Please Explain How 'Both Sides' Journalism Will Help Us Now

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

04 March 17

The response to Trumpism is not a lobotomy.

he good people at Poynter have some advice for journos in dealing with the New Improved Tone. Most of this advice is really terrible.

That feeling you get, when you hear the president and his staff repeatedly take a hostile tone with the press? That's probably how Trump supporters feel when they see journalists responding to his rhetoric with tacit or even overt helpings of snark. There's no doubt that the president's tenor last night slightly reduced the sense of alarm raised by many of his critics. After all, it's a lot easier to listen to his ideas when he isn't throwing shade on everyone from Australia to Sweden.

Sweden? Isn't that the crime-ridden dystopian hellspout where Stockholm is located, along with its famous Syndrome?

The change in tone was the overall theme of this morning's coverage. The Washington Post noted the president's "muscular but measured tone." The New York Times said Trump "appeared restrained and serious." At the top of the hour on "Morning Edition, the anchor took note of the president's "more optimistic tone."

Yeah, those assessments were really stupid and make me wonder if the people writing them actually listened to that pack of lies. Judging that speech on the basis of performance is massive journalistic malpractice. And, if NPR really thought the speech had any kind of an "optimistic tone" at all, then Morning Edition is two tote bags short of a spring fundraiser.

Rather than just noting the miraculous effect Trump has on the national mood when he stays on script, newsrooms need to consider their own impact on a skeptical audience. Sticking to solid, attitude-free reporting is the equivalent of staying on script for journalists.

Prefrontal lobotomies available with every subscription to our newsletter!

So, how can news organizations do that?

Do tell.

Avoid snark.

Bite me.

Watch the references to Trump's physical appearance and the quirks of his speech.

One of the "quirks of his speech" is that he lies like most people breathe. Is there a strategy you have for handling this?

Leave late-night comedy to the comedians. Posting clips from SNL and The Onion gives readers an excuse to doubt your fairness.

Tough. "Fairness" and "objectivity" or whatever other nostrum you're peddling from the Ye Olde Both Sides Apothecary Shoppe are not the same thing.

Don't be the story. When Trump criticizes the media, don't bite. The reverse is true as well. When he's not criticizing journalists, you still have an obligation to scrutinize what he says and does.

Yes, because history has shown us that, if we don't stick up for ourselves, the people will rally to our defense. As to the second part, if we do it well, we're going to run into problems with the first part.

Take a look at your sources to make sure they're ideologically diverse.

Experts divided on shape of earth.

Check your copy with colleagues who may hold different political opinions.

No. Let them write their own stuff.

Look through your feedback on social media. What criticisms do people on the left and the right have of your work?

OMIGOD! Three Romanian teenagers pretending to be Iowa suburbanites think I've been unfair. Help me, Poynter. You're my only hope.

Is it fair? Examine the overall opinions that your editorial department, columnists and invited guest writers are offering up. When taken as a whole, what does it say about your newsroom's pledge to be fair or bipartisan?

Again, "fair" and "bipartisan" are not synonymous. Not even close. It is fair to say that the president* lies like he breathes because he lies like he breathes. It is not "bipartisan" to say so, nor should it ever be.

Above all, remember: Just like President Trump, every word you say — or write — is scrutinized by a skeptical audience.

Many of whom get their news from charlatans on the radio and from Fox & Friends. I should care about this why, exactly?

Let us apply the Poynter test to this latest story from The Huffington Post, wherein we discover that that elements of the executive branch doing business out of the White House are actively working to rig the rest of administration.

Pending positions on the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are among those at stake. And President Donald Trump, according to these sources, is looking to rescind both Republican-backed nominees as well as Democratic ones. By statute, these five- and six-member commissions can have no more than three members from the majority party. For six-member commissions, that assures bipartisan cooperation ― or, as has happened at the FEC, utter gridlock. The narrow majority on five-member commissions requires a commission to govern closer to the center. A chair who loses just one vote from his or her own party loses everything…

But Democratic sources on the Hill worry that the Trump administration has conceived of a way to get around these norms. Although it can't stack commissions with more Republicans, it can replace Democrats with registered Independents who are ideologically conservative. One counsel to a Senate Democrat said the administration "may actually be able to do this legally."

This is a massive centralization of executive power that (likely) will be used to cripple the regulatory power of the agencies in question. This is exactly what Steve Bannon meant by the deconstruction of the administrative state. People will be hurt by this. The republic will be hurt by this. And Poynter is going to have to forgive me if I don't check with the folks at Breitbart when I write this, but sheer vandalism is not governing. To cover it as though it were is to fold up the First Amendment and use it for a paper airplane.