I think this should be the headline in every newspaper, on news websites, and the lead story on news shows:
Never in the history of American journalism have so many reporters owed an apology for such shoddy work to so many.
The reason is their coverage of the Afghanistan troop withdrawal.
For five days editorials and news stories were relentless in declaring the Biden presidency essentially over and his legacy forever stained because of an Afghanistan troop withdrawal the media called a “debacle,” an “embarrassment,” an “irresponsible” action.
Here are a few examples:
CNN’s online headline Monday afternoon read: “Biden points finger at others for the unfolding crisis.”
Stephen Collinson opined: “The debacle of the US defeat and chaotic retreat in Afghanistan is a political disaster for Joe Biden, whose failure to orchestrate an urgent and orderly exit will further rock a presidency plagued by crises and stain his legacy.”
That was almost kind compared to others. In the Atlantic the headline on George Packer’s analysis: “Biden’s Betrayal of Afghans Will Live in Infamy.” Ouch!
Not to be out done, this appeared on the Axios website: “Rarely has an American president’s predictions been so wrong, so fast, so convincingly as Biden on Afghanistan.”
There are more, and I haven’t cited even one from the conservative media’s attacks on Biden. But enough said, especially since a day is a lifetime ago in the news business, and my, how fast the news cycle changes.
Today there is hardly a story, much less a headline, burying the Biden presidency. I suspect there are a few, but only a few.
What happened? You would think if Biden caused a catastrophe as huge as the above quotes suggest, the story would warrant more than a few days of attention.
Unless…unless…unless a few journalists with some integrity and self-respect saw right through what their colleagues were doing and called them out and they had no reply.
They were caught red-handed doing what has become common for the media – substituting punditry for reporting.
Indeed, that is exactly what happened, and no one called her colleagues on it better than Margaret Sullivan:
“If ever a big, breaking story demanded that the news media provide historical context and carefully avoid partisan blame, it’s the story of the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Instead, what we largely got over the past few days was the all-too-familiar genre of “winners and losers” coverage. It’s coverage that tends to elevate and amplify punditry over news, and to assign long-lasting political ramifications to a still-developing situation.”
She continued: “And when news consumers have been tuned out of a story — as they are, unfortunately, with most international coverage — this quick-take journalism can be damaging and misleading…“Evidence of this nuance-deprived, overstated coverage was obvious throughout big and small news organizations over the weekend and across the political spectrum.”
Her conclusion was brilliant:
“…so far there’s not enough thoughtful, context-rich news coverage to counter it. And so a false idea can take root: That a war that cost trillions over two decades, killed many thousands, and was destined to failure from the start is the sole fault of the president who — hamstrung by all that came before him — was the one to end it…
“As always, the media moves too quickly to the blame game, allowing the most extreme punditry to carry the day. When history is in the making, as it surely is here, that’s far from the best approach.”
The title of what she wrote had the perfect headline: “The Afghan debacle lasted two decades. The media spent two hours deciding whom to blame.” (Washington Post, 8/16/2021)
Talk about bankrupt journalism. That’s about as bad as it gets, short of just making up stuff the way Fix News does.
I would argue that several things have led the mainstream media to this precarious loss of credibility:
1. In order to sell their papers and secure viewers they have adopted a “tabloid” approach to the news in the hope that hype and sensationalism will secure readers and viewers.
2. Younger journalists are Watergate’s Woodward and Bernstein wannabees who offer punditry instead of facts to make a name for themselves instead of focusing on doing the best job they can as reporters.
3. Worst of all, today’s journalists have decided that since many Americans have adopted the bankrupt view that opinions are of equal value to facts, that’s what they will give them.
Read and/or listen to the lead statements a story has or a news host makes and that will alert you to the biased slant everything they say afterwards will have.
Stories will say, for example, that Democrats are “divided” when in truth they simply hold different points of view on the same issues, but the reporter decides “differences” means “divisions.”
Stories abound about the Biden administration doing nothing about voting rights as if reporters know what is happening behind the scenes. They don’t, of course, but that doesn’t stop them from concluding that the mid-term elections will be a disaster for Democrats because they have determined Biden is not doing anything to avoid it.
Pundintry has become synonymous with reporting. Reporting “facts” about something that happened is laced with editorial comments as if they are part of the story.
Naturally, then, coverage of the pull out of U. S. troops from Afghanistan would be cased in words that are a commentary rather than report. The operation was called a mess, a debacle, a calamity, and then reporters went the next step and assessed who was at fault and why they were.
Their opinion became bigger than the story itself.
But now there is virtual silence. What happened?
Maybe it was their being called out, and facts that revealed many of the critics of Biden being quoted were the same people who got us into Afghanistan in the first place and lied about how well things were going for 20 years.
Maybe they were simply Republican partisans who may be the only group in the country with less credibility than the news media.
Whatever the reason, the coverage of the troop pull out has exposed the state of American journalism to be something other and less than truth seekers serving the interests of democracy at a time when the country needs a strong, free press.
Donald Trump tried to convince Americans that the press was our enemy. That was a self-serving, much like most of what Trump said.
But the press doesn’t have to be our enemy to betray our trust and undermine its own credibility. Spinning a story to make a point that is the reporter’s own view rather than telling us the facts that help us understand what happened will do it every time.
I confess that pre-Trump I held a negative opinion of the mainstream press (major news networks and papers such as the Times and the Post), then found myself defending the press because of Trump’s attacks, and now find my post-Trump self back where I started.
So from my perspective, when it comes to the American news media, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
This morning Charlie and I were discussing the mainstream media’s recent performance. Your blog pretty much aligns with our conversation. As usual, your observations are point on and timely from my perspective. Write on.
I think I am speaking for a lot of us who want better from the media. Thanks, Pen.
Jan, I’ll offer a little pushback. I think what happened was indeed a debacle and that it will be a stain on President Biden’s presidency. I agree with the Saigon comparison, something that Biden strongly said would not happen. He and many in the White House are saying they did not expect the country to fall so quickly. I don’t think he is totally to blame but it happened on his watch. While he may be correct to say the Afghans didn’t put up a fight, he failed to recognize thousands that fought bravely over the years, many of them dying. I’ve been a supporter of President Biden almost from day one of his campaign but I’m convinced by the pictures and stories that this was poorly executed. But I think there is a bigger question that needs to be addressed which is, Is there really any way to lose a war and leave a country quickly without a lot of chaos?
Wilbur, the first part of what you said assumes a Yes answer to your question. That is precisely the problem. Your criticism of Biden assumes he could have done better. Perhaps he could have, but by answering your question NO, my assessment is that it would have been a mess any way it was done. What is more, the action isn’t over yet. Let’s judge the situation after the fact, not before.
Jan,
This is excellent analysis. Whatever happened to the spirit of Eric Severeid, Mike Wallace and Walter Chronkite? Worse, whatever happened to calm, considered, cogent thought among the citizenry? I have confidence, that sound thought will return, however slowly, that we, collectively, will suspend judgement while events are in progress, then consider what the facts of the flow of events have meant. If not, the great experiment of American Democracy is quite possibly doomed. I suppose we could say that it’s been a good ride, though.
Cheerz!
Gene
Gene, it’s a ride I know you and I want to stay on. I am hopeful that the wave of opportunistic journalism will soon end and the reporters and opinion writers of genuine quality will experience a rebirth. I compare the greats you mentioned, and there are many others, with past great sports legends who played the game they played because they loved it, not for the money and fame it would bring them. That’s what has to happened with the news media. Thanks.
I will posit that one of the underlying causes (at least partially) for a “pundit press” is that the consumer demands it. Popularity (clicks and views) drives the bottom line. Sustainability of any type of media, especially news, must be paid for. That the powers behind the press rooms must pay the bills is the engine which drives the scramble for viewers and subscribers. Sad but true.
It is indeed sad, Rollie, and also true, as you say. The state of the nation and the press should set off alarms to all of us about what is happening. Not likely, though, also sad.
Kate and I studied journalism. That’s what our undergrad degrees are in. We had ethics classes and the whole 9 yards. It seems we’re living back in the days of yellow journalism. Spinning stories with a slant. Always buttressing one ideology over another. This isn’t ethical journalism. It’s the blame game and that never gets us very far.
Dr and Rabbi Edwin Friedman spoke about how leaders of our day and age suffer a ‘failure of nerve’ in his book by the same name. They give quick fixes to satisfy the lizard brain in people. When in an anxious time, people want a quick fix when what they really need is to grow and change to meet the moment. The quick fix eliminates the need to grow and become responsible and responsive people.
That’s what we’re seeing in this blame game which lacks historic context and only focuses on the BLAME. Granted Biden could have begun pulling people out months ago, setting up refugee centers and having a plan. Yet also, I don’t think anyone could have known have fast the Taliban would regain power…. and it’s power without disruption of cell service, power, or any other governmental services. It’s almost like the government was ready for it as a level that is just plain spooky. I think the best journalists will be writing about that story that placing blame.
This is a helpful contribution to this discussion, Luke. I think you are right that when all is said and done the best journalists will focus on the real story and the sensationalists will be forgotten.
Tonight (Friday, Sept. 3) I heard a report about how for the last 10-20 years, the story the American Generals in Afgahnistan were reporting is that “We are making PROGRESS” with Afghan military. That the Afghan government was “making PROGRESS” in developing their country. Repeatedly, the word “progress” was being used . . . in public statements, in reporters statements, by American Generals being interviewed. At the same time, behind the scene, the president in office at the time knew that it really wasn’t true–that it was a “front” to put a “good face” on the reality. The truth was being kept from the citizens, and statements were being directed by “those behind the scenes” . . . and not necessarily the President of the United States! No matter which President was in office, both Dem and Rep. So . . . the question is: WHO is really running this country?
That is a good question. My hope is that as bad as presidents can be, they are the ones still in charge of the Executive branch. That keeps the military under civil control, something the founders knew was essential for a lasting democracy. At the same time, our government is so large it allows decisions to be made on lower levels, including the Pentagon. Thanks for the question.