One of the greatest myths which permeates politics, and is the source of constant struggle for Democrats and people working on progressive causes, is the idea the press has a liberal agenda. Since at least the time of Barry Goldwater, it has been a talking point which has allowed conservatives to “work the refs,” pushing news into a place where the guiding star of the profession’s purpose is a bullshit concept of balance rather than a clear reporting of truth.
The true agenda of the press is the self-interest of ratings and views, dependent on the preservation of relationships and access by not being too hard on the people who feed them stories (i.e., the people they cover). Therefore, the “fourth estate” will always show measured deference to the status quo in declarations of what is “appropriate” or “respectful” according to Washington press corps etiquette standards, and exhibited in their calls for “civility” or constant laments about the lack of “bipartisanship.” This will always hold more sway than reporting reality and seriously calling a lie a lie, because to do otherwise makes the way they do things untenable. And when regular folks point this dynamic out, the media seem to have a hard time grasping their failure, or taking criticism.
So imagine my amusement when they wonder, with many, many words and deficient arguments, as to why progressives don’t like the way they do their jobs. Such is the case with New York magazine columnist Jonathan Chait, a self-described disenfranchised white man, who has just put out a piece wondering why progressives don’t like New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. Over the Memorial Day weekend, Haberman and The Times came under a lot of criticism and ridicule for an article which presented the issue of whether former White House communications director Hope Hicks complies with a congressional subpoena as a melodramatic “existential” question. Many online thought Haberman’s framing was ridiculous, and even beyond the stupid use of the word existential, the article made the concept of complying with the law into an agonizing made-for-TV drama complete with glamour photos of Hicks. Today, without addressing specific criticisms of the story, Haberman claimed the knocks on her work has “gotten extremely personal.” Chait’s article claims there is a “pathological hatred” of Haberman among both the right and left.
Let’s peel this onion. Is Chait’s assertions true? Why might people dislike Haberman’s work? And why has the left become as exasperated by the press’s performance as the right?
From Jonathan Chait at New York magazine:
The piece was not the best specimen of Haberman’s work, but the response to it did illustrate the extraordinary and almost pathological hatred her name provokes. The attacks began with the story’s “decision” premise, and quickly spread to reviving claims that Haberman herself habitually regurgitates administration propaganda. Critics claimed that Haberman’s mother, a public-relations agent, compromises her ability to report independently, called her a “monster,” and so on.
The left-wing HuffPost media critic Ashley Feinberg has included Haberman on both her list of “Cowards, Courtiers, Strivers And Suck-Ups” and her list of “Thinnest Skins in the media.” Haberman can be hated both for her work and the fact that she disagrees with the hatred of her work, a wonderfully perpetual cycle of content-generation.
There’s a lot to unpack about this and Chait’s article, which basically devolves into “Why are progressives so mean?” whining, but I’m gonna try.
A lot of the criticism toward Haberman is based in the belief she colors her articles based on the access she’s given, or more importantly the access she wants to keep, and the fact she is notoriously thin skinned about any criticisms of her work, which usually results in her pouting instead of answering any of the problems. With the Hope Hicks article which brought about this current brouhaha, there’s reporting claiming Hicks is “one of the star White House reporter’s more highly valued sources,” with Haberman working on publishing a book about the Trump White House for which Hicks’s cooperation might come in handy.
So, when the Times frames Hicks as a victim of a process, thrust into an “existential” life choice of whether to comply with the law speak her truth, it might be pertinent that the reporter whose name is on the story might have ulterior motives. These kind of things are important in how the media covers this White House, given the news networks basically turned over free airtime to Trump because he was bankable to say stupid shit on-air. And this is a continuing concern about the media. For example, Chait himself was reported to have said he was “100 percent” happy Trump won the presidency because of the content it would provide for him to write about.
Let’s go through some of Chait’s assertions bit by bit, and see where we end up.
One of the oddities of the left’s Haberman hatred is its failure to recognize identical levels of hatred on the right. Haberman has gotten under President Trump’s skin like no other reporter.
Whether Republicans and conservatives like or dislike Haberman is irrelevant. If the right hates Haberman for her stories, that doesn’t mean people on the left can’t dislike her work for not going far enough. Haberman has long defended the media’s reluctance to use the term “lie” to describe what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth. Her one exception has been when the lies are about HER, then she has no problem using the word. And this inability to press further, state truth flatly, and blithely accept the answers she’s given has been something people have noticed for a while.
It is a fallacy to say, as reporters sometimes do, that they must be doing something right if both sides are complaining.
Then why bring it up other than to lay it out there as something we should consider?
It is also fair to concede that some of Haberman’s work merits some complaint. But the idea that she is on the whole a failure, or an easy mark for the administration, is preposterous.
Watch those goal posts move. See, progressives? She isn’t a complete fuck up, and makes Republicans mad! Why don’t y’all like her?
The progressive loathing of Haberman draws some of its force from the mistaken belief that straight news reporters should stand up to the president and call him out for his unfitness to hold office. Some people who believe this fail to grasp the distinction between news gathering and opinion journalism.
Speaking for myself, I don’t need reporters to be activists. I don’t want them to be activists. I want them to tell us the truth, and report the truth. When members of the press either can’t bring themselves to use the word “lie,” or color their coverage to fit their needs for access, then they aren’t “straight news” reporters. They’re media personalities serving the interests of their employer and themselves.
Others believe Trump’s unique authoritarianism and unfitness for office gives straight reporters a special duty to slip the shackles of objectivity. One thing they might consider, as they direct this frustration against Haberman, is that we know as much as we do about Trump’s authoritarianism and unfitness for office because of her reporting.
With all due respect to Haberman, and she does deserve some credit for what she has reported and the Times has printed, I didn’t need what her or her sources have given me to realize Trump’s authoritarianism or his unfitness for the presidency. He makes that self-evident every time he opens his mouth. And I believe what good work Haberman, and others like Haberman, do put out there is diminished and left incomplete by their inability to truly convey the actual truth, by making it clear to readers and viewer they are “lies” instead of just another viewpoint.
There are a lot of aspects of the 2016 presidential election, and the state of politics and media coverage over the past three years, which should give people pause and be areas of self-reflection for journalists. The media will have none of it, since like everyone else they never want to admit they’re wrong about a goddamn thing, including their part in obsessing over emails and always giving Trump free air time.
And if parts of the left and progressives have issues with the media, it’s because these people will do it to us again. When tomorrow comes, this press corps will have learned nothing from the damage of what has been wrought. They will give the next megalomaniac fool which comes along the same free air time and column space to broadcast stupidity far and wide, if they can get ratings and clicks out of it. Sure, they’ll report the controversy, write editorials decrying the mess, and valiantly make big statements in a nightly pundit circle jerk. But they’ll do it again, and will give the same conservative assholes a soap box with which to lie without calling it a lie.