FREE TRIAL VERSION. DON'T MISS OUT. |
FREE TRIAL VERSION. DON'T MISS OUT. |
|
|
The Media Still Hasn’t Learned the Lessons of 2016 |
By David Corn July 13, 2024 |
President Joe Biden holding a news conference at the 2024 NATO Summit on Thursday. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images |
|
|
You're reading a free promotional version of Our Land, and we hope you enjoy David's exclusive writing and don't want to miss out on what's next. Sign up to start receiving a free 30-day trial of Our Land and check out all of the behind-the-scenes reports and interactive features with each issue.
|
|
|
It looks as if 2024 is turning into 2016. That is, in terms of media coverage.
In recent days, we’ve seen the political press engage in a feeding frenzy following Joe Biden’s meltdown at the first presidential debate. There has been story after story about his age and mental acuity and the discussions (public and private) among Democrats as to whether he should be (or could be) replaced as the party’s presidential nominee.
Coverage of all this is entirely legitimate. Biden’s debate performance prompted important concerns. (Was this a one-off or a sign of a condition that could manifest itself again and perhaps doom the effort to keep Donald Trump from returning to the White House?) Moreover, the squabbling among Democrats is catnip for reporters and pundits, especially when the possibility of an open convention looms. But this episode illustrates what often is wrong with the media: proportionality.
Biden’s age and the Democratic circular firing squad have generated far more ink (as we used to say before the digital age) than any of Trump’s miscues or the GOP’s Dear Leader-ish loyalty to an inveterate liar and convicted felon who expresses deeply authoritarian yearnings. Trump endorses a call for military tribunals for his enemy, and it’s not on the front page of the New York Times. Republican leaders are not pressed by reporters to comment on this outrageous statement. The same happens when Trump urges suspending the Constitution so he could be reinstated as president. His promise to pardon the violent January 6 insurrectionists does not cause much of the media to question his fitness for office or to relentlessly press Republicans to address his tacit endorsement of violence. When Trump praises a fictitious serial killer (Hannibal Lecter) during a campaign rally, it’s a nothing-burger for much of the press. Ditto when he rambles on about windmills, toilets, sharks, washing machines, electric boats, or whatever at rallies where QAnon music is played. His verbal missteps—often he cannot deliver a coherent paragraph—don’t generate headlines or in-depth stories full of speculation about his cognitive abilities. He gets a pass. It’s just Trump being Trump. And Biden stans are right to be pissed off by the imbalance.
All this reminds me of 2016. Ever since, the phrase “But her emails” has become shorthand for criticism of the media coverage of that election that hyper-fixated on the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. At the time, I believed that the email business was worth press attention. But the intensity of the coverage was out of sync with other aspects of this important contest. Most notably, Donald Trump’s background, with his long history of misconduct, did not spur a similar media uproar. And there was so much there: his past ties to organized crime; his sleazy business dealings; his supersized conflicts of interests; his advocacy of noxious right-wing conspiracy theories (and his praise of conspiracist Alex Jones); his multiple lies about himself and just about everything else; and more. (We at Mother Jones covered these subjects, but it was usually a lonely ride.) The novelty of Trump and the spectacle of Trump (those rallies!) drew all the notice. Not until the Access Hollywood “grab ’em by the pussy” video emerged did Trump face a media firestorm.
And then came another big media failure.
As soon as that video (seemingly) blew up the election, WikiLeaks began releasing Democratic material that had been swiped from the inbox of John Podesta, the chair of Clinton’s campaign, by Russian hackers. The leaks continued almost daily over the final four weeks of the campaign. The political press went gaga over transcripts of Clinton’s private speeches, internal emails, and other material. These leaks were indeed newsworthy at times. But the media missed the bigger story that was hiding in plain sight: Russia was attacking the 2016 election to help Trump become president. Worse, Trump was aiding and abetting this assault by echoing Vladimir Putin’s false claims that Moscow was not covertly intervening in the US race. He was betraying the nation he sought to lead.
Think about it. What’s more important? Reporting on the transcript of what Clinton had said during a speech to bankers (which was not that controversial) or focusing on the fact that a foreign adversary was undermining an American election to put its preferred candidate into the White House, with that candidate lending this regime a helping hand? Put that way, it’s a no-brainer, right? But that’s not how it played out. There was no media furor about the Russian operation and Trump’s exploitation of it.
Eight years later, the media still goes bananas over the Democrats’ travails and pays less attention to Trump’s extremism. That’s not to say they never cover the danger presented by Trump. The New York Times and the Washington Post have each published important reports on Project 2025, a right-wing plan for a second Trump term that includes far-right and authoritarian measures. But the threat Trump poses to American democracy has not become a main narrative of the campaign. There are far more articles on such horse-race-ish matters as polling and Trump’s fundraising and staffing issues than on his craving to be an autocrat.
Meanwhile, to make the 2016-2024 comparison even more troubling, there have been reports recently that the Russians are at it again—prepping to intervene in this election to help Trump, who has signaled he might fulfill Putin’s fantasy by pulling out of NATO and ending US assistance to Ukraine if he wins the election. I last wrote about these Russian efforts in May. They are ongoing and underreported.
This past week, the Justice Department announced it had disrupted the efforts of “Russian actors to create an AI-enhanced social media bot farm that spread disinformation in the United States and abroad. The social media bot farm used elements of AI to create fictitious social media profiles—often purporting to belong to individuals in the United States—which the operators then used to promote messages in support of Russian government objective.” This Moscow endeavor was aimed at reducing support in the United States for military assistance for Ukraine, but it easily could have pivoted to an attempt to influence the election.
The day after the Justice Department announcement, officials with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told reporters that Moscow has initiated a plan to mess with the 2024 election to aid Trump. "It's all the tactics we've seen before, primarily through social media, efforts using influential US voices to amplify their narratives and other tactics," an official said. "And as far as who they're targeting, what we can say today is, Russia is sophisticated enough to know that targeting swing state voters is particularly valuable to them." I saw this reported in a few media outlets: the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Al Jazeera, CNN, ABC, NBC, and Fox News. (Yes, Fox News.) But I didn’t catch anything in the New York Times or the Washington Post. And, most important, there was no overall hullabaloo about the United States being attacked yet again by Putin. Where are all the stories demanding that Trump denounce this and pressuring Republicans to address the matter?
Fixating on a liability of the Democratic candidate, letting Trump slide, and not making a fuss about a clandestine Russian operation to boost Trump. It’s déjà vu all over again. We all know that old saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. It seems we—or the conventional media—haven’t learned much from 2016. This year, a repeat of that media performance could well lead to another Trump presidency, but one far more dangerous and threatening to the survival of American democracy than the first.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
Me, My Back, and Our Land |
I regret to inform you that I am in need of back surgery. The problem is I have a crooked spine. Over the decades, it’s intermittently caused me bearable back pain. But in recent months, the pain has been severe, impeding walking, standing, and sitting fully upright—actions that we all tend to take for granted. To bring me back to a functioning and vertical condition, a surgeon is going to dig into my back and perform some magic. I should be back to bungee jumping soon.
But what does this mean for you? Over the next two weeks, Our Land will consist of greatest hits from past issues. Yes, I will be missing the GOP’s crazy-fest in Milwaukee starting on Monday. This will be the first presidential nomination convention I’ve not attended in decades. But it’s hard to cover such an event if you cannot walk, stand, or sit. I apologize that Our Land will not have dispatches from Trump’s coronation and that I will be out of pocket while the Democrats (I assume) continue to muddle through the crisis Biden triggered with his debate disaster. But I shall see you soon, and we all know there will be plenty for me to write about in the perilous weeks ahead. And a word of advice: Do those exercises that strengthen your core!
|
The Mafia, the CIA, and Me |
As I noted not long ago, I have at least one egotistical yearning: to appear in movies. Oh, I don’t get to act. And I don’t get to play a real-life pundit in disaster or alien invasion movies. (“Good evening, I’m Wolf Blitzer, and Godzilla has not been spotted in four days now.”) When I’m on the silver screen, it’s usually in a documentary as a talking head who’s an expert on the subject at hand. That’s how I came to be one of the many historians and experts featured in a sassy new series premiering next week on Paramount+, Mafia Spies.
Based on the book of the same name by Thomas Maier, the series tells the still-unbelievable story of how the CIA hooked up with the Mafia in the late 1950s and early 1960s to try to assassinate Fidel Castro. But Mafia Spies is far from a dry documentary that relies on us academics, authors, and journalists to tell the story. It is a razzle-dazzle production that intercuts wonderful archival footage and elaborate reenactments with occasional commentary from a Greek chorus of a dozen or more know-it-alls, such as me.
With the acted-out segments, backed by a snazzy soundtrack, director Tom Donahue creates a Mission: Impossible feel for the series. (I’m talking about the 1960s television series, not the Tom Cruise franchise.) Re-enactments can often make a documentary appear cheesy. But in Mafia Spies, these scenes, which don’t include dialogue, work. With actors portraying mobster Johnny Roselli, CIA director Allen Dulles, Chicago crime boss Sam Giancana, private investigator Robert Maheu, John and Robert Kennedy, Castro, Frank Sinatra, and others, these segments bring a blood-and-flesh reality to this bizarre tale.
And, yes, I did say Frank Sinatra. He was a buddy and (secretly) a business partner of Giancana, whose lieutenant, Roselli, was the Mafia’s point man in working with CIA officers to bump off Castro. (Poison pens! Exploding cigars!) The mob, which had a big presence in Havana before Castro and his guerrillas overthrew the corrupt regime of military dictator Fulgencio Batista, still supposedly had connections in Cuba that could be exploited to kill El Jefe. Meanwhile, Giancana’s gal pal, Judith Exner, was also consorting with JFK. There’s a lot of entertaining sordidness in this story, and Mafia Spies wallows in it in the best way. This could be fiction, but it ain’t.
What’s my role in this? Years ago, I wrote a book called Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA’s Crusades. Shackley was a longtime CIA officer who served in many Cold War hot spots, including Berlin, Laos, and Saigon. In the early 1960s, he was chief of the agency’s secret station set up in Miami to be a base for many of the hare-brained operations waged against Castro and Cuba. In one notorious episode, he and Bill Harvey, a CIA officer in charge of the covert war against Cuba, delivered a U-Haul full of weapons to Roselli in a drive-in restaurant parking lot. Roselli then transferred the arms to a group of Cuban exiles. In return, the leader of this group promised to smuggle four poison pills concocted by CIA chemists into Cuba for use against Castro. (Spoiler alert: This scheme didn’t work. Castro was not poisoned.)
I appear in the series as an expert on the CIA’s covert campaign against Cuba, among others far more knowledgeable than me, including Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive and Tim Weiner, former New York Times journalist and author of the indispensable Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. And though Mafia Spies is a bit of a the-gang-that-couldn’t-shoot-straight romp, there’s a serious point at hand. The US government got into bed with criminals to commit illegal actions—and this secret was kept from the public for many years. More important, there’s reason to wonder if the net result of all this ineffective skullduggery was indeed an assassination, but not of Castro. Lee Harvey Oswald was a pro-Castro activist before killing Kennedy. With Castro publicly complaining about the CIA’s attacks on Cuba—allegations the US press did not take seriously—Oswald may well have been motivated to shoot Kennedy as revenge. I’m not going further down that rabbit hole. And neither does Mafia Spies. The series makes history fun and reminds us that secrecy breeds license for misdeeds and that the covert schemers of government always need close watching.
|
|
|
An Early Warning on Project 2025
|
There’s a lot of talk these days about Project 2025, the right-wing masterplan for implementing authoritarian and uber-conservative measures should Trump regain the White House. I’d like to point out that readers of this newsletter were informed of the peril posed by Project 2025 last September. At the time, I wrote:
There is an authoritarian danger that threatens American democracy. It is a separate peril from Donald Trump and his tens of millions of rabid supports. It is the right-wing infrastructure that is publicly plotting to undermine the checks and balances of our constitutional order and concentrate unprecedented power in the presidency. Its efforts, if successful and coupled with a Trump (or other GOP) victory in 2024, would place the nation on a path to autocracy.
I’m glad others have finally caught up. |
Dumbass Comment of the Week |
The judges tend to not bother with Donald Trump. Otherwise, he’d be a contender—perhaps a winner—every week. But they did want to share their disgust over this Trump comment:
But when people who love our country protest on January 6 in Washington, they become hostages unfairly imprisoned for long periods of time. But fortunately, the Supreme Court has just ruled and they should be out soon. |
This is nothing new for Trump. He has long hailed the violent insurrectionists he incited and has suggested he will pardon those arrested and convicted should be become president again. But, of course, he was not describing the recent Supreme Court decision correctly. The court did not rule that all January 6 domestic terrorists should be released. The court essentially declared that the rioters could not be indicted under a particular obstruction law. This affects only 346 of the 1,417 people so far charged for being part of the assault on the Capitol. And, as NPR noted, “Of that 346, 128 defendants were convicted by a jury of obstruction and another crime, most often another felony, which would still stand.” Hard to believe, but Trump lied about the Supreme Court decision.
Asked about the 2024 election, David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN’s parent company, said it didn’t matter to him which party wins the presidential election, as long as the victor is kind to the business community: “We just need an opportunity for deregulation, so companies can consolidate and do what we need to to be even better.” |
Profit uber alles. Zaslav apparently has no concern regarding Trump’s authoritarian impulses, climate change, or the right of women to control their bodies. Democracy doesn’t die in darkness. It dies when people in positions of power don’t give a damn about democracy.
Sebastian Gorka, the right-wing commentator and promoter of fish oil pills, had a near-winner this week, with a remark about Vice President Kamala Harris: “She's a DEI hire, right? She's a woman. She's colored. Therefore, she's got to be good." |
Here’s another sign of how racism and sexism are celebrated in Trumpland. This despicable line about Harris has been spreading through the right-wing swamp. New York Post columnist Charles Gasparino said the same in an article headlined “America may soon be subjected to the country’s first DEI president: Kamala Harris.” This is an indication of what will come Harris’ way should she end up replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee.
Close but no cigar, Gorka. This week, the prize goes to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) for his claim that the United States is a Christian nation: “Some will say I am calling America a Christian nation, and so I am. Some will say I am advocating Christian nationalism, and so I am.” |
Officially—that is, according to the Constitution—the USA is not a Christian nation. But Hawley doesn’t care about such niceties. He’s tossing red meat to those who don’t understand the First Amendment or the history of this nation. (The founders did not as a group believe the new country to be a Christian nation.) For exploiting this ignorance, Hawley leads the rest. |
As you can imagine, the reaction to recent issues about Joe Biden’s debate performance and the question of whether he should remain in the race was quite strong and varied. My take has been that the odds might be best for Democrats if he steps aside, anoints Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement, and the party immediately coalesces behind her. I reached this conclusion because I believe the issue of Biden’s age and acuity—as well as another public manifestation of any cognitive decline—loses him votes among low-engaged and uncommitted voters, and he needs support within this bloc to win. And if the paramount priority is to prevent a Trump restoration, this cannot be waved away with the arguments that he had a bad night, that he has an accomplished record, or that Trump is an awful person and a profound threat to American democracy. Others see it differently.
Deedee Gunderson wrote:
Thanks for your article on Biden’s debate performance. Yes, it was depressingly lacking in force. But you know what? I don’t care, and I’ll bet a lot of other Democrats don’t care either. Biden is not an entertainer; he’s the president who brought us affordable insulin, expanded healthcare for our veterans, infrastructure projects, new jobs in chip-making, and so much more. In my state (New Mexico) we are already seeing the benefits.
No one, no matter how young and sharp, could possibly keep up with Trump’s gallop of falsehoods, especially under the rules used for this debate. I’ll stick with the guy who has wisdom, compassion and a great deal of political experience. I’ll take him over a screamy, self-involved pathological liar any day. I have FAR more faith in Biden and his team than in Trump and his circus monkeys. Will Stanton emailed:
I have a great deal of respect for you writing and agree with you most times. However, on this I think you and the others calling for Biden to step aside are wrong. The MAGA folks are ecstatic—"We told you Sleepy Joe was too old and now the Democrats are agreeing with us.” I am sure they will use selected clips of the debate in their campaign ads. They welcome this discussion as it distracts from the real issue of how dangerous and unfit to serve Donald Trump is. This call for Biden to step aside also reinforces the performance over policy rather than counters it.
The idea that some Democrats are calling for the most qualified and effective president in my lifetime to step aside because of bad debate performance is outrageous. I believe Joe Biden is an effective campaigner and President precisely because he is not a smooth orator. He comes across and is a real person who connects with regular people in a way that Bill and Hilary Clinton never did. Barack Obama could make the connection but not deliver the results that Joe Biden has and can.
President Biden is certainly up to the job much more than the three years younger Trump ever was. Yes, there could come a time when President Biden is not up to the job during his term. In that case he has an excellent vice president and staff to step in if that happens. Contrast to Trump who is a walking heart attack/stroke waiting to happen who will never "step aside" voluntarily. Sad that we don't see a New York Times piece about all the reasons Trump should step aside now for the good of the country.
Eileen Prefontaine was sharper:
After your original article about Biden's debate performance, and your self-righteous defense of that article, I am angry. And the other people writing for Mother Jones have also annoyed me to no end about the debate. I am angry at other reporters for their knee-jerk response to Biden's performance as well. Debates have many flaws built into them. Biden was heavily coached for a week beforehand and tried to fit in too much of what he was told to say. And he didn't just have a cold, he was very sick, and exhausted.
If only it had been allowed for CNN to fact-check Trump during the debate. That would have helped tremendously. How would you like to stand in a room, exhausted from your many duties, age 81 or not, and try to debate a loose cannon like Trump? Stop panicking, put on your big boy pants, and stand behind Biden. Raise money for him. Join others in telling the world all the good things he has done during his presidency.
I’m not going to reiterate the entire case I made. My bottom line is this: Whether Democrats like it or not, Biden needs independents and loosely engaged and low-information voters to win. My calculation is that the issue of Biden’s age and ability—fair or not—will not play well with these and other voters. Consequently, the odds of a Trump return to the White House increase. If the goal for Democrats, progressives, and Never Trump moderates and conservatives is to thwart that, then Biden’s limitations need to be considered candidly. And, yes, CNN hosts Jake Tapper and Dana Bash ought to have called out at least a few of the many lies Trump spewed at the debate.
Don Chabot was more on my side:
Your comments on the debate in the Our Land email are spot on. Joe needs to withdraw from the race. He may be too old for the job of president, but with staff and support he can still act as figurehead. He is however totally incapable of countering Trump’s BS and winning the election. There is no doubt in my mind that he is headed to defeat in November. If he is not replaced it becomes another data point in the argument that political parties are totally disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people.
Larry Glickman added:
Even if the debate were just an off night, at 81, the situation isn't going to get any better over the next five years for Biden. Somehow a committee of Dems need to convince him to step aside Harris or just about anyone else (assuming much younger than Biden) would be a better choice. If it wasn't for the only other option given his likely opponent in November, there'd be an awful lot of us sitting this election out, and we really need a better reason to vote for him. But with his stubbornness, it's like a case of trying to take a driver's license away from someone who's too old and dangerous to be on the road anymore.
Michael Tomkins tossed in this point: Also consider that now Biden must use precious time defending his performance and his ability to do the job.
That’s the key thing. This election should focus on how Trump imperils the nation and on Biden’s impressive legislature record, as well as their plans for the future. Now the issue of Biden’s competency will dominate the campaign, whether we like it or not. That is not a winning topic for the Democrats. |
“Moxie, we have to go. It’s almost 9 a.m., and there are no dogs allowed on the beach after that.” “Why would anyone create such a rule?” “I don’t know. But that’s what the sign says.” “What about cats? Does the sign say anything about cats?” “No, it does not.” “Hmmmm. Can we talk to a lawyer about this?” |
|
|
Congratulations, you read all the way to the end! It's a great time to say "I'm in" and start your free 30-day trial. Make sure you don't miss out on what's next: Sign up to start getting Our Land in your inbox each week. We also want to hear from readers (especially those who read the whole thing!). So let us know what you think so far or share something interesting with David at ourland@motherjones.com.
|
|
|
|