How Rush Routed The Refuge Seekers

The recent death of right-wing radio firebrand Rush Limbaugh should--but probably won't--provoke mainstream news media producers to reflect on at least two important questions: 

(1) How did someone like Rush Limbaugh, who openly trafficked in (to put it charitably) straw (wo)man caricatures of "liberals" and other "undesirables," become so popular in the first place?  

(2) What was it about the Limbaugh brand that made him, for millions of listeners, more trustworthy than the mainstream press? 

A common response to question #1 is that Rush benefited from the Reagan Era (1987) repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Proponents of this position argue that absent any legal pressure to give rebuttal time to the targets of his scorn, Rush was able to reinforce the views of millions of like-minded folks without ever having to worry about giving voice to the other side. As noted by Business Insider's Jake Lahut, "From that turning point in 1987, what were once considered fringe attitudes about the declining influence of the white working class in America and racial resentment became increasingly mainstream in the GOP as Limbaugh's show went nationwide . . . Limbaugh didn't just yell incendiary things into the microphone all day, but rather cultivated a sense of shared grievances among his audience."

The Fairness Doctrine's repeal in 1987 aided the rise of right wing media, as did a number of other factors

Rush and other right wing talk radio raconteurs no doubt benefited from the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, but realistically it took more than that to aid their AM band ascendancy. In a recent Washington Post op-ed, MIT Professor of Film and Media Heather Hendershot argues that while the Fairness Doctrine historically "did help to keep demagoguery at bay," what's more significant about Limbaugh is the manner in which he reconceived the right wing talk format. Right wing media figures of the Cold War era, like Dan Smoot, were information heavy and humorless. According to Hendershot, Rush did the opposite: "Limbaugh created a right-wing, national entertainment show that was indebted to the collapse of the Fairness Doctrine and that overlapped at points politically with earlier right-wing radio — in its racism, opposition to entitlement programs and support of deregulation — but he brought comedy into his act. This made right-wing politics fun, in theory, a move that was not just smart business but also, like the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, a response to the rise of a diversified media environment." 

In an insightful late 2000s primer on "The Fairness Doctrine Distraction," media critics Josh Silver and Marvin Ammori surmised that the rise of conservative talk radio had much to do with the "explosion of mergers" that followed the relaxation of ownership caps in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. For Silver and Ammori, "The new radio giants spawned a market for nationally syndicated content. The conservative talkers were the first to enter this market and to capitalize on the desire for bundled content." To attribute conservative emergence solely to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine made it easier for Rush and others to trot out the Doctrine as a bogeyman every time democracy activists and responsible politicians tried to address the REAL problems: ownership rules that create media monopolies unresponsive to the communities they allegedly serve, the failure of the FCC to enforce strict licensing requirements focused on localism and serving the public interest, and the continuing attacks on net neutrality (the principle at the heart of keeping the Internet open to diverse viewpoints.). 

Theories analyzing the reasons for Limbaugh's popularity will no doubt be the topic of scores of academic and popular works for years to come. For me the more interesting question is how, for millions of people, he became more trustworthy than the mainstream press. I asked a similar question when Jon Stewart stepped down from the Daily Show, and concluded (following the lead of media scholars Rod Hart and Johanna Hartelius), that Stewart's brand of political cynicism made viewers feel engaged in civic action merely by adopting the host's style of mocking the political system mercilessly. (In that same piece I expressed hope that the post-Daily Show Stewart would become an activist comedian in the Dick Gregory mold. His work on behalf of 9/11 first responders shows that he has been moving in that direction.). 

Limbaugh had an impact on Republican politics in a way that Stewart never did (and never wanted to) for the Democrats. Stewart's criticism of mainstream media, even that which he seemed most appalled by like Fox News, always at some level seemed designed--perhaps naively--to push them to be better. His well publicized debates with the hosts of Crossfire and with Bill O'Reilly, and his conversation with Rachel Maddow, had a tone of Socrates challenging Athenian ideology. 

Video: Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Rush Limbaugh never had any interest in making mainstream media better. Indeed, his entire brand was centered on the idea that the "liberal media" could not be trusted to tell the truth. In the Watergate Era, when Gallup Poll first started surveying Americans' views on the topic, around 70 percent said they trusted the mass media. As of 2019, "13% have a great deal of trust, 28% a fair amount, 30% not very much and 28% none at all." As views of news media went south, Rush played the activist antagonist, almost every day finding some outrage to get his listeners worked up about. 

Mainstream news media was and is not an innocent victim of Rush's and other right wing bashing. The problem never was, as right wingers continue to shriek to this very day, that mainstream news media are joined at the hip with Democrats and actively engaged in a liberal conspiracy to colonize our minds. If there is a bias in mainstream media, it is not toward red or blue as much as GREEN (as in the almighty dollar) and protecting established power. If anything, mainstream media share Rush Limbaugh's bias toward toward attention grabbing conflict, as that particular quality tends to generate the most clicks, views, and shares and is thus more easily monetized. The difference is that Rush overtly took sides in such conflicts and thus came off as a "truth teller" in comparison to the not credibly "objective" mainstream. 

My thinking on these matters is in part inspired by a great recent Twitter thread by New York University journalism professor and media critic Jay Rosen. He tweeted about a number of useful distinctions he makes in his critical work, including one that stood out for me: Journalists as Truth Seeking v. Refuge Seeking. 

According to Rosen, "truth seeking needs no definition. It is finding out what actually happened--and telling us." Refuge-seeking, on the other hand, "is telling the story in a way that protects against anticipated attacks." The refuge-seeking mentality of mainstream news media gives us such awful practices as "both sides do it," steering the story "down the middle," and framing every conflict as "dueling realities" in a hopelessly divided nation. 

The refuge-seeking tendency of the press has had terrible impacts on coverage of critical issues, especially elections. In the name of "balance," mainstream journalists allow stories to be coopted by hacks, special interest pleaders, and overt liars. It cannot be a coincidence that while the mainstream media's tendency toward refuge-seeking increased, the perception of the media as a trustworthy source of information decreased. The most trusted journalists in history were those who, like the late Mike Royko, wrote and spoke with "unnerving clarity" about the issues impacting everyday people. That kind of journalism doesn't just "speak truth to power;" more importantly, it speaks truth to the powerless and in so doing empowers them to understand the forces working to keep them down. Today Royko, along with other heroic reporters like Ida Wells, I.F. Stone, Molly Ivins, William Evjue and many others, are looked at as products of a different era. (Today I would put Thomas Frank and Barbara Ehrenreich in that category.). In today's refuge-seeking mainstream media, such journalists are the exception. They should be the rule.  

Video: Mike Royko Obituary

In a way that is as distressing as it is pathetic, Rush Limbaugh became the "truth seeker" for millions of Americans. One can imagine an old-time Mike Royko fan with a taste for news that unapologetically tells the truth and names names, starting to notice in the 1980s and 1990s a steady movement away from that kind of journalism. You can imagine that old-time Royko fan getting tuned in to Limbaugh and thinking "I don't agree with everything he says, but at least he stands for something." Royko himself wrote a satirical "endorsement" of Limbaugh in 1993, and not surprisingly some letters in response came from people who liked both of them. 

Until the mainstream media finds out what it is for, and stops seeking refuge in bland mediocrity, the era of Limbaugh will continue. In a competition between blustery loudmouths and business as usual hacks seeking refuge in "safe" reporting, the blustery loudmouths will always be perceived by more people as the truth seekers. In fact the competition won't even be close--it will be a rout.That's not the only lesson of the Limbaugh years, but it's sure as hell one of the more depressing ones.

From Pitiful Pierce to Pugnacious Polk: Ranking the One-Term Presidents

An impactful president is one whose actions outlive his administration. By "actions" I mean more than executive orders, managing wars, or specific pieces of legislation signed. Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, and other offices often exert monumental impact across generations. So too do presidential speeches and other forms of messaging that mobilize (and sometimes de-mobilize) the populace. Visions emanating from presidential rhetoric often survive in popular discourse--for better or worse--for many decades. Two academic classics from the 1980s, Jeffrey Tulis' The Rhetorical Presidency and Kathleen Hall-Jamieson's Eloquence in an Electronic Age, cemented the view that, in modern times especially, a president's skill at  maneuvering a bill through Congress is less vital than his ability to go "over the heads" of Congress and develop popular support for an idea or program. 

New York Times opinion writer Michelle Goldberg has a similar framework in mind in an excellent recent piece in which she argues that Joe Biden stands a good chance of being the first "post-Reagan" president. What she means is that Reagan's message of government as the evil that can only make things worse, a nonsensical but deeply American narrative that has ruled Washington since the 1980s, may finally be ending its reign in the public mind. The overwhelming need for effective government response to the pandemic and the economy makes government action more acceptable to the masses. (Goldberg is more optimistic than I am about Mr. Biden's ability to seize the moment.). 

Does a president need at least two terms to be impactful? Of course not. Mr. Trump recently became the 13th one-term president. He will go down as the worst president in the history of the United States (Andrew Johnson is the only one who even comes close in terms of sheer awfulness), but also as one of the most impactful. Here's my ranking of the 13 one-termers, from least to most impactful: 

#13 Franklin Pierce (1853-1857): By the 1850s the anti-slavery abolition movement was in full gear and it should have been clear that decades worth of putting off the crisis via congressional gag rules or lame compromises would no longer cut it. Imagine being an abolitionist and hearing these words in Mr. Pierce's inaugural address: "I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists in different states of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the states where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions." Like today's climate change deniers, Pierce exhibited a mix of denialism and subservience to powerful interests that made his administration nothing more than an enabler of the most wretched overseers of the slave states. 

Franklin K. Pierce

#12 James Buchanan (1857-1861): After Lincoln's election in November of 1860, southern states began seceding from the union on Buchanan's watch. Though personally opposed to slavery, until his last day in office he continued to place more blame for the nation's crisis on northern anti-slavery agitators than on the institution of slavery itself. Like his predecessor President Pierce, Buchanan boxed himself into a constitutional "originalist" position that made it impossible for him to do anything meaningful to address the crisis. 

James Buchanan

#11: Martin Van Buren (1837-1841):  Van Buren had the misfortune of following President Andrew Jackson, who was at the time the most popular politician in the land even though he had been censured by the Congress. (Representative Davy Crockett of Tennessee reportedly said that "Van Buren is as opposite to General Jackson as dung is to a diamond."). To make matters worse, Van Buren inherited an economic crisis of a type that the US federal government was ill-equipped to handle until the expansion of federal powers in the 1930s. The murder of abolitionist publisher Elijah Lovejoy in Alton, IL in 1837 by a pro-slavery mob produced an ineffective response from the administration. Van Buren was denied a second term in part because he was the victim of the one earliest political attack ads: Pennsylvania Congressman Charles Ogle's "Gold Spoon Oration" created an image of the President as living a lavish lifestyle in the Peoples' White House. The speech was released in pamphlet form and for its time was the most effective anti-incumbent diatribe the young nation had ever seen. 

Martin Van Buren

#10 Herbert Hoover (1929-1933):  Hoover was a decent man (he probably would not be allowed into the contemporary Republican Party) so committed to the 19th century view of the federal government and presidency that he left himself powerless to address the Great Depression. Hoover's problem was not incompetence as much as ideology: he could not imagine a "big government" role to address human suffering. When he sent federal troops to disperse the "Bonus Marchers" (World War I veterans camped out in DC to demand their war pensions), he became a personal symbol of the government's heartless response to the depression. 

Herbert Hoover

#9 Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893): Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland, but became president as a result of securing enough votes in the Electoral College. By the 1880s it was clear that corporate power controlled government at all levels. Harrison's inaugural address teased the populace with language suggesting he might do something about it: "If our great corporations would more scrupulously observe their legal limitations and duties, they would have less cause to complain of the  unlawful limitations of their rights or of violent interference with their operations." Harrison did support the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but the law was too vague to address corporate abuses rigorously, and Harrison found himself essentially irrelevant. 

Benjamin Harrison

#8 John Quincy Adams (1825-1829): Because his election was the result of a "corrupt bargain" that gave him the office over the more populist Andrew Jackson, Adams possessed little political capital and had difficulty moving any major measures through Congress. Like Jimmy Carter more than a century later, Adams became more widely respected for his post-presidential accomplishments. The only former president ever to get elected to Congress post-presidency, Adams served 17 years in the House of Representatives. He was a powerful voice of conscience against slavery, and was able to bring an end to the "gag rule" that limited discussion of the matter on the House floor. Adams heroically represented slaves before the Supreme Court in the famous Amistad case, securing an improbable victory for the abolitionist cause at a time when victories were too few and far between. 

John Quincy Adams

#7 Jimmy Carter (1977-1981): Elected after the Watergate crisis, Carter had a mandate for reform that he could not quite deliver on. The fact that Ted Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination in 1980 was symbolic of Carter's inability to reformulate the New Deal/New Frontier/Great Society vision that still resonated with the Democratic base and independents.  Only Teddy's bumbling incompetence as a candidate enabled Carter to be re-nominated and ultimately blown out in the general election by Ronald Reagan. Carter's  "Crisis of Confidence" speech in July of 1979 was much lambasted on all sides at the time, but I think it has been vindicated as one of the few times a president has told the the American people the unvarnished Truth about what ails them. With the possible exception of J.Q. Adams, he is the most effective ex-president in history, inspiring millions of people globally as an activist, humanitarian, and author. 

If you remember Jimmy Carter jumping the fence at LaGuardia Airport, you are officially old

#6 William Howard Taft (1909-1913):  Some might argue that the federal income tax, for better or worse, has been the most impactful public policy accomplishment in the history of the nation. If so, then much credit for it must go to the portly President Taft. He campaigned in support of an income tax, and lobbied heavily (no pun intended) for the 16th amendment that established it. Less well known, but impactful in its own right, was Taft's creation of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Commerce, and bringing in social reformer Julia Lathrop to run it. Lathrop became the first woman to run a federal bureau, a major stride at a time when women still did not even have the right to vote in federal elections. 

William Howard Taft has been body shamed by generations of pundits, often taking away from some meaningful strides made during his administration

#5 Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881): Hayes lost the popular vote and won in the Electoral College only after the most shameful political maneuvering ever to have occurred in the United States up to that time. To get Florida's electoral votes, Hayes had to agree to end military reconstruction in the south. His actions, taken for reasons of sheer political expediency, gave us the Jim Crowe South and condemned African-Americans to political, economic, and social oppression for generations to come.  Hayes did appoint John Marshall Harlan ("The Great Dissenter") to the Supreme Court, and Harlan's lone vote against white supremacy in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case remains inspirational. But the white supremacy Harlan argued against was in large part the result of Hayes' caving in on reconstruction. Yes, cowardice and political ambition in the presidency can have great impact. Hayes will forever be the poster child for how that works.  

Rutherford B. Hayes

#4 George H.W. Bush (1989-1993): President Bush #41 signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, the most far reaching and impactful anti-discrimination law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was not as enlightened in foreign policy: his invasions of Panama and the Persian Gulf represented executive abuses of the all-volunteer military that opponents of ending the draft in the 1970s worried about. Think about all the wars America has been in since the Bush years. How many of them would have happened--or gone on as long as they have--it we had a military draft? Bush #41 was also mocked for declaring a "New World Order" (unwittingly using Hitlerite language) after the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991, but his post-Cold War vision (American exceptionalism + international law as a nice suggestion to follow only when convenient to do so) has been upheld by every succeeding administration. Don't be surprised if President Biden's foreign policy boldly endorses Bushism. Yikes. 

George H.W. Bush responded to the breakdown of the Soviet Union by touting American exceptionalism--a major mistake according to this blog post

# 3: John Adams (1797-1801):  Adams did two things that forever changed the United States for the worse. First, he appointed John Marshall to the US Supreme Court. Marshall established the principle of Judicial Review (in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case), which is found nowhere in the Constitution and which gives the Court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. It is usually forgotten that the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries opposed judicial review, in part because activists (like the great Fighting Bob LaFollette of Wisconsin) saw clearly that hack judges would use it to reverse popular progressive initiatives. Adams also gave us the "Alien and Sedition Acts," blatant attacks on freedom of speech and the press which established the precedent that the Bill of Rights was nothing more than a "good idea" that the feds could undermine whenever necessary. The Adams Administration reinforced the view of all true patriots in the nation who feared that the revolution had been betrayed. Even Thomas Jefferson stopped communicating with Adams. 

John Adams

#2 Donald Trump (2017-2021):  Even though he lost the popular vote, Trump was able to remake the Supreme Court with three appointments (if you think I exaggerated the negatives of judicial review in my riff on John Adams, wait until you see what the current Roberts Court does with that power in the next few years.). Trump also completely remade the Republican Party; it's now pretty much a vice-signaling troll farm that without blinking an eye can place a person who harassed school shooting victims on the EDUCATION Committee. It's still too early to tell what will be the ultimate impact of Trump's January 6th insurrection, but it looks like Washington, D.C. will be a Baghdad-like Green Zone in the immediate future and the insurrection may fuel fascist recruitment drives for years. That's impact. 

The majority of House and Senate Republicans don't think that inciting an insurrection against the United States government is impeachable. If that's not impeachable, what is?

#1 James K. Polk (1845-1849): Under President Polk, the United States acquired more than 500,000 square miles in the southwest, while Mexico was reduced to about half of its former size. Much of the land seizure was the result of the Mexican-American War, a battle whose origins and need were hotly contested by then freshman Congressman Abe Lincoln. I consider Polk's actions more impactful than any other one-termer because he acted on the "Manifest Destiny" narrative, the idea that America has some kind of God-given right to expand wherever she wants and "civilize" native populations. Manifest Destiny changed the character of the United States government: the founders were enlightenment era thinkers wary of calling on an almighty power to rationalize secular actions. Manifest Destiny was a rejection of enlightenment thinking; it introduced spiritual arrogance ("God is on our side") as a legitimate form of evidence and argument in the public sphere. Even the young Bob Dylan railed against that kind of propaganda. 

Manifest Destiny as an ideological weapon rightly reviles us when we see it practiced by other cultures. If civilian and military leaders believe they are acting according to the dictates of Providence, then they not surprisingly will find it easy to manufacture a case for war. Just as important, Polk's method of advocacy for the war started a trend we still see today: rather than figure out the predictable consequences of the war policy and use that knowledge to temper our actions, we instead will "figure it out later." That kind of irresponsibility has cost us at least $6.4 trillion since 9/11 and a tragic number of lives. We've out-Polked Polk. 

James K. Polk's advocacy for and conduct of the Mexican-American War established a way of conducting American foreign policy that remains with us to this very day

You don't agree with my ranking of the impact of the one-termers? Great, come up with your own ranking! 

The 2020 Tony Awards For Excellence In Media

Welcome to another edition of the Tony Awards! Annually since 2002 I've dedicated one column to naming what was, for me, some of the most outstanding journalism and/or commentary of the year. I operate from no automatic set of criteria when deciding what media to honor, but in general I am drawn to:

• insightful works that shed light on some important public issue.
• creative works that deserve a wider audience.
• informative works that provide eye-opening education on a difficult topic.
• courageous works that speak truth to power.
• humorous works that skillfully provoke laughter and thought at the same time.
• local works that promote community and civic engagement.

Though 2020 gave us environmental crises, racial strife, and one of the most contentious presidential elections in history, without question the tragedy of covid-19 will be what the year is remembered for. I'd like to dedicate this year's Tony Awards post to all the global victims of the virus, many of whom had the misfortune of living in places run by incompetent, ignorant, inhumane, pathetic buffoons who privileged politics over people at every turn. 

Given that this is a MEDIA rants column, I'd also like to dedicate this column to all of the journalists of integrity who have found themselves furloughed or laid off during this terrible time. Craig Silverman of BuzzFeed News accurately called the coronavirus a "media extinction event." 

Journalist Amy Brothers, formerly of the Denver Post, is a good representative of what's happening to thousands of media workers across the country. In April she was laid off while on assignment, and wrote a moving and insightful twitter thread about the experience. Like many local journalists, she made some outstanding videos during her time at the paper, including this one on covid and cannabis dispensaries in Denver. 

 

The Denver Post is owned by Alden Global Capital, a hedge fund with an awful reputation for wrecking newsrooms. The Denver Post continues to get clicks off of Brothers' stories even as they no longer employ her. 

Writing about the sick state of journalism, Monika Bauerlein in Mother Jones Magazine argues that "the immune system of democracy is crashing before our eyes." Let's all pledge to do what we can in 2021 to strengthen that immune system. Support journalism, especially quality independent work at the local level. 

And now the 2020 Tony Awards. Drum Roll please: 

Best Oshkosh Journalist: Miles Maguire, The Oshkosh Examiner. This is the fourth consecutive Tony Award for Maguire, who is unmatched among journalists in Oshkosh for his ability to report "local facts that matter." Every day the Oshkosh Examiner stays true to its mission statement:  

The Oshkosh Examiner works to bring you local facts that matter so that you can be smarter about your community.

We want you to know about decisions and events before they happen, which means that you can be involved while there is still time to make a difference. 

We focus on scoops—news that hasn’t been reported elsewhere—and on investigative and explanatory stories that go far beyond old headlines to make sense of things you may have already heard. We also follow stories that are still important but may have faded from mainstream coverage . . . 

The work that is presented here is based on an approach to journalism that emphasizes careful, methodical fact gathering as a way of assuring a high degree of credibility. Our goal is to give you information that may surprise you but that you can rely on and make decisions on. 

If you want to understand what is happening in your community, the Oshkosh Examiner is the way to stay ahead of the news curve.

The Oshkosh Examiner—local facts that matter.

Over the summer, anti-mask advocates were showing up in large numbers at local government meetings to bully officials and give off an impression of representing the majority. Miles Maguire did an open records request and found that emails to the Oshkosh Common Council were overwhelmingly in support of a mask ordinance. 

Until now, all Oshkosh Examiner material has been available for free. In 2021 Maguire plans to launch a paywall-protected website. Given the quality of the product Maguire produces daily, I will pay to support his efforts and encourage others to do the same. 

Most of this year's Tony Awards are for Covid-19 related works. Here are some that impressed me during the year: 

*Best Newspaper Op-Ed: Charlie Warzel, "Open States, Lots of Guns. America is Paying a Heavy Price For Freedom." New York Times, May 5, 2020. 

In this piece, written when the number of covid dead in the USA "only" numbered in the five digits, Warzel expressed fear that we would eventually throw up our collective hands and resign ourselves to the deaths, just like we do with gun violence. Tragically, Warzel's fear came to be realized. With hundreds of thousands dead and no clear end in sight, too many respond with "oh well." 

*Honorable Mention: Noah Berlatsky's "As Bethany Mandel's Grandma Killer Tweet proves, vice-signaling is the right's newest and most toxic trend" (The Independent, May 7, 2020). 

What's been shocking to me during this pandemic is not the lack of compassion for victims and the rejection of medical and scientific expertise--our addiction to bullshit, bluster, and bullying long ago put compassion and expertise on the defensive. What has been shocking is the utter cruelty in some of the right-wing responses to the coronavirus: everything from gross attempts at minimizing the tragedy to explicit announcements of just not giving a flying fuck about anyone. In the London Independent, Noah Berlatsky provided the best explainer of this right wing "vice signaling": 

It's startling to see someone boast in public about how they are willing to sacrifice others’ loved ones for a trip to the zoo. But it's not exactly uncommon.

During the pandemic, conservatives have repeatedly and publicly trumpeted their disregard for the lives of the old and the sick. Historian and writer David Perry has called this kind of public callousness "vice-signaling": a public display of immorality, intended to create a community based on cruelty and disregard for others, which is proud of it at the same time. It is, essentially, the polar opposite to “woke” left-wing virtue-signaling.

The right's embrace of vice-signaling, and indeed of vice, is how we got Trump. It's also why his administration has been so unable to deal with a crisis requiring collective civic virtue.

*Best Twitter Feed: Faces of Covid. Created by Alex Goldstein, Faces of Covid is an online archive of news reports and obituaries about covid victims. The feed represents a refusal to minimize the tragedy, and treats victims and their families with the dignity denied them by too many mainstream politicians and corporate media pundits. 

Alex Goldstein is the founder of the moving Faces of Covid Twitter feed. 

*Local Reporting on Covid: Jen Norden's Facebook Feed. Jen Norden is a front-line health care worker in northeast Wisconsin. Since the beginning of the crisis in March, she has provided no-nonsense updates about what is going on in our hospitals and what we need to do to bend the curve. She also does a wonderful job of forwarding reliable information to contest the mountain or misinformation and disinformation spread by coronavirus denialists, anti-maskers, and anti-vaxxers. Typical Nordenism: 

MASKING

This isn’t going away anytime soon, even after the vaccine is rolled out. So suck it up and get used to wearing a mask. Please don’t argue with your health care providers about it—we are kind of sick of that discussion.

Along the same lines—if someone dies of covid-19, please don’t ask if the patient had underlying medical problems. If they died of cancer, would you ask that question? I’m not sure what the point is—did the patient deserve it because they had other problems like obesity or diabetes? Or are you discounting the severity of covid-19? Or are you afraid of getting seriously ill and think you won’t if you don’t have underlying problems? Whatever the motive of the questioner—that question provokes an intense emotional response in me!!

*Statewide Reporting on Covid: Robert Chappell of Madison 365. Every afternoon, Madison365 Foundation Executive Editor Rob Chappell provides an update of Wisconsin's covid numbers. I really appreciate Chappell's style: to me, he comes off as an intelligent person with an old school sense of journalism as the fuel that powers civic engagement. His daily broadcasts represent an act of goodwill toward all Wisconsinites. If you are looking for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to support, madison365 has earned it.

Rob Chappell provides invaluable information about covid and other matters every day on madison365.com

*National Reporting on Covid: Zeynep Tufekci and Ed Yong of the Atlantic Magazine. Zeynep Tufeki is an associate professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina. She studies the interaction between digital technology, artificial intelligence, and society. Ed Yong is a staff writer for the Atlantic, specializing in science issues. Since March, both have written outstanding covid pieces for the magazine. Their pieces are academic yet accessible, blunt yet hopeful, informed by peer-reviewed research yet respectful of personal narratives. Probably my favorite pieces of the year were Tufekci's "It Wasn't Just Trump Who Got It Wrong" (a powerful indictment of corporate media complacency in the early days of the virus), and Yong's "How the Pandemic Defeated America." This paragraph by Yong should be put in a time capsule so that future generations can know how ill-prepared the richest country in the history of the world was for this crisis: 

Since the pandemic began, I have spoken with more than 100 experts in a variety of fields. I’ve learned that almost everything that went wrong with America’s response to the pandemic was predictable and preventable. A sluggish response by a government denuded of expertise allowed the coronavirus to gain a foothold. Chronic underfunding of public health neutered the nation’s ability to prevent the pathogen’s spread. A bloated, inefficient health-care system left hospitals ill-prepared for the ensuing wave of sickness. Racist policies that have endured since the days of colonization and slavery left Indigenous and Black Americans especially vulnerable to COVID‑19. The decades-long process of shredding the nation’s social safety net forced millions of essential workers in low-paying jobs to risk their life for their livelihood. The same social-media platforms that sowed partisanship and misinformation during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa and the 2016 U.S. election became vectors for conspiracy theories during the 2020 pandemic.

Zeynep Tufekci and Ed Yong have written spectacular pieces for the Atlantic Magazine on the covid crisis. Much to its credit, the Atlantic has kept all coronavirus related journalism in the magazine free for the duration of the crisis. 

*Best Cable Television Commentary: Chris Hayes on "Coronavirus Trutherism." 

Chris Hayes "Coronavirus Trutherism," broadcast in April as a response to Fox's Tucker Carlson willfully and shamelessly minimizing the impact of the virus, should be required viewing for all Americans. Money quote: "A tidal wave of grief and trauma has been unleashed upon this nation, in large part because the president and his enablers would not listen. And no amount of cynical whataboutism, or politically expedient wishful thinking, or junk science is going to change that brutal fact." Amen. 

         

That's it for the best written, social media, and cable pieces of the year. I want to close by recognizing some musical accomplishments for 2020. 

*Song of the Year: "Thoughts and Prayers" by the Drive By Truckers 

The Drive By Truckers are an alternative country band. "Thoughts and Prayers" is from the 2020 album "The Unraveling," and--probably because of the pandemic--did not get the attention it deserves. "Thoughts and Prayers" is the perfect response to the cowardly politicians who refuse to do anything about gun violence except offer insincere "thoughts and prayers" to the victims. The song is really a shout out to the youth who want to tackle the problem: 

When my children's eyes look at me and they ask me to explain

It hurts me that I have to look away

The powers that be are in for shame and comeuppance

When Generation Lockdown has their day

They'll throw the bums all out and drain the swamp for real

Perp walk them down the Capitol steps and show them how it feels

Tramp the dirt down, Jesus, you can pray the rod they'll spare

Stick it up your ass with your useless thoughts and prayers

Stick it up your ass with your useless thoughts and prayers

*Song of the Year Honorable Mention: Seasick Steve "Love And Peace".  Lots of technical solutions are available that could improve the plight of humanity. But none of that really will matter until more of us pledge allegiance to Seasick Steve's simple message: "Gotta stop the hatred now, get back to love and peace." 

*Best Musical Series: Rolling Stone Magazine's "In My Room" 

Rolling Stone Magazine's  In My Room Series features artists playing music from their homes. For me and many others, the series has been a great way to stay connected to live music without have to leave your home. The series features great diversity in musical styles and performers, from older classic rockers to newer pop, R & B, hip-hop and other genres. Some of my favorites include Boy George's (remember him?) performance of his great 2020 song "Frantic," Warren Haynes' remarkable guitar playing, and Graham Nash's renditions of old CSNY favorites. 

Congratulations to all the award recipients! I hope you enjoyed the selections. Have a great 2021, and remember to support local journalism! 

The 2021 Grammy Awards: Women Make [Her]story In Rock Performance Category

The 63rd annual Grammy Awards ceremony recognizing outstanding performances in popular music will be held on March 14th , 2021 in Los Angeles. I don't typically follow award ceremonies, but the 2021 Grammys are noteworthy in the extent to which female artists dominate major categories. The "Best Rock Performance" category for the first time in history includes ALL female nominees: “Shameika” by Fiona Apple, “Not” by Big Thief, “Kyoto” by Phoebe Bridgers, “The Steps” by HAIM, “Stay High” by Brittany Howard and “Daylight” from Grace Potter. All the songs are great, but if I were voting a voting member of the award selection committee, here's how I wound rank them: 

Brittany Howard's "Stay High" will become a staple at senior proms, golden wedding anniversaries, and everything in between for many years to come

#6 Phoebe Bridgers "Kyoto": Also nominated in the Best New Artist category, Bridgers' sound and style in this song reminds me of 1990s indie, alternative pop like Liz Phair. The punkish guitar, driving beat, and lyrical quest for self-identity make Kyoto a kind of gen x/millennial/zoomer hybrid. The tune is from the album "Punisher" (nominated in the "Best Alternative Music" album category). Don't go to that album expecting more Kyoto-like songs; most of it features ballads sung with a kind of mellow intensity. 

Video: Kyoto  

#5 Haim "The Steps": The Haim sisters (Este on bass and vocals; Danielle on lead vocals, guitar and drums; Alana on guitar, keyboards and vocals) have a reputation for rocking out in live performance (they do the best cover version of the pre-Stevie Nicks Fleetwood Mac classic "Oh Well."). "The Steps" is one of those catchy songs that you end up playing until you get sick of it. There's so much in it to enjoy: great guitar riff, drums that announce their presence at the right times, lyrics that anyone who's lived with a difficult partner can appreciate, and an acoustic break that sets the song apart from most pop/rock. The only reason why this song is not higher in my ranking is because the remaining tunes are simply in another league. (Note: "The Steps" is off the album "Women in Music Part III" which is also nominated for Album of the Year.). 

Video: Haim "The Steps"

#4 Fiona Apple "Shameika": Fiona Apple has released only five albums since 1996, and each one has earned critical acclaim. She has the tendency to "get real" with her lyrics in ways that few artists can match, and she's consistently original and provocative. "Shameika" is from the album "Fetch the Bolt Cutters" (nominated for Best Alternative Album), and like that entire album it's a story of self-discovery and search for personal liberation. "Shameika," which is based on a true story of young Fiona's interaction with a kid at school, will force you to think about the influential figures from your own youth. 

Video: Fiona Apple "Shameika" 

#3 Grace Potter "Daylight": Since the late 2000s Grace Potter has been one of the most energetic live performers on the circuit. "Daylight" the album is also nominated in the "Best Rock Album" category. "Daylight" the song is truly spectacular: a kind of Janis Joplin meets Led Zeppelin affair (Grace's stay-at-home cover of Zep's "Whole Lotta Love" is super good). Without exaggeration, I would say the middle part of the song "Daylight" might be the best rock jam I have heard in many years. When Grace shrieks "Daylight Come!!!" it's just epic. 

Video: Grace Potter "Daylight"

#2 Big Thief "Not": One of the worst things about artists being labeled "alternative" is that the label by itself keeps their work hidden from audiences who would, as they used to say in the 60s, "dig it." Case in point: Big Thief's  Adrianne Lenker. Her vocals are so other worldly, her lyrics so primal, and her guitar playing so potent that she belongs in the "great rock star" category. NOT great "alternative" rock star. "Not" is the kind of song that in an earlier era would have dominated FM radio. It features the kind of lyrics that grad students in liberal arts majors philosophize about in between tokes off a joint. It's got a heavenly vocal performance by Lenker, and her electric guitar jam calls forth Neil Young from his "Like A Hurricane" period. Just a knockout performance all around. 

Video: Big Thief "Not" 

#1: Brittany Howard "Stay High" 

Brittany Howard, lead singer and guitarist for the great band Alabama Shakes, released her first solo album ("Jaime") in 2019. The album is nominated for best in the "alternative" (sigh) category. Brittany Howard's vocal style is extremely amazing. Within a single verse, she can sound like a hybrid of Nina Simone, Al Green, Mavis Staples, and Prince. It's quite extraordinary. 

"Stay High" is my top choice for a couple of reasons. First, of all the songs mentioned it is by far the most multi-generational in appeal. No doubt in future years it will become a staple at senior proms, golden wedding anniversaries, and everything in between. Second, I hear "Stay High" as a covid-19 song even though it was composed, recorded, and released before the virus hit. Why do I hear it that way? Because covid has forced all of us to become more mindful of the people closest to us; to realize that they can be cruelly taken away from us in an instant; that the lowest of low feelings happens when we can no longer stay high with the one we love. 

Video: Brittany Howard "Stay High" 

Congratulations to these wonderful artists on their much-deserved nominations. And kudos to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for finally giving female artists the recognition they deserve. Hopefully mainstream FM rock radio will follow the example and place these and other female artists on the air more often. 

Election 2020 in Wisconsin: Thank You Meagan Wolfe

Though President Trump's enablers will continue to file frivolous lawsuits, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers' certification of Joe Biden's victory in the state makes a reversal of that result unlikely. While anyone has a right to file lawsuits designed to thwart the will of the people, it's hard to disagree with Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul's assessment of the effort as a "disgraceful Jim Crow strategy for mass disenfranchisement of voters." 

A major feature of the modern Jim Crow strategy for mass disenfranchisement of voters is to sow doubt about the integrity of the process. Absentee ballots, early in-person voting, and election day registration--all of which should be heralded as pro-democracy efforts to ensure the highest possible voter turnout--are fiercely opposed by Jim Crow's heirs. When they fail to overturn pro-democracy voting procedures in the courts, the Crowers go on a propaganda offensive: "if people can vote more easily, we invite fraud and rigged elections." This is potentially a "winning" strategy for the Jim Crow team in two ways: (1) the propaganda can depress voter turnout and thus increase the chances of pro-Crow candidate victories; (2) even if the anti-Crow candidate wins, the propaganda makes people question his or her legitimacy. If Jim Crow wins, "the voters have spoken." If Jim Crow loses, "the election was rigged." Heads I win, tails you lose. 

Wisconsin's November election was secure and fair because of the integrity shown by the over 1800 election officials in the state, the magnificent poll workers, national guard troops who provided outstanding pandemic assistance, and of course the voters who refused to have their franchise stolen from them. One person deserving of special thanks is Wisconsin's Election Administrator Meagan Wolfe. Across all media, Administrator Wolfe has rejected fraud and other irresponsible claims by calmly stating the facts of the elections process. She's performed so competently and professionally that it's almost unbelievable the Trumpeters have not yet called for her to be fired. 

Meagan Wolfe has done an admirable job of challenging misinformation and disinformation spread about Wisconsin's elections procedures by Trump toadies. 

It's worth recalling how Meagan Wolfe obtained the position of Elections Commission Administrator in the first place. Wisconsin once had a nonpartisan Government Accountability Board, created after the legislative corruption scandals of the late 1990s and early 2000s and composed of retired judges. The  GAB became a national role model of how to liberate elections and ethics issues from the grasp of self-interested partisans. The GAB did its job so well that the state Republican Party declared war on it. In 2015 they eliminated the GAB and went back to a hyper-partisan State Elections Commission model. Attorney Michael Haas was endorsed unanimously by the Republicans and Democrats on the Commission to serve as Administrator, but he was unacceptable to the legislature's Republican leadership because he was part of the legal staff of the GAB when it investigated abuses that took place during the Scott Walker recall election cycle. 

Jay Heck of Common Cause in Wisconsin explained to Wisconsin Watch why the legislature wanted to replace the independent GAB with the partisan State Elections Commission: "The Wisconsin Elections Commission serves at the pleasure of the legislative leadership and to some extent the governor. So they are -- I'm not going to say pawns, I hesitate to use the word pawns--but they are certainly subservient to the will of the legislative leaders and the governor by design. That's just how the system is set up."

It's clear that Republican leaders in the state want an administrator at the WEC with pawn-like qualities who either endorses their election rhetoric, enables it, or at least turns a blind eye toward it. They have gotten none of that from Meagan Wolfe. Instead, she has consistently and repeatedly corrected any and all nonsense spread about elections in Wisconsin. In a post-election press release, she responded to the election misinformation being spread on political websites and social media: 

“Wisconsin’s election was conducted according to law and in the open . . . When issues are reported to our office, we take them very seriously.  We look into each allegation and request evidence from parties involved.  At this time, no evidence has been provided that supports allegations of systemic or widespread election issues . . . Unfortunately, we are seeing many concerns that result from this unsubstantiated misinformation.  We want Wisconsin’s voters to know we hear their concerns and to provide facts on these processes to combat the rumors and misinformation." On November 10, a week after the election, Wolfe and her staff released a point-by-point refutation of the misinformation swirling around mainstream and social media. 

Video: Meagan Wolfe Interview on Here and Now:

Contrast Meagan Wolfe's statements with what's been spewing from the Wisconsin GOP. Instead of thanking election administrators for their competence and a job well done during a pandemic that made their jobs more challenging than ever, they have called for investigations and even suggested the possibility of awarding the state's electoral votes to President Trump.

When first appointed to her position, Administrator Wolfe said,  “I feel a duty to the voters, local election officials and candidates to continue Wisconsin’s proud tradition of administering fair, secure and transparent elections that everyone can have confidence in.” There's not been one shred of credible evidence presented that the election was anything less than fair, secure, and transparent. Yet this is what we get from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos: 

I am directing the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections to use its investigatory powers to immediately review how the statewide election was administered. There should be no question as to whether the vote was fair and legitimate.https://t.co/J7Cvjqkm8k

— Speaker Robin Vos (@SpeakerVos) November 6, 2020

If you only call for election investigations when your side loses, then people will naturally question your sincerity. It's long past time for the Republican Party leadership in Wisconsin to accept the results of the presidential election. Even better, they should commit themselves to REAL election reform that would include things like drawing fair election maps, automatic voter registration, instant runoff voting, and all mail elections. 

Meagan Wolfe did an outstanding job of administering an election according to the rules currently in existence. Along with over 1800 election officials in the state, she has acted with integrity every step of the way. She's been an important fact-check source on all media platforms. She has had the voters' backs. If the GOP comes after her for being competent, nonpartisan, and professional, we need to be ready to have hers. 

Post-Election: Media Reckoning Needed

As I write in late October of 2020, Joe Biden leads in all major polls, with the Real Clear Politics average putting him ahead nationally by 8 points. Biden leads in all the key battleground states that will ultimately decide the election. From the experience of 2016 we know that poll data must be taken with a huge grain of salt, and we know that the Republican party nationally and in most states is working overtime to depress and suppress voter turnout, especially among Black and Latinx voters. So the race has to be considered a toss up.

I've heard it said that if 2020 is like 1932 (the year we were mired in a Great Depression that flummoxed Republican President Herbert Hoover), Biden could win in a landslide. If on the other hand 2020 is like 1968 (when urban riots and violent Vietnam War protests dominated the public mind), the race should be closer and perhaps favor Trump. 

My view is that 2020 is mostly a replay of 2016: Mr. Trump is still the "anti-Washington, anti-establishment" candidate, while the Dems once again nominated someone who for most of his political career has personified the establishment. But unlike Hillary Clinton, Biden is not toxic to large numbers of rural and blue collar voters. Furthermore, we have now had four  years of epic corruption and incompetence that should, theoretically at least, attract  enough swing state Independents to make "not being Trump" enough to win the election. 

In April of 2020 Jim Lardner of the American Prospect compiled one of the most thorough accounts of corruption within the executive branch of President Donald Trump

Regardless of whether the election extends the Trump presidency or delivers up President-elect Biden, the mainstream press needs to face a reckoning over its terrible performance during the Trump years. A step toward that was taken recently in an important special report by Jon Allsop and Pete Vernon in the Columbia Journalism Review, "How the Press Covered the Last Four Years of Trump." Along with two other journalists, the authors have covered media treatment of the Trump presidency daily since 2017 in CJR's The Media Today newsletter. 

The piece by Allsop and Vernon is long. I want to highlight some spot-on observations of theirs regarding press performance of the last last four years, and address four key questions they believe should be asked as we move forward. 

Looking over their own newsletters over the last four years, Allsop and Vernon discovered "a clear picture of an industry whose basic practices and rhythms have conspired, time and again, to downplay demagoguery, let Trump and his defenders off the hook, and drain resources and attention from crucial longer-term storylines. Much has changed since Inauguration Day, both in the news and the media’s approach to covering it. But in other ways, many of them profoundly important and consequential, the press has simply not learned its lesson." 

On some particularly horrifying press habits since 2017: 

Journalists reported on the president’s moods, his television habits, his aides’ personalities and infighting; they expressed anguish over the uselessness of press briefings, and then lamented their absence. Editors dispatched journalists to “Trumplandia” to find understanding in the diners of Rust-Belt towns, and sometimes even allowed right-wing internet trolls (when not quoting them) to dictate personnel decisions.

On how the press dealt with Trump's propensity for lying: 

Seven months into his administration, it was clear that the president was unwilling or unable to change. It was obvious who he was . . . or it should have been. Instead, news organizations continued to fret over whether to call his untruths “lies” since we can’t see inside his head. 

Jon Allsop is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in a number of reputable publications including The Atlantic and The Intercept

On how obsessive Trump coverage has short-changed everything else: 

Not only has the Trump obsession often drowned out bigger stories—crises like climate change, racism, immigration, anti-trans discrimination, inadequate healthcare, poverty, and gun violence, all of which predated Trump and will outlast him—it has forced us to see them, when we see them at all, through the distorting, flattening lens of the man himself. A not-insignificant portion of the punditocracy, in particular, seems to believe that America’s problems—the biggest ones, anyway—begin and end with Trump’s tenure in office. Many reporters seem to believe that, too, if less overtly. The truth, of course, is that the systemic problems that Trump came to personify were here before he arrived and will last long after he’s gone; he was simply their embodiment. Journalism’s failure to consistently grasp that difficult, fundamental fact means that laying the groundwork for a meaningful reckoning with these last four years may continue to be pushed off into the future.

Pete Vernon is a freelance journalist and teacher. He's the former author of the Columbia Journalism Reviews "The Media Today" newsletter and previously worked for Reuters News Agency

Four key questions moving forward: 

1. Will the brilliant investigative scoops of the Trump presidency—already the preserve of papers that can afford to invest in them—inspire a new golden age of muckraking? Or will they dwindle if future administrations prove less overtly tumultuous?

2. Will the Trump cabal, in the administration, media, and politics, be held to account for what they did? Or will the calls to “move on” prevail?

3. When a future president—Biden or someone else—threatens to drag the US into a foreign war with no demonstrable evidence, will otherwise-hawkish cable pundits think twice, as many of them did in January, after Trump assassinated Iran’s top general, Qassem Suleimani? Or will they insist that we shouldn’t be concerned, because of the new president’s temperament and qualifications? (Last year, one of the great undercovered stories of recent times, the Post’s “Afghanistan Papers,” reminded us that presidents of all stripes tend to lie about war.) 

4. Will we go back to an era when politicians can convince the bulk of the media to give them an easy ride so long as they pay lip service to the shibboleths of the political establishment?

-------

In my judgement, Allsop and Vernon are asking the right questions. My preliminary answers: 

1.  Will we have a new golden age of muckraking? If we do, it will probably come from independent journalists working at online platforms like Substack that allow them to escape the tendency of mainstream media editors to de-muck works of muckraking so as to maintain friendly relations with "official" sources. 

2. Will calls to "move on" prevail over calls to hold the "Trump cabal" accountable for their actions? If we get a President Biden, and if history can inform the present, expect some kind of pardon for the Trump family. Biden came of age during Watergate, and no doubt he's already reflected on Gerald Ford's statement in defense of pardoning Nixon: 

“the passions generated by prosecuting him," said President Ford,  "would seriously disrupt the healing of our country from the great wounds of the past.”

 

Moreover, the Obama/Biden administration refused to prosecute bankers responsible for the 2008 economic collapse. It would not be at all surprising if a Biden administration showed a similar inclination to "move on." Will the press let them? 

3. Will the press hold the President accountable on foreign wars? Probably not, though there will be a great need to. Given that the Democrats have welcomed the so-called neocons into the anti-Trump "resistance", and given Biden's hawkish tendencies, I don't see much hope for a winding down of the "war on terror" that has now recklessly cut across three administrations. That is as much a journalistic failure as it is a failure of imagination among policy makers. 

4. Will a Biden administration convince the bulk of the media to give them an easy ride? What I see happening is this: if we have a Harris/Biden administration, the mainstream press WILL be tough on them, but for the wrong reasons. Biden will almost certainly put forth policy proposals inadequate to meet the scale of crisis we face on the pandemic, the economy, and climate. His Commander in Chief vision will be to put complete trust in the bloated military-industrial-complex and the "intelligence" agencies that gave us two failed wars. All of that will worthy of intense media scrutiny, but will probably receive little. 

Instead, the Republicans will harp on the Hunter Biden story for the entire first term, and the mainstream press will dutifully report all the rumors, all the innuendo, and all the lies that emanate from the right wing media ecosphere. That playbook started with with the Whitewater investigation of the 1990s, which consumed inordinate amounts of press time during the Clinton presidency. Russiagate operated within a similar dynamic during the Trump years: the legitimate news value in it got eclipsed by years worth of hyperpartisan harping on every minor detail. Whitewater and Russiagate crowded out scores of vital stories. If Joe Biden does get elected, expect the trials and tribulations of Hunter Biden to become the next installment in this dubious style of "accountability" journalism.