The framing of the question to you is incredibly telling. I have argued this for a long time--and I will continue to argue it, and I base it not on partisanship but being not only a historian, but also a onetime newspaper reporter and editor. The L word for the media is not "Liberal." It is "Lazy." It is easier to write about polarization involving both sides, period, than on the obvious asymmetry of it. It is easier to write, "Trump Claims, Z Denies," because that's exactly what they did during the McCarthy era, and why he got away with so much for so long. The internet has made this worse, but it is a long-standing problem.
To put it another way, two things:
First, has anyone counted how many times Carl Hulse of The New York Times has proclaimed the existence of bipartisanship, as he did recently when the House passed the Ukraine and Israel aid measures? THAT was bipartisanship? Spare me.
Second, a combination of stories. Tip O'Neill once recounted how Evans and Novak would have some juicy item on a member of Congress, and three weeks later have a reference to Representative X or Senator Y doing a great job. He said that was the signal as to who the source was--the return for the source was a favorable shoutout.
Which brings me to the rope line. When senators emerge, there's a rope line of reporters. Does anyone recall Bob Corker, the senator from Tennessee? He could stop and visit, knew their names, knew their families. Elizabeth Warren NEVER stops there--she is off to her next obligation. When Corker managed to criticize Trump once or twice, the press hailed him as a great man of principle, and backed him when Trump responded. How did the media handle the "Pocahontas" claims? You know the answer. Yes, republicans have become a treasonous party. But they couldn't get to this point without the political media's help.
"So I’d strongly disagree that the right and left are in comparable positions. "
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to them like this. Gawd how I wish more influential people (anybody and everybody with an audience) would do the same - repeatedly and loudly.
And Mr Green too is correct in that the framing is telling and it definitely is "Lazy" writing.
This reminds me of the paradox of tolerance. The media has framed the culture wars as: “You like gays, I don’t like gays.” And it seems to make sense, but it’s wildly wrong.
How can we get media and political discourse to see this modern division as authoritarian vs Democratic? But it’s more than that, right? Because it’s not about a form of government, it’s also about the substance. Specifically of tolerance, individual freedom (for love, health, wearing what they want to wear), and the protection of human dignity and self determination.
Do you think it is that we don’t have the right words to describe the problem or is it actual suppression of this framework by those with power?
I’m guessing Lawrence Glickman & Seth Cotlar, would definitely approve of this piece. Back in my twitter days, I always liked the phrase “Radical Right-Wing Authoritarian”, when referring to any MAGA Republican.
really appreciate your analysis here, Kevin. the strong desire by so many journalists to make the parties basically the same—both plagued by the same extremism that migrated from the fringes to poison the mainstream—fuels normalizing the MAGA movement and Trump in particular.
this single phenomenon of false equivalency fuels a lot of the bizarre, asymmetrical coverage we see in which Trump is depicted as being "unconventional," while Biden is almost always brought up as failing and having the poor taste to be old (a few years older than Trump, only a decade older than the "youth" candidate RFK Jr.
The framing of the question to you is incredibly telling. I have argued this for a long time--and I will continue to argue it, and I base it not on partisanship but being not only a historian, but also a onetime newspaper reporter and editor. The L word for the media is not "Liberal." It is "Lazy." It is easier to write about polarization involving both sides, period, than on the obvious asymmetry of it. It is easier to write, "Trump Claims, Z Denies," because that's exactly what they did during the McCarthy era, and why he got away with so much for so long. The internet has made this worse, but it is a long-standing problem.
To put it another way, two things:
First, has anyone counted how many times Carl Hulse of The New York Times has proclaimed the existence of bipartisanship, as he did recently when the House passed the Ukraine and Israel aid measures? THAT was bipartisanship? Spare me.
Second, a combination of stories. Tip O'Neill once recounted how Evans and Novak would have some juicy item on a member of Congress, and three weeks later have a reference to Representative X or Senator Y doing a great job. He said that was the signal as to who the source was--the return for the source was a favorable shoutout.
Which brings me to the rope line. When senators emerge, there's a rope line of reporters. Does anyone recall Bob Corker, the senator from Tennessee? He could stop and visit, knew their names, knew their families. Elizabeth Warren NEVER stops there--she is off to her next obligation. When Corker managed to criticize Trump once or twice, the press hailed him as a great man of principle, and backed him when Trump responded. How did the media handle the "Pocahontas" claims? You know the answer. Yes, republicans have become a treasonous party. But they couldn't get to this point without the political media's help.
"So I’d strongly disagree that the right and left are in comparable positions. "
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to them like this. Gawd how I wish more influential people (anybody and everybody with an audience) would do the same - repeatedly and loudly.
And Mr Green too is correct in that the framing is telling and it definitely is "Lazy" writing.
This reminds me of the paradox of tolerance. The media has framed the culture wars as: “You like gays, I don’t like gays.” And it seems to make sense, but it’s wildly wrong.
How can we get media and political discourse to see this modern division as authoritarian vs Democratic? But it’s more than that, right? Because it’s not about a form of government, it’s also about the substance. Specifically of tolerance, individual freedom (for love, health, wearing what they want to wear), and the protection of human dignity and self determination.
Do you think it is that we don’t have the right words to describe the problem or is it actual suppression of this framework by those with power?
I so appreciate your scholarship, thoughtful analysis and careful explication. Thank you.
Thank you! You're very kind
Not too mention that DEI, transgender rights, and even peaceful pro-Palestinian campus protests aren't all that radical or fringy
I’m guessing Lawrence Glickman & Seth Cotlar, would definitely approve of this piece. Back in my twitter days, I always liked the phrase “Radical Right-Wing Authoritarian”, when referring to any MAGA Republican.
Well said.
really appreciate your analysis here, Kevin. the strong desire by so many journalists to make the parties basically the same—both plagued by the same extremism that migrated from the fringes to poison the mainstream—fuels normalizing the MAGA movement and Trump in particular.
this single phenomenon of false equivalency fuels a lot of the bizarre, asymmetrical coverage we see in which Trump is depicted as being "unconventional," while Biden is almost always brought up as failing and having the poor taste to be old (a few years older than Trump, only a decade older than the "youth" candidate RFK Jr.
thank you.