts. Those bulletins have to be short, true, but they also have to get the larger job done.
I’m not suggesting that Biden’s speech be covered as something separate from his presidential campaign. It’s obvious that November’s election and the fragility of American democracy are intertwined.
Even Biden campaign officials are making that point. “We are running a campaign like the fate of our democracy depends upon it. Because it does,” campaign manager Julia Chavez Rodriguez has said.
But there is another element that is more subtle.
“The choice for voters,” Rodriguez said, “will not simply be between competing philosophies of government. The choice will be about protecting our democracy and every American’s fundamental freedom.”
That’s where the media gets tripped up. In a constant show of performative neutrality, journalists tend to equalize the unequal, taking coverage down the middle even though that’s not where true fairness lies.
Biden, of course, is not a great natural speaker, and perhaps the biggest knock on him is that he’s 81 – and not a young 81.
Those factors won’t help, no matter what the media focuses on.
But journalists do have an obligation to get beyond delivery and appearances, to get beyond poll numbers and approval numbers – all the things that they are most comfortable with.
The mainstream media is not nearly as comfortable with communicating the larger concepts, even when the stakes are this high.
Constantly under attack from the right, they fear looking like they are “in the tank” for a particular candidate or party, so they fall back on those traditional building blocks of coverage – numbers, polls, approval ratings.
That may have worked in the past, or at least been relatively unobjectionable. Not any more.
Speech coverage is only one part of that. Journalists need to get across to voters in day-to-day coverage – between now and November – what a second Trump presidency would mean.
In an NPR interview, former Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron laid out the facts clearly:
“He’s the only politician I’ve heard actually talk about suspending the constitution. He’s talked about using the military to suppress entirely legitimate protests using the Insurrection Act. He’s talked about bringing treason charges against the then-outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He’s talked about bringing treason charges against Comcast, the owner of NBC and MSNBC. He’s talked explicitly about weaponizing the government against his political enemies. And, of course, he continues to talk about crushing an independent press.”
And, as Baron concluded, no editorializing is necessary because “all of those [threats], by nature, by definition, are authoritarian”.
That is the message that needs to come across, this weekend and in the months ahead.
Reporters and their bosses – both in newsrooms and in glossy corporate offices – should remember that being in favor of democracy isn’t a journalistic crime. In fact, it’s a journalistic obligation.
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist
Biden’s January 6 speech is bigger than the ‘horserace’. Can the media say that?
8
25
04.01.2024
When Joe Biden talks on Saturday about US democracy on the brink, there’s no doubt that it will be a campaign speech. Maybe the most important one of his life.
But the speech will be more than that. It’s intended as a warning and a red alert, delivered on the anniversary of the violent January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
The date was chosen for good reason – to make the point that more mayhem and more flagrant disregard for the rule of law and fair elections, are just around the corner if Donald Trump is re-elected.
Can the political media in America get that reality across? Or will their addiction to “horserace” coverage prevail?
So far, the signs aren’t particularly promising.
A line high up in the New York Times’ advance coverage of what Biden plans to say is typical of the mainstream media’s tone and focus: “The two speeches are part of an effort to redirect attention from Mr. Biden’s low approval numbers and remind Democrats and independent voters of the alternative to his reelection.” (Biden is speaking on Saturday at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and Monday at the South Carolina church where a young white supremacist murdered........
© The Guardian
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Tarik Cyril Amar
Rachel Marsden
Bradley Blankenship
Michael Kwet
