There goes the NY Times again, downplaying the reality of what Trump/Vance stand for. “Combative conservatism” is bended-knee journalistic weakness, and this “Political Memo” is standard-issue in the genre the Times has mastered. (I’m not linking to it.)

The reality of Trump/Vance is that they are planning a dictatorship. They’ve made that absolutely clear. They are, for all practical purposes, outright fascists.

Just pathetic, and also the standard at the Times (and many other big “news” organizations at this point)…

Note: The reporter’s byline comes with this hilarious addendum: “Michael C. Bender traveled on Senator JD Vance’s campaign plane this week for events in Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.” Yeah, that qualifies him to make this judgment.

Topics in the latest edition of my “Cornerstone of democracy” newsletter — a compendium of the best of political reporting/commentary (and more) — include:

— Best debate commentary
— Real fact-checking
— Texas city’s war on women (and anyone who helps them)
— Parents of dead child eviscerate extremists

I curate to save you time. Please subscribe (it’s free), and let other folks know about it.

Let me know about great work I’ve missed.

Again, that link: https://cornerstone.ghost.io/essentials-september-11-2024/

This first appeared in my “Cornerstone of Democracy” newsletter.

The publisher of the New York Times posted an essay, warning of a war on the press if Trump re-takes the White House. A.G. Sulzberger is the latest member of his family (which holds controlling shares in the company) to be in charge there. In his piece, he gave a vivid description of how Hungary’s prime minister (read: dictator), Viktor Orban, has taken control of the media through a series of moves that all but destroyed freedom of the press there. Trump and his apparatchiks, said Sulzberger, were likely planning the same kind of moves.

Then came the disclaimer that undermined everything else he wrote – and showed once again what a feckless, timid organization he leads.

As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence, I have no interest in wading into politics. I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection. It is beyond shortsighted to give up journalistic independence out of fear that it might later be taken away. At The Times, we are committed to following the facts and presenting a full, fair and accurate picture of November’s election and the candidates and issues shaping it. Our democratic model asks different institutions to play different roles; this is ours.

At the same time, as the steward of one of the country’s leading news organizations, I feel compelled to speak out about threats to the free press, as my predecessors and I have done to leaders of both parties. I am doing so here, in the pages of an esteemed competitor, because I believe the risk is shared by our entire profession, as well as all who depend on it. In highlighting this campaign, I am not advising people how to vote. There are countless issues on the ballot that are closer to voters’ hearts than protections for my broadly unpopular profession. But the weakening of a free and independent press matters, whatever your party or politics. The flow of trustworthy news and information is critical to a free, secure and prosperous nation. This is why defense of the free press has been a point of rare bipartisan consensus throughout the nation’s history. As President Ronald Reagan put it: “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong, and independent press to our continued success in what the Founding Fathers called our ‘noble experiment’ in self-government.”

Press critics are already tearing this apart, and rightly so. Sulzberger is simply lying when he claims the Times has been “following the facts and presenting a full, fair and accurate picture of November’s election and the candidates and issues shaping it.” No major journalism organization has done more in the past few years to normalize Trump – who has vowed to be a dictator, for god’s sake – and extremism. Its political coverage has been disgracefully shabby and shallow, with some noteworthy exceptions, for decades. If the Times maintained its “journalistic independence” by relentlessly doing its job, that would be a huge improvement.

It wouldn’t be nearly enough, however.

Sulzberger can’t wrap his privileged mind around something that feels obvious to me, but which is plainly a non-starter in the highest ranks of American media. When one candidate and party are out to kill democracy, journalism will automatically be on the hit list if they take power. The first, most existential threat is not to journalism. It is to democracy.

Which is why I’ve begged journalists to be activists for democracy. Some already are, but sadly, most are unwilling to connect these dots. At any rate, the Times is definitely not going to do it. At the Times, activism is reserved for mounting an all-hands-on-deck campaign pushing the incumbent president out of the race.

Sulzberger is engaging in a liberal New Yorker’s fantasy when he imagines that his news organization would survive in any useful way if right-wing extremists take over our government. He and his team may have studied Hungary and other “authoritarian” states’ destruction of the press, but they have plainly not learned much.

They will learn this, though, if the worst happens this fall: When fascists take over, journalists have two choices. They can collaborate with the regime. Or they can join the resistance.

Topics in the latest edition of my “Cornerstone of democracy” newsletter — a compendium of the best of political reporting/commentary (and more) — include:

— catharsis in Chicago
— what’s at stake
— voting rights
— capitalism at its worst
— crap fact-checking

I curate to save you time. Please subscribe (it’s free), and let me know about great work I’ve missed.

Six years ago I begged journalists to “stop being loudspeakers for liars” — and I have to admit that my entreaties fell on deaf ears.

Last week’s lie-filled “press conference” at Trump’s home was a powerful demonstration of why journalists should at least try to deal with a situation they encounter again and again and again. But they’ve made it clear that they will never even acknowledge this fundamental flaw in what they do, much less do anything to repair the ongoing damage.

I guess it’s hopeless but I keep hoping that the craft will someday recognize what damage it’s doing to all of us.