Thomas Zimmer: The norm of valuing "neutrality" over factual accuracy

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Unrolled thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1565759261073965060.html

I have seen so many variations of “How dare president Biden politicize the authoritarian assault on democracy! So partisan!” - and not a single one of these takes deserves to be taken seriously. A predictable fog of bad-faith, pseudo-“neutral” nonsense.

Conservatives do it because it’s an opportunistic attack line that builds on the tradition of deriding “politics” as a silly quarrel among factionalists who have no regard for the common good - an idea that only ever helps those who want to obstruct public policy solutions.

Centrist pundits and self-proclaimed moderates do it because it allows them to present themselves as nonpartisan arbiters of the truth - “Look how above the fray I am, so different from all those alarmists who get swept away by partisan emotions!”

And why do mainstream journalists engage in this kind of ridiculous pontificating? They’re doubling down on the established tropes of “neutrality” journalism – based on a paradigm that defines “neutrality” as keeping equidistance from either side, mistaking it for objectivity.

If political journalists actually engaged with the substance of what Biden said, they would have to admit that every allegation was factual, that everything he said about Trumpism and the Republican Party was rather indisputable empirically.

Why won’t they do that? Because for many political journalists, the overriding concern is not to be seen as “partisan.” Siding with the Democratic president in what is obviously a highly contentious issue is therefore not an option. Even if the president simply states the facts.

Journalists can’t simply ignore an event like Biden’s speech either, of course. So, instead of engaging with the substance, they will emphasize optics, or resort to horse race coverage (“How will this play with the voters?”) – or they simply decry “politicization.”

Empirically speaking, there is no equivalent on the Left to the Right’s increasingly open embrace of authoritarianism, nothing the Democratic Party is doing equals the GOP’s anti-democratic radicalization and commitment to impose the will of a reactionary minority on the country.

But if journalists were to cover, assess, and interpret this situation as objectively, accurately, and adequately as possible (which they should!), they would be criticized as “partisan” – there it is, that typical liberal media bias! – and risk losing credibility and access.

The “solution” is to create “balance” by playing up bad-faith criticism of Biden’s speech. Anti-democratic radicalization on the Right – outrageous “politicization” of the presidential bully pulpit for “partisan” reasons on the Left. Neutral media right in the middle. “Balance.”

Following a “neutrality” dogma might sound fine in a vacuum - but we’re not in a vacuum. The fundamental reality of American politics is that democracy itself has become a partisan issue, in the sense that there is currently only one major (small-d) democratic party in the U.S.

In this situation, if anyone sets out to describe accurately and precisely what is happening, it will indeed make the Republican Party look bad, as the GOP is fully committed to preventing multiracial, pluralistic democracy, and increasingly willing to embrace authoritarianism.

The norm of valuing “neutrality” over factual accuracy produces coverage that privileges the radicalizing Right. The principle becomes: “We’re not going to say anything that has the appearance of taking sides, even if it’s just factually accurate and precise.” That’s a disaster.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. The Speech No President Should Have to Give -Joe Biden's duty made it necessary.

This was NOT a political speech unless you think that the protection of our democratic form of government is a partisan issue. I dd NOT believe that caring about the protection of our democratic form of government is a partisan issue.

Link to tweet

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/09/the-speech-no-president-should-have-to-give/671338/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

A Sad Duty
Joe Biden told us last night that American democracy is under attack. He did so in plain language and left no doubt about either the dire nature, or the source, of the threat. Most important, he named names—including, finally, Donald Trump. The president took a political risk and spoke the hard truth: that a significant number of citizens of the United States of America, concentrated in the rotted-out shell of the Republican Party, have become extremists who are engaged in anti-constitutional opposition to our system of government.

Whenever a president gives a speech, pundits, analysts, and citizens all jump to grade the exercise. Was it a great speech or just a good speech? Did it hit the right marks? Did it serve the right constituency? Did it help or hurt his party?....

And make no mistake: He had to give it. His duty demanded it. As Biden rightly said, the American democracy faces an “ongoing attack” from what he termed “MAGA Republicans” who do not respect the Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the people, or the results of free elections. No president could remain silent under such circumstances......

Mostly what I felt watching the president was both sympathy and a kind of horror that he was having to say any of this at all. And so I simply cannot judge it as anything but a sad duty, the same kind of speech a president must give in the face of a national tragedy. These are not speeches anyone wants to write or give. Nonetheless, if I had to pick out a line that will resonate in history, I think—or I hope—that it will be Biden’s reminder that democracy requires sensible, tolerant, and mature human beings in order to work:

Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: Either they win or they were cheated … You can’t love your country only when you win.

It really is that simple.