Reds Under The Bed

The non-revelation that Vladimir Putin actively tried to select the next US President — and succeeded — has been pretty well covered by now.  I just want to add one question that’s been bugging me all day:

What did the Trump campaign do, and when did they do it?

We do know a few things.  Michael Flynn was both a national security advisor to the Trump campaign and has ties to the Russian propaganda apparatus.  Former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort has worked for Russia and allied states, and has a rich, long-held trove of contacts with the state apparatus there.  Donald Trump himself famously asked Putin to hack Hillary’s emails.  I’m sure if we had the same access to Trump’s, his campaign’s and the RNC’s communications that we had to Hillary’s and her team’s, we could well have some very interesting reading.

Short of that, it seems a basic question to ask of the Trump circle.  Did any of them conspire with a foreign power to manipulate (steal) the election?

The fundamental crisis we face, of course, is that a foreign power fucked with our election, which ended in the result sought by an adversary.  But while that’s the obvious disaster,  it gets worse if the Russians had active co-conspirators within the Trump camp.  That moves them from illegitimate, to traitors.

513px-giotto-kissofjudas

That may seem a stretch — but given the extremely well documented Russian connections that obtained in the Trump campaign through the crucial months of the general election, it’s seems to me that it’s imperative we get real answers as to who did what to whom over here.  This is where I hope Marty Barron has his people working (I’ve given up on Dean Baquet).  And I hope there are folks at the CIA pissed off enough to help out.

Whoever does it, this really is a time that puts the idea of the elite press to the test.  Either they cover Trump and all his high crimes and misdemeanors, or they give up, and the American experiment lurches to its increasingly imminent collapse.

I live not in expectation, but in hope.*

*Hope is the thing with feathers. The one Dick Cheney kept trying to shoot out of the sky.

 

Image: Giotto, The Arrest of Christ (Kiss of Judas)betw. 1306 and 1308.



Late Night Horrowshow Open Thread: Speaking of GOP Criminality…

.

This particular stunt got a little lost in today’s commentary, but the professionals agree it’s literally one for the history books…



Open Thread: Amazing How Cheaply One Can Buy A Reporter…

NPR (Nice Polite Republican) stenographer, this time. Between Trump’s statement that the FDA is ‘an unnecessary burden’, and his kids’ penchant for poison Skittles, why would a sensible person eat anything Donald Trump offered?

Speaking of dinner plans, what’s on the agenda for the evening?



Bang Your Head

We have bees under the slab of our front porch. A few days ago, I sprayed some foam into the hole where they were congregating. That stuff expands and fills with a vengeance–there are now no bees living under my front porch, since their entry hole and the crevice behind it is now a solid block of foam.

Still, even though this was a few days ago, a few dozen drones keep buzzing around that foam. They land, walk around, and fly away, then come back a few moments later. Depending on my frame of mind, I find it depressing, comical or tedious. There’s simply nothing there for them, but they repeat their ritualized, instinctual behavior until they expire.

Since these drones have only a few neurons in their tiny bee brains, I understand why they keep beating their little bee heads against a solid wall. What I don’t understand is why liberals continue to pay good American money for the New York Times, expecting that the political coverage that paper produces will somehow get better. It simply won’t.

For at least the past two decades, the Times’ political coverage has been a poorly written mish-mash of beltway-driven analysis that is all too ready to sacrifice facts in service of a narrative. Browse the “DC Press Corpse” category on this blog — the Times is featured there prominently and frequently. That coverage also has an institutional hard-on for the Clintons that is completely out of proportion to the supposed bad deeds perpetrated by Bill or Hillary.

Do I even need to mention the real damage done to this country by the Times, including but not limited to Judith Miller, post-9/11?

As I’m constantly hearing as we discuss the Times, a number of good people work for the paper. I’m sure they are kind to children, dote on their pets, and tithe regularly at some house of worship or other. But they are also part of an institution that is failing, badly, at a point in our history where we can’t afford our “newspaper of record” to fall down while covering politics.

Even if Trump loses in November–and due in part to the Times, don’t be so sure he will–Trump has opened the the door for “Trump Lite” in 2020. “Trump Lite” is simply a white nationalist who isn’t as lazy, sloppy and narcissistic as Trump. Trump Lite reads his briefing books, uses a dog whistle rather than a ref’s whistle, and has only one wife. Trump Lite will execute a pivot the day after the convention, and the New York Times will eat it up and ask for seconds.

I’m a Guardian subscriber and a TPM Prime member, but there’s no way in hell that I’ll pay money for the New York Fucking Times. I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that canceling your subscription is a civic duty.








Recap Open Thread: Trump Is Dangerous, and “Our” “Free” Press Is Enabling Him

And that was within the first minutes of Lauer’s Trump tongue-bath!

To be fair, a lot of the tweets here are from newsroom professionals. But the suits in charge of what gets said on the Big Megaphone are blatantly tipping the scales for a thoroughly unqualified, self-confessed liar and amateur. Because optics! horse race! eyeballs! both sides! chickenshit cowardice!

Nope, not sarcasm. Trump said all that — and more!

Much more below the fold — and, believe me, it’s still a heavily pruned selection…
Read more



Floor Polish or Dessert Topping: Media Edition.

I think it’s a serious risk to disagree with Adam; he’s basically always right.  But I do find myself differing from him on one question: is The New York Times actively trying to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency, or are their actions better explained by a less evil, more dangerous tendency?

Adam’s on the overt evil side: they’re trying to shiv her side. I’m thinking that what we’re seeing is an unconscious process, which is actually a much more difficult problem to tackle within elite political journalism.

My view:  I communicate with some NYTimes people, and I’ve known some there for a long time, though I’m not in close touch with that cohort these days.  I don’t have any contact with the Sulzberger/Baquet level, but below that I’m quite confident that there’s no conspiracy going on.  If you could ask just about anybody at the Times, I’m sure they recognize that Trump is a shit show and all that.

But that doesn’t alter the problem there, the way the deck is nonetheless stacked at the Times and other top-echelon outlets.

A big part of the reason, ISTM, is that within a lot of journalism there is a very particular definition of what a story is, and the concept of accuracy is narrowly defined.  A story need not be about facts, but about claims of alledged facts — Clinton’s emails raise pay-for-play concerns; and to be accurate such a story need only rise to the level of “some see in the new email release more indications of a pay-to-play connection to the Clinton Foundation.”   That is — the fact that someone is willing to say such a dreadful deed took place makes the statement and the story “accurate” even if no reasonable reading of the underlying material suggest such nefariousness actually took place.

Goya_y_Lucientes,_Francisco_de_-_Fool`s_Folly_-_Google_Art_Project

That paradigm leads The New York Times and the rest of them to make the same mistakes over and over again — and to get played in the same way seemingly every week. The right wing media activist camp — think Judicial Watch and the email farrago — is very good at pushing the story buttons, and you have a circumstance where the Times bites, over and over again, and finds itself once again dipping into  the Clinton well.

What makes that so wretched is that if The New York Times were anti-Clinton in the way, say, Fox News is, there’d be an obvious counter:  consider the source. But because this is done within a framework that the top practitioners believe is the right way to do journalism, pushback often serves to confirm their judgment in their own eyes. If partisans complain, they must be doing something right.  And given that the elite media basically talks to itself, it’s hard to insert a corrective, though I and many others are trying to do so on and off social media.

ETA: It’s also important to note that the Times  did engage the Trump-Attorneys General bribery story today, placing it prominently on the website.  There are some oddities in the story — not uncommon for a publication playing catch-up.  And the test will be the follow up: how deeply the Times chooses to pursue each of the elements of the story in the days ahead.  If they do give it the full effort, then (a) that will be good and (b) it will suggest that much of the crap coverage of Clinton we’ve seen is the product of pre-existing bias (Clintons are yucky) combined with the story dynamics and incentives discussed here.

There’s an interview with Bob Woodward that the Harvard’s press office published today that to me expresses the problem of a Village, an epistemically closed community of practice that can’t easily interrogate the ways its own methods undermine the mission that they do in fact, sincerly, believe they’re pursuing. Woodward says:

Bob Costa, a reporter at the Post, and I interviewed Trump and we published the transcript and there are all kinds of things in there. For instance, he says, “I bring out rage in people,” and he’s proud of it. He forecast a giant recession, he was very pessimistic about the economy, and since then it’s only done better. He was asked, because he was running in the primaries in the Republican Party, a party that contained Lincoln and Nixon, “Why did Lincoln succeed?” And Trump’s answer was, “He did some things that needed to be done.” [We then asked,] “Why did Nixon fail?” “Because of his personality.” And we had to say, “Yeah, but his criminality was part of it.” And Trump said, “Oh, yeah.” It tells you who he is. 

The same with Hillary Clinton. There were just voluminous stories on her. Let me give you an example from The New York Times, Feb. 20, 2016, a two-part series they did on Hillary’s role in Libya. It explains her role, exactly what she wanted to do. At one point, after [Libyan leader Moammar] Gadhafi’s death, it quotes her saying to some of her staff, “We came, we saw, he died.’ There was a series of spectacular Post stories about the Clinton Foundation, about her time at the State Department, and so forth. 

The Trump interview is a story, sure.  It was accurate, in the sense that I’m sure Trump said what Woodward and Costa said he said.  It’s not revealing of very much — like what Trump has done and what his actions in the various enterprises he’s undertaken would tell us about a potential Trump presidency.  But its accurate.

More important for the discussion of Clinton and whether press treatment of her reflects conscious or unconscious bias is the comparison between the kind of material Woodward celebrates as journalism about Trump vs. what he recognized in the Clinton Coverage.  The Libya story he cites is a perfectly reasonable one one, exactly what you’d expect a newspaper to do.  The Clinton Foundation stories…not so much, and so on.

The point’s obvious, I think.  All of the stories listed above are “news” in some way.  They meet (mostly) the narrowest criterion of accuracy.  But they add up to a very different body of work, and evidence of very different approaches to the two candidates, born, I think, of the construct of the “sweet story” much more than of a planned journalistic campaign to derail Hillary.

TL:DR?  You don’t need to invoke malice.  An intellectual laziness* born of bad craft habits and professional norms fully explains what we see — which is bad news, as that’s harder to fix than explicit enmity.

*I don’t mean to suggest that Times journalists and their peers elsewhere are lazy in the sense that they don’t work hard.  They work constantly for (in almost all cases in the print world) relatively short money.  I’m just saying that they don’t sufficiently train the traditional journalist’s skepticism on their own endeavor, and so find it very hard to credit outside criticism, or to recognize what it is in fact they’re doing, not just day by day, but summed over the life of a campaign.

Image: Francisco de Goya, Fool’s Folly, 1815-1819



Late Night Open Thread: Life’s Little Mysteries

Huffpo correspondent looked at the HRC endorsment Betty mentioned this morning, and wonders: Why doesn’t Hillary like us?

It’s not that I don’t like toddlers, Ms. Bendery… it’s just that I prefer not to waste my time trying to discuss serious issues with them. Neither of us will enjoy it, and it only makes you cranky.