30 Days. Some recommendations for mainstream media

Here are some rules that we recommend to mainstream media as they publish and broadcast their messages to us in the 30 days until voting is completed and the 79 additional days till Inauguration day 2021.  These ideas will also be useful for all media and all journalists.

Don't invite repeat liars onto your live shows and give them a live mic.  If you do give them the mic you know already exactly what they will do which is to use your media reach to amplify their corrupt message more widely.

Don't show video clips with verbatim segments of someone telling known lies.  Likewise for audio broadcasts or podcasts.

Don't publish op-eds riddled with lies.  

Don't parcel out the lion's share of your earned media to any single person.  It can't all be about He Who Must Not Be Named.  E.G. If you are going to focus on one hospitalized covid patient, make sure you leave more than equal room for the tens of thousands of other hospitalized covid patients.   

A few abbreviations that will prove useful in this post and going forward..

HW - He Who - as in he whose lies, disinformation, incitement, etc. must not be amplified - aka the current president

HM - his minions and enablers

WH - The White House] 

If you need to report on a lie or on misinformation, or on disinformation, or hate speech, or incitement to violence, always give the correct information about that subject first. Tell us what you already know and what you have verified.  Then report that.  For example, HW or HM or the WH has lied again about the subject in question.  But do this without verbatim quotes of the actual lies or giving air time to the person speaking those lies out loud.  Reframe them in your own words if necessary.  Many times it won't be necessary.  

Be especially vigilant about false equivalence, both-sides, he said-she said in situations that are wildly asymmetric.  If there is blame to share, it is ever so rarely 50-50.

As we mentioned previously, stop using "unprecedented."  Find a better adjective that adds explanatory power to why a particular action is worthy of being reported on.

Before you report breaking news, be really clear about what you already know and share that with your audience.  That way your breaking news will stand on the shoulders of all the good work you have done up till this point. 

Who to follow.  If you are interested in those whose are writing and talking and thinking in depth about vital journalism issues such as the ones listed above., I depend on Jay Rosen (NYU), Margaret Sullivan (Wapo), Dan Froomkin (Press Watch) and James Fallows (The Atlantic).  They have the answers that mainstream media needs to get things right in 2020.  We cannot afford for them to fail. 

     

Alarm Bells are Ringing and Major Media is Asleep at the Wheel

Alarm Bells are Ringing and Major Media is Asleep at the Wheel

Here's an important journalism practices article published yesterday by Dan Froomkin of Press Watch.  It's long but will be well worth your time.

My takeaway: Our major media - NY Times, Washington Post, NPR , ...are failing us exactly when we most need them to shine a light, to call things by their true names, to warn the public of the danger ahead and to advocate for setting things right. 

If you don't have time for the full article, here are some excerpts

"People who know and care about elections and democracy frantically sounded the alarm on Wednesday as Donald Trump’s intention to steal the election became undeniable.

"The New York Times put its article on Trump refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power on page A15. The Washington Post story was on A4.

"And the Atlantic had published Barton Gellman’s terrifying, detailed article describing scenarios in which Trump “uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him.”

"Gellman actually buried ... the lede, which was that he had proof that “the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.” 

"Trump fully intends the Supreme Court – not the voters – to make the call. And that of course is because his campaign strategy is not to win a majority of the votes, just to win enough to be able to toss things to the lawyers.  [Emphasis added]

"[Question to The President] Do you commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power?

"[The President]  We want to have — get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very trans- — we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly; there’ll be a continuation.  The ballots are out of control.  [Emphasis added] 

"There is only one legitimate, decent, normal answer to that question: “Of course.”

"[H]is inability to say “of course” was epic: the stuff of which history is made; the stuff of banner headlines [But unfortunately not in the NYTimes or Wapo].

"But as usual, to capture the real drama of what’s going on, you have to go to the opinion writers – and the editorial cartoonists.

"So here is the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, explaining that “what really matters here is that Trump is making an actual declaration of intent — not just to refuse to respect the outcome, but rather to try to cancel and override it, if he is able to get away with it.” [Emphasis Added]

"Why ignore the alarms?

"So the big question then is: Why did senior editors decide to bury the story?

"They’ve gotten used to printing lies. They barely squawk when Trump calls them the “enemy of the people.” ... They just continue to “do the work.”

"The more immediate cause, however, is that these newsroom leaders made a considered, intentional decision not to panic after Trump was elected. This was an epic, obvious mistake, and everything that has happened since was in some sense entirely predictable.

"They should have gone on a war footing – and by that I don’t mean a partisan war against Trump, I mean a journalistic war against lies, ignorance and intolerance.

"They decided their normal methods of covering a president were appropriate – and, even if they weren’t, were too important to modify for just one. So they got used to writing stories about whatever Trump said, like this was normal.

"They decided to keep a level head.

"And now they can’t suddenly change their behavior. Partly, it’s inertia. But it’s also because that would be admitting that maybe they were wrong before. And they’re too proud to admit they’re wrong.

"So they don’t listen to the people warning them of the extraordinary danger ahead. They muffle the alarms, hand out earplugs, close the windows, and tell everyone to continue business as usual.

DNR - A new use for a medical acronym

 In medical situations, DNR is short for do-not-resuscitate.  In this Wild West World of 2020, we have found it useful to repurpose it as a trumpet call for some our Checks and Balances efforts.

 

For example when dealing with a video clip of a known serial liar we could let DNR stand for Do Not Rebroadcast!  or Do Not Replay Because every time that happens, there's a strong chance that the rebroadcast will amplify more lies and spread them wider and faster.

When someone has tweeted or retweeted what you know to be a proven false conspiracy theory, DNR could simply mean Do Not Retweet! 

DNR could also stand for Do Not Reamplify, Do Not Repeat, Do Not Release your hold on that live mic, or Do Not Rope-a-dope yourself.

Even the common medical use of DNR makes sense in today's political climate as each rebroadcast or retweet provides extra oxygen to those who wish to misinform, disinform, distract, etc. which is exactly what they want.   

We urge all to heed the DNR call and Do Not Relent.

We will likely revisit this idea in future posts.

He Who Must Not Be Given the Benefit of the Doubt, Must Not Be Amplified

Some handy acronyms and shorthand phrases for discussing Checks and Balances situations and keeping your eye on the ball.

1.  BFA - Bad Faith Actor - someone who lies or  misinforms or disinforms or incites violence or aims to create chaos or ...  Someone whose actions cause harm.

2.  HW - He Who (as in "He Who Must Not be Named" or "He Who Must Not Be Amplified" or "He Who Must Not Be Given the Benefit of the Doubt.")  Used for any BFA but particularly as a way to write and talk about the current president without amplifying him by mentioning his name.  

[This post is a good example of walking our talk on this particular point.]

My theory is that the fewer references to his name, the less amplification of him and his bad faith messages and the harm that they cause.  

3.  HW & HM - He Who & His Minions (i.e. his enablers who we also do not wish to amplify.

Bottom Line Checks and Balances Rule:  Based on their actions to date it is essential that we do not give HW & HM the benefit of the doubt.  In our talking and our writing about him it is essential that we do not amplify any of his harmful messaging..  More on all this later.

"Do Not Repeat Labeling Something as "Unprecedented"

This year we have been inundated with the use of the label "unprecedented."  It's been used so often that being unprecedented seems to be the most precedented thing going.  So when you use that term it's really close to meaningless.

We have so many good adjectives to use.  Pick the ones that have the most explanatory power for the situation you are describing.   How about "harmful," "illegal," "dangerous," "just plain wrong," "crossed a line," "completely unacceptable," "terrible," "deadly," "dark," "scary," "damaging,"or "illuminating as to motives."   

When you try to explain the situation you are considering, a moment's reflection will help you choose adjectives of power rather than empty overused cliches like "unprecedented."

These are really precedented times.  Times when a seemingly unending stream of dangerous situations grabs our attention every day.  These are times when applying proper Checks and Balances is going to be an essential skill.  Stopping using "unprecedented" is one small but helpful step.  

Bottom Line.  DNR.  Do Not Repeatedly Label anything "unprecedented."    Thanks

Getting Started

Day 1.  Checks and Balances are an essential part of our USA Republic.
This blog will aim to make observations and suggestions that support and promote the healthy functioning of our checks and balance system.