Great CNN puff piece. I would agree that correcting the lab leak story would be “accountability” IF the story unfolded in the innocent manner that this article attempts to paint…
Fact is: it did not. There was a strong body at the time that a lab leak was a real possibility. In fact, we now have evidence that information and opinions were manipulated to discredit lab leak hypothesis.
But was the MSM (a/k/a, the guardians of freedom) the least bit curious? No. They brought the disinformation story hook, line & sinker and ran with it. The “experts” that the MSM outlets (like CNN) put on the air openly mocked the idea. Fauci said it didn’t happen despite what we now know about him towing the narrative for others.
But the critical part of the problem isn’t that they got the story wrong. It’s that there was ABSOLUTELY ZERO journalist curiosity at the time about the origin. Why? Simple: Trump said it came from the Wuhan lab so that now cannot be what happened.
We have all witnessed this same “M.O.” with the Russian Dossier and the Hunter Biden laptop. The MSM didn’t get these stories wrong - they actively engaged in willful blindness that involved covering up the truth - something they are still engaged in to this very day. They never ever entertained the thought that the story may have more and different facts and truly investigated that angle - not once.
But now that Biden’s president, they can try and use this opportunity to “un-spin” the cover-up in the vain attempt to regain an semblance of integrity they wrongly perceive they have left.
But people are too smart - they can smell a rat in the woodpile. Accountability is not defined as simply taken action AFTER you’ve been caught red handed - like CNN - it involves making sure it doesn’t happen again, but for the MSM (and CNN and MSNBC in particular) that would be way too hard a job to really address.
So expect more “fake news” and more disinformation…and certainly more puff piece about how proactive and accountable the MSM is in doing their job.
The author keeps doubling down on this interpretation, but I don't know how many of us who saw it in real time will be convinced.
His thinking seems to be that either we accept the MSM as flawed but basically reliable or we're -- oh my stars and garters -- playing "Trump's game"! He seems unaware that, to paraphrase Portia, "The quality of skepticism is not strained." My lack of trust in the New York Times -- which it has come by honestly over the course of decades, but never more so than now -- doesn't increase my trust in Trump one whit.
I am a big fan of Jonathan Rauch and cannot think of a better person to contribute significantly to a journal upholding and extolling the virtues of philosophical liberalism, but this is where he and I will have to agree to disagree.
I share Rauch's concern over Trump's ability to corrupt and destroy our institutions from the inside, and that the media cannot operate in such a subversion, and so when they do recognize fault, I am relieved to see it. My suspicion from watching media closely, however, is that much of this corrective behavior would not manifest without a great deal of public scrutiny and demand for correction, which is oftentimes ignored or reduced to stealth editing. The trouble isn't an inability to course-correct, it is an infidelity to basic tenets of journalism—the same ones in which Rauch himself was trained and rightly believes in—are ignored and instead treated as a necessary casualty to furthering a mostly Manichaean narrative that goes beyond (and in some cases pre-dates) any reaction to Trumpian tactics. This isn't to downplay Trump's (imho) enormous wrongdoing, but even if you take Trump out of the equation, you get the same stifling groupthink which these outlets have helped to go fully mainstream.
To simply give the media a chocolate chip cookie and an "attaboy" for correcting themselves is to miss a larger, more industry-wide lacking in fitness for purpose that was already happening. The thing I feel Rauch doesn't see clearly is that Trump is the (regrettable and enormously damaging) reaction to the culture of illiberalism that preceded him, and the MSM's counter-reaction to him was to lean into it rather than to learn from it.
It's not just that the mainstream media were overly gullible, it's that social media gatekeepers piled on and blocked posts on the topic, making it seem even more underground and suspicious and conspiracy-theory-ish. Real scientists posting on this topic were blocked by the powers-that-be at Twitter and Facebook. This is not just 'free-press-business-as-usual'.
This piece addresses a straw man issue(Trumps straw man issue) and rebuts nothing in the way of serious media criticism. The near-complete collapse of the mainstream media is chronicled perfectly well by Bari Weisse and many others so it is neither helpful or necessary to invoke Trump with so many superior critics to choose from. If Rauch seeks to convince us that the system is working perhaps he can explain why we should not be utterly appalled by (i) the lack of serious in depth reporting over what took place at Evergreen State with the ostracising of Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying from that community (ii) the utterly disgraceful and shallow "reporting" of the riots and unrest in Portland where the mayor obviously enjoys the support of sympathetic media staffers almost everywhere (iii) the "nothing to see here" non-reporting of the rise of cancel culture and cencoriousness in our educational institutions and beyond. Any so called free press that is unable to hold the line against--of all things-- facebook and twitter mobs is just simply not working for democracy.
And if I may be allowed one related point: Apoorva Mandavilli, who wrote “Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.”
I am the absolute last person to want someone fired over a tweet, a pernicious statement or even obvious bigotry, but how does a person like that have a job in *journalism*?!
Rauch fails to acknowledge that the purpose of the suppression of the lab leak story was INHERENTLY political - to prevent the Trump Administration from being able to effectively blame China and create a story that was counter to the story the corporate media was pushing: That Trump was single-handedly responsible for every Covid death in the US, and the crashing of the economy, due to personal malfeasance and his racist, xenophobia. The goal was to defeat him in the election using this narrative. It clearly worked, or at least significantly contributed to the outcome of the election.
Trump made lots of mistakes, and clearly, his early efforts to downplay the pandemic were rooted in his political self-interest and were, of course, outrageous. However, the media's clear burying of this story was not just a mistake, it was first and foremost a political act. The correct approach would have been to pull on the threads of the story and get the facts out no matter where they led, independently, and not just fall in line for political expediency. Never mind the fact that the latest reversal is likely due to a Chinese scientist defecting and providing the truth about the situation - a truth that the Biden administration is likely suppressing further to prevent a crisis with China, and derail his attempts to become Lyndon Delano Roosevelt...
We should not be congratulating the media on getting it right once the political stakes were lowered, and a friendly administration was installed, in part, due to their participation in a narrative that helped install Biden.
I see that other commenters are going into details, so I won't. Alas, this particular column by Mr. Rauch strikes me as weak. If you are new to his writings and disagree with him on this column, don't write him off.
“It is true that healthy journalistic skepticism can cross over into partisan political favoritism, but that is not what happened in this case, because the politician at issue is Donald Trump.”
I disagree. Donald Trump’s mendacity justify extreme skepticism but not outright dismissal before investigating the facts, which is what happened with COVID reporting. Yes, better that they retracted later but so much damage had already been done hoping the most important of which was creating the unalterable impression of miss trust in the media within a large segment of our nations population.
Left on addressed in your article but IMHO equally important- is the delatforming of scientists-which still goes on to this day- on YouTube, Facebook etc. The hubris of these “fact checkers” who believe them selves capable of comprehending much less critiquing and even censoring what their betters are discussing in scientific circles is astonishing beyond words.
You damn with faint praise by applauding media outlets for belatedly refocusing on the crux of the issue after months of knee-jerking an anti-Trump reaction.
Great CNN puff piece. I would agree that correcting the lab leak story would be “accountability” IF the story unfolded in the innocent manner that this article attempts to paint…
Fact is: it did not. There was a strong body at the time that a lab leak was a real possibility. In fact, we now have evidence that information and opinions were manipulated to discredit lab leak hypothesis.
But was the MSM (a/k/a, the guardians of freedom) the least bit curious? No. They brought the disinformation story hook, line & sinker and ran with it. The “experts” that the MSM outlets (like CNN) put on the air openly mocked the idea. Fauci said it didn’t happen despite what we now know about him towing the narrative for others.
But the critical part of the problem isn’t that they got the story wrong. It’s that there was ABSOLUTELY ZERO journalist curiosity at the time about the origin. Why? Simple: Trump said it came from the Wuhan lab so that now cannot be what happened.
We have all witnessed this same “M.O.” with the Russian Dossier and the Hunter Biden laptop. The MSM didn’t get these stories wrong - they actively engaged in willful blindness that involved covering up the truth - something they are still engaged in to this very day. They never ever entertained the thought that the story may have more and different facts and truly investigated that angle - not once.
But now that Biden’s president, they can try and use this opportunity to “un-spin” the cover-up in the vain attempt to regain an semblance of integrity they wrongly perceive they have left.
But people are too smart - they can smell a rat in the woodpile. Accountability is not defined as simply taken action AFTER you’ve been caught red handed - like CNN - it involves making sure it doesn’t happen again, but for the MSM (and CNN and MSNBC in particular) that would be way too hard a job to really address.
So expect more “fake news” and more disinformation…and certainly more puff piece about how proactive and accountable the MSM is in doing their job.
The author keeps doubling down on this interpretation, but I don't know how many of us who saw it in real time will be convinced.
His thinking seems to be that either we accept the MSM as flawed but basically reliable or we're -- oh my stars and garters -- playing "Trump's game"! He seems unaware that, to paraphrase Portia, "The quality of skepticism is not strained." My lack of trust in the New York Times -- which it has come by honestly over the course of decades, but never more so than now -- doesn't increase my trust in Trump one whit.
I am a big fan of Jonathan Rauch and cannot think of a better person to contribute significantly to a journal upholding and extolling the virtues of philosophical liberalism, but this is where he and I will have to agree to disagree.
I share Rauch's concern over Trump's ability to corrupt and destroy our institutions from the inside, and that the media cannot operate in such a subversion, and so when they do recognize fault, I am relieved to see it. My suspicion from watching media closely, however, is that much of this corrective behavior would not manifest without a great deal of public scrutiny and demand for correction, which is oftentimes ignored or reduced to stealth editing. The trouble isn't an inability to course-correct, it is an infidelity to basic tenets of journalism—the same ones in which Rauch himself was trained and rightly believes in—are ignored and instead treated as a necessary casualty to furthering a mostly Manichaean narrative that goes beyond (and in some cases pre-dates) any reaction to Trumpian tactics. This isn't to downplay Trump's (imho) enormous wrongdoing, but even if you take Trump out of the equation, you get the same stifling groupthink which these outlets have helped to go fully mainstream.
To simply give the media a chocolate chip cookie and an "attaboy" for correcting themselves is to miss a larger, more industry-wide lacking in fitness for purpose that was already happening. The thing I feel Rauch doesn't see clearly is that Trump is the (regrettable and enormously damaging) reaction to the culture of illiberalism that preceded him, and the MSM's counter-reaction to him was to lean into it rather than to learn from it.
It's not just that the mainstream media were overly gullible, it's that social media gatekeepers piled on and blocked posts on the topic, making it seem even more underground and suspicious and conspiracy-theory-ish. Real scientists posting on this topic were blocked by the powers-that-be at Twitter and Facebook. This is not just 'free-press-business-as-usual'.
This piece addresses a straw man issue(Trumps straw man issue) and rebuts nothing in the way of serious media criticism. The near-complete collapse of the mainstream media is chronicled perfectly well by Bari Weisse and many others so it is neither helpful or necessary to invoke Trump with so many superior critics to choose from. If Rauch seeks to convince us that the system is working perhaps he can explain why we should not be utterly appalled by (i) the lack of serious in depth reporting over what took place at Evergreen State with the ostracising of Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying from that community (ii) the utterly disgraceful and shallow "reporting" of the riots and unrest in Portland where the mayor obviously enjoys the support of sympathetic media staffers almost everywhere (iii) the "nothing to see here" non-reporting of the rise of cancel culture and cencoriousness in our educational institutions and beyond. Any so called free press that is unable to hold the line against--of all things-- facebook and twitter mobs is just simply not working for democracy.
And if I may be allowed one related point: Apoorva Mandavilli, who wrote “Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.”
I am the absolute last person to want someone fired over a tweet, a pernicious statement or even obvious bigotry, but how does a person like that have a job in *journalism*?!
This is absolute, complete garbage.
Rauch fails to acknowledge that the purpose of the suppression of the lab leak story was INHERENTLY political - to prevent the Trump Administration from being able to effectively blame China and create a story that was counter to the story the corporate media was pushing: That Trump was single-handedly responsible for every Covid death in the US, and the crashing of the economy, due to personal malfeasance and his racist, xenophobia. The goal was to defeat him in the election using this narrative. It clearly worked, or at least significantly contributed to the outcome of the election.
Trump made lots of mistakes, and clearly, his early efforts to downplay the pandemic were rooted in his political self-interest and were, of course, outrageous. However, the media's clear burying of this story was not just a mistake, it was first and foremost a political act. The correct approach would have been to pull on the threads of the story and get the facts out no matter where they led, independently, and not just fall in line for political expediency. Never mind the fact that the latest reversal is likely due to a Chinese scientist defecting and providing the truth about the situation - a truth that the Biden administration is likely suppressing further to prevent a crisis with China, and derail his attempts to become Lyndon Delano Roosevelt...
We should not be congratulating the media on getting it right once the political stakes were lowered, and a friendly administration was installed, in part, due to their participation in a narrative that helped install Biden.
Rauch is a dishonest hack, and should be ignored.
I see that other commenters are going into details, so I won't. Alas, this particular column by Mr. Rauch strikes me as weak. If you are new to his writings and disagree with him on this column, don't write him off.
“It is true that healthy journalistic skepticism can cross over into partisan political favoritism, but that is not what happened in this case, because the politician at issue is Donald Trump.”
I disagree. Donald Trump’s mendacity justify extreme skepticism but not outright dismissal before investigating the facts, which is what happened with COVID reporting. Yes, better that they retracted later but so much damage had already been done hoping the most important of which was creating the unalterable impression of miss trust in the media within a large segment of our nations population.
Left on addressed in your article but IMHO equally important- is the delatforming of scientists-which still goes on to this day- on YouTube, Facebook etc. The hubris of these “fact checkers” who believe them selves capable of comprehending much less critiquing and even censoring what their betters are discussing in scientific circles is astonishing beyond words.
You damn with faint praise by applauding media outlets for belatedly refocusing on the crux of the issue after months of knee-jerking an anti-Trump reaction.
If the lab link is total B.S., then why wouldn’t China let in investigators to confirm and remove all doubt?