One thing about Donald Trump. He’s has told us all along exactly who he is and what he expected to be able to get away with.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” he famously claimed in a 2016 campaign rally. Since then, he’s found out just how accurately he was reading the room.

He hasn’t literally shot anyone, but he certainly has gotten away with everything from innumerable lies to constant grifting. And real harm to many, as Norman Ornstein points out in this new piece.

In a particular outrage — or what should be one — his administration last month endangered the lives of members of his own team, including the Secretary of State, as well as journalists in the White House press corps.

I’m not using “endangered the lives” in some metaphorical way. It was all too real.

Thanks to the Washington Post’s reporting, we know that Trump secretly flew on an alternate military aircraft from Turkey after July’s NATO summit, amid a credible threat from Iran, leaving Air Force One to serve as a decoy. Journalists and some administration officials thought they were on the same plane as Trump. They were duped. And endangered.

Even after Trump landed safely, the White House didn’t come clean. That put the press in the position of inadvertently deceiving the public, and it had certainly put them in danger.

Disgraceful, right?

So what did the White House Correspondents Association do?

Its new president, Jacqui Heinrich, a Fox News correspondent, had a talk last week with White House officials to express the organization’s concerns and to suggest different protocols. She also sent an off-the-record memo to WHCA members explaining she had had a “candid and productive meeting” with White House officials.

And that, apparently, was that. A quiet meeting and a quiet memo — sadly weak — along the lines of all those pointless “thoughts and prayers” we hear about after a mass shooting.

Frank Figliuzzi, a longtime FBI special agent, sounded more outraged than the press association:

“Trump was the honored guest at the White House Correspondents Dinner on July 24. Less than three weeks earlier, he secretly left some of them to face death on an Air Force 1 targeted by Iran.”

But, this former FBI assisant director predicted, “they’ll invite him again next year.”

I have little doubt he’s right. As I wrote after this year’s dinner — where Trump verbally abused the reporters and their work, sometimes in extraordinarily personal terms — the WHCA has become an embarrassment and their annual dinner is a joke.

I discussed all of this with Greg Sargent on his podcast, the Daily Blast, last week. As Greg wrote in promoting the podcast: “Trump leaving journos on decoy plane after viciously attacking them at a press dinner that feted his power neatly encapsulates how media submits to his authoritarian abuses.”

Greg asked me, why are many in the White House press so wimpy? I offered two answers: fear of losing access; and the habit of normalization and deference to the presidency.

Separately, the New York Times offered its readers a useful look into what had happened and how some of their most prominent journalists were reacting.

Doug Mills, the renowned Times photographer who has covered many presidents — and who was aboard the decoy plane — acknowledged the inherent danger of covering any president, but especially this one.

“Riding on Air Force 1, I would always tell my family: I’m on the safest plane in the world. And now I’m not.”

Peter Baker, the paper’s chief White House correspondent, said he had talked with veterans of past White Houses after the news broke: “Some said it was outrageous that officials and reporters were made into ‘human shields', as one put it. Others said, hey, if you travel with the president, you know there are certain risks.” Similar ruses have occurred with the travel of other presidents, the Times article noted, but none with the ongoing deception of this one.

All the journalists quoted objected to that deception, which might have continued indefinitely if not for the Post’s reporting. (And remember, the Trump administration recently went far outside the bounds of past practice by subpoenaing Times journalists, even showing up at their homes to deliver the demands. I wrote about that for the Guardian US here.)

“The White House didn’t respond when I sent an email asking about the deception and the possible danger for those still on the decoy plane,” Baker said.

As one Times reader aptly commented, “There’s nothing wrong with protecting the president. There’s everything wrong about leaving a planeful of decoys to take a bullet and missile for you. And there’s everything wrong about not telling the American public the truth about what happened after everyone had been safely returned to the USA … until a newspaper informs that public about it. Remember, there is no bottom to this administration. It’s lies, deception, corruption, cruelty, self-dealing and wasted taxpayer billions all the way down.”

What should the press organization do? Certainly taking a strong and transparent public stance on the way its members had been duped and endangered would be a start. Call a press conference and pull back the curtain on all of this. Make the case that this is wrong — and why.

And certainly, stop the destructive charade of treating Trump as someone who deserves yet another helping of polite deference — and a return invitation to “the dinner.” (In fact, and obviously, cancel this dinner altogether.)

Sargent asked me if I thought this new outrage would “move the needle” for the public, in the phrase that journalist and author Craig Unger used recently about Trump.

No, I said; it certainly won’t. The only thing that will move the needle is what happens in the midterm elections. And Trump surely knows this, which he is laying the groundwork to foil the midterm vote in any way possible, including illegal ways.

This is a president who is terrified of democracy. So let’s stop pretending otherwise, shall we?

Readers, what do you think is the appropriate response on the part of the press corps to being treated as decoys and, in the words referenced above, ‘human shields’? Please let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

Thank you all for being here and thanks especially to American Crisis subscribers, new and old. As those all-important midterms approach, I’ll be tracking all the developments, with a particular eye on press coverage. I hope you’ll be here with me.

Here’s why one reader recently decided to become a paid subscriber. Please consider doing the same; I’d be deeply appreciative!

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

I must have missed this when it became public last year. Brendan Carr, the powerful and influential chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, showed up at official government meetings wearing his new lapel pin — a gold-toned image of Donald Trump’s head.

Considering that the FCC is supposed to be an independent and bipartisan agency, it should have been shocking, and it did draw some comments. Predictably, though, some of them were cheers.

The right-wing YouTuber Benny Johnson posted the image of the quarter-sized medallion on X with the approving comment, “Do you even understand the level of fit that Brendan Carr has?”

The New York Times fashion writer Vanessa Friedman was prompted to write a brief history of the lapel pin, which went so far as to observe that the “mere fact that someone who worked for Mr. Trump thought it might be a good idea to display his boss’s likeness on his lapel, no matter how briefly, is notable.”

When it comes to Brendan Carr’s unquestioning loyalty to Trump, a lapel pin — however telling — is the least of our worries.

Last week, for example, Carr’s FCC knocked down one of the last guardrails keeping Trump-aligned media from taking over even more of local TV. They voted to get rid of the longstanding rule that keeps a single media corporation from owning stations that reach 40 percent of the country or more. There would be no more cap, the FCC commissioners voted, but rather a case-by-case review.

Carr always has dubious rationales for his Trump loyalty. In this case, he talked about greater competition. But, as Jon Passantino noted in the Status newsletter, it amounts to “another gift to the administration’s media allies, most notably Nexstar and Sinclair,” which already control so many local stations. Maybe you’ve noticed this in your own backyard.

If Nexstar is able to acquire its rival, Tegna, it would reach about 4 in 5 American households. And Sinclair — infamous for its ordering its local TV stations to broadcast Trumpy talking points on a “must run” basis — would benefit from the removal of the ownership cap, too.

The commission’s only Democrat, Anna Gomez, was disgusted but outnumbered. She called it “unlawful on its face,” since it was Congress that created the ownership cap decades ago.

It gets worse. Gomez’s term expired recently and she’s in a “holdover” status at the moment. She is the only non-MAGA voice on the FCC right now, so she can at least voice dissent if not change much of anything. But Trump, of course, not only doesn’t intend to extend her term but to tap a friendly Republican for the opening. (The FCC has a 2-1 Republican majority with her there, with two vacant seats.)

Even some Congressional Republicans see a problem with Carr’s FCC and Trump’s plans to tilt it even further his way. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana accused the commission recently of “getting into the foothills of violating the First Amendment.” And Democrats on the Commerce Committee, which have to approve new commissioners, have called for two appointments — a “pairing” — that would at least put one Democrat on the commission.

Then there are the ethics complaints. ProPublica reported last week that FCC commissioners have accepted gifts inappropriately. Carr took tickets to the Kennedy Center honors gala from CBS or its parent company eight times since his 2017 appointment, totaling $75,000 in gifts. He and his wife sat in a private skybox at the most recent gala, with Paramount CEO David Ellison and other company executives. Such seats were worth $125,000 apiece.

Carr has been doing everything in his power to help Ellison’s company grow ever larger and more profitable, including voting in favor of the Paramount-Skydance merger last year. In a complaint, the Democracy Defenders Fund said the public should be able to feel confident that the merger review process “is not compromised by self-dealing or the appearance of impropriety.”

“In his effort to bring the media to heel, Trump could not invent a better emissary than Carr,” said Milo Vassallo, executive director of the Media and Democracy Project — a nonpartisan civic membership organization which opposes rampant and politicized media consolidation.

I asked Vassallo what citizens can do. He offered four suggestions, noting civic activism works — as when Disney was forced to restore late-night host Jimmy Kimmel to broadcast TV after millions of people protested the censorship and overreach.

First, he advised, join the effort to block the Ellisons’ attempted takeover of Warner Brothers Discovery, which includes CNN. Amplify the #BlockTheMerger hashtag, and if you’re in the entertainment business or a civic organization, join BlockTheMerger.com

Second, contact your local, state and federal elected officials to tell them you support efforts to block the merger including the efforts of 12 state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta.

Third, demand that your members of Congress provide oversight of the FCC and make public statements about Carr’s abuse of power.

Fourth, follow and amplify the “lone and heroic non-MAGA” commissioner, Anna Gomez, who “has been sounding a clarion call about the FCC’s “billionaire buddy bypass.”

You can also follow the Media and Democracy Project on Substack. It’s tempting to tune out amid all the outrages, but this one bears keeping — or becoming — engaged.

Separately, be sure to read this smart piece about how difficult it is these days to “move the needle” by journalist and author Craig Unger, who explains how the media “lost its mojo.” The estimable press critic, Jay Rosen of NYU, wrote on Bluesky that it was the “best thing I’ve read recently about the crisis in journalism.”

“Not that long ago, the press could root out corruption, topple presidents and end wars. Now even the biggest scoops have little impact.”

And Meghan Gourley, new to Substack, offers her reflections on being an editor at the New York Times. Years ago, Meghan was my excellent assistant in the public editor’s office at the Times, and she reflects here on corrections and editors’ notes, from an insider’s perspective. (I also love the photograph she uses as illustration; I have a framed copy at home.)

Readers, I loved your recommendations last week about the opinion journalists and commentators you turn to for insight and sanity.

This week, please tell me how you are keeping active and resisting the urge to tune out — or let me know if you are losing that battle. And what do you think, if anything, can “move the needle” in this current environment?

Leave a comment

Thanks so much for being here, and thanks for subscribing. I love the community we are building here, and I deeply value your support and your views. Here’s why two readers decided to become paid subscribers. I hope you’ll consider doing the same at this critical moment for media and democracy.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

There’s a line from Bob Dylan’s caustic lament, “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right,” that goes like this: Goodbye is too good a word, babe, so I’ll just say fare thee well.

I was going to title this post “Good riddance, Adam O’Neal,” but thought better of it since I don’t know the guy who was appointed last year to run the Washington Post opinion section, and also since he is leaving for an undisclosed personal reason. Still, that harsher send-off is my general feeling, since O’Neal did so much damage in the short time he was in charge.

“Fare thee well” — surprisingly dismissive in Dylan’s twang — will do.

Certainly, he did a lot of harm in a short time.

Talented journalists including Eugene Robinson, Erik Wemple, Karen Tumulty, Karen Attiah and Monica Hesse — among many others — were doing terrific work there before the vast changes that swept O’Neal into this vaunted position at age 33.

And now they’re gone. Wemple is at the New York Times. Robinson is no longer writing his essential twice-weekly column, though he is a contributing writer at the Atlantic. Attiah has struck out on her own as an independent journalist. Hesse and Tumulty have returned to the news side of the Post, where the waters are calmer. Also gone in very recent years are Ruth Marcus and EJ Dionne, who had long, stellar careers in the Post opinion section.

It’s hard for me to be sanguine about the damage done to the Washington Post. Until just a few years ago, I was the media columnist there, hired in 2016 by the great editor Marty Baron. It had been my lifelong dream to work at the Post, since — like many of my era — I was drawn into journalism by its Watergate reporting. Then, while a college student and student journalist at Georgetown University, the Post was my much-admired local paper. Over the years, I met its courageous publisher Katharine Graham, her brash editor Ben Bradlee, and am still honored to know her son, Don. He became the publisher and eventually sold the paper to uber-billionaire Jeff Bezos. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

There are many sad losses in journalism these days. The withering of local newspapers and the turmoil at CBS News are two of the gut-wrenchers. Like those, the sharp decline of the Post really hurts.

It’s largely the fault of Bezos, of course, and of his disastrous hand-picked chief executive, Will Lewis (also now thankfully gone). Bezos, who started off strong, has more recently been more interested in currying favor with Donald Trump. Rather than protecting his paper, a national treasure, Bezos turned it into collateral damage.

When Adam O’Neal came on last year, the millennial editor made a curious statement — that he expected never to have another journalism job. He would run the Post opinion section for the rest of his career.

Now, a little more than a year later, he has “stepped down,” though perhaps not of his own volition — some insiders have speculated he was fired. No word yet on his successor.

His mandate, direct from Bezos, was to move the section toward “personal liberties and free markets.” Ideas opposed to those two pillars were unwelcome; they would have to be published elsewhere. After trying to talk Bezos out of this, O’Neal’s predecessor, David Shipley, departed.

But O’Neal made his mark, I guess you could say. Late last year, for example, the Post published an editorial “In defense of the White House ballroom.” As Michael Tomasky of the New Republic put it, it was “a dull, moronic, straightforward defense of the president of the United States crushing to dust one-third of a building of singular historic importance that is owned by the American people, and doing so while not merely ignoring but saying a colossal fuck you to the rules and procedures that normally govern things.” Tomasky’s piece is aptly titled “The Washington Post has Become Right-Wing Even Faster Than I Thought.”

The moves were not just right-wing but often really dumb.

“One of the section’s top priorities, the launch of a new video podcast called Make It Make Sense, drew backlash on social media for what seemed like warmed-over hot takes and did not draw a large viewership despite generous investment and support from the Post,” reported Jeremy Barr at the Guardian US.

Barr also recalled O’Neal’s tone-deaf start.

Sensing he was not widely known to the Post’s staff, he introduced himself with a vertical video posted by the newspaper’s public relations account on X.

“Now odds are, you’ve probably never heard of me, and you might be wondering, ‘Who am I?’” he said in the video at the time. “That’s actually kind of a deep and philosophical question, and I’m not sure I went to school long enough to understand it. But I’ve been a journalist for a while, and I’d like to share some of our plans with you.”

The section also posted one clunker after another of weird commentary. Just days ago, we were treated to a wide-eyed take on the traditional baby names that affluent parents give their children. Do treat yourself by reading Parker Molloy’s wicked takedown here.

Of course, none of this measures up to Bezos’s original sin regarding his paper’s opinion section. In late 2024, just before the presidential election, he spiked the editorial board’s planned endorsement editorial of Kamala Harris. So much for editorial independence. And what a foolhardy business decision. That move infuriated hordes of longtime Post readers and resulted in hundreds of thousands of lost subscriptions.

The Post — which had become profitable less than a decade ago — has been losing vast millions of dollars a year. In February, management laid off almost half the newsroom.

The body blow to this great newsroom, an assemblage of talent and practices that took so long to build, was nothing short of tragic.

O’Neal’s tenure was just one small part of the whole mess, but a telling one. It was wrong from the start. And now it’s over.

Beyond the relief that he’s gone, I’ll offer one other note of cheer amid the gloom. This past week, I was in touch with two young Post reporters, journalists in their 20s and 30s. They are both recent hires, as the Post attempts to shore itself up after losing too much reporting power. They’re both thrilled to be at the legendary news organization, for pretty much the same reasons I was. I know their work and their values, and I’m glad they are there.

There is a bone-deep culture at the Post that goes back more than 50 years, and has endured through good times and bad. (Does anyone remember the shameful Janet Cooke debacle that caused the Post to return a Pulitzer Prize for her made-up story about an eight-year-old heroin addict?)

Even with its much smaller newsroom, the paper has a tremendous well of institutional memory and journalistic talent, and it has something ineffable that transcends numbers and personalities.

I know, readers, that many of you have given up on the Post. Understandably so. But I haven’t. I remain hopeful and often admiring of what I read — though not in the opinion section. Maybe, just maybe, that will improve now.

Fare thee well, Adam O’Neal. Don’t think twice, it’s all right.

Readers, who are your favorite opinion journalists at the moment? (Podcasters, TV personalities, as well as writers, are fair game.) Who do you seek out to make sense of the world, to bring knowledge and sanity to this troubled moment of ours? Please share your favorites in the comments.

Leave a comment

My post last week criticizing the White House Correspondents Dinner brought a lot of new readers and subscribers to American Crisis. I’m so glad to have you here. Thank you for coming aboard! If you joined as a free subscriber, I hope you’ll decide to support this exploration of journalism and democracy with a paid subscription for $50 a year. Here’s why one reader did:

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

The insults. The lies. The extremely unfunny attempts at humor.

The lack of respect for the role of the free press. The lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution, which forbids a Trump run for president in 2028. The lack of respect for the rule of law.

Any one of these should have been reason enough not to invite Donald Trump to the rescheduled White House Correspondents Dinner, which is billed as an annual celebration of the First Amendment.

But for reasons that continue to baffle and anger me, the organizers — journalists and media figures who should know better — did so anyway.

What happened was predictable. Tom Jones of Poynter correctly forecast that it would be “a complete clown show.” It was.

“What unfolded Friday night inside that gaudy, former Trump hotel ballroom was a monstrosity,” as Jim Acosta, formerly of CNN, now writing on Substack, put it.

Trump used his time on the stage that had been made available by the correspondents association — during a nationally televised event — to let loose with a hate-filled rant. It was aimed at journalists, at his political enemies and at anybody else who has failed to suck up to him at every moment or to support his lawless regime.

As Jon Passantino of Status reported it, Trump told the room of journalists that “this is the largest gathering of people with Trump derangement syndrome,” and then went on to trash the “fake news” media, mock the “failing New York Times,” go after Kaitlan Collins with an ugly personal attack, call Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker a “fat pig” and tell Rep. Ilhan Omar to “get out of our country.” There was much, much more, of course. More than an hour’s worth.

Why did the association allow such a shameful thing to happen?

Part of the reason is that their corporate bosses wanted them to for reasons having to do with profits and other commercial interests.

Part of the reason is fear of losing access to the White House. No more showcase moments when a question from, say, ABC or NBC is asked in the briefing room and shown on national TV that night.

But since those reasons can’t be said aloud, apparently, the given reason is a different one.

The given reason comes down to this: Well, it’s because he’s the president! Because he’s the president, so the rationale goes, we must treat him the way we’ve treated other presidents.

This argument, so well accepted in mainstream-media circles, is hogwash. It is the very essence of normalizing an extremely abnormal and dangerous president.

Similarly, because he’s the president, some in the media found it necessary to air his recent primetime address to the nation live and uninterrupted. “It’s newsworthy,” said anchors and editors and other major newsroom decision-makers. Because he’s the president.

Because he’s the president, what he does supposedly commands respect — “respect for the office” — and because he’s the president, his political diatribes are treated as legitimate news.

Trump has forfeited that built-in respect in countless ways and over many years.

And the journalists who cover him on a daily basis should know that better than anyone.

It’s so far past the time when this normalization should have ended that it seems almost absurd to make the argument once again.

Let’s try a small thought experiment. Should respect for the institution of marriage mean that an abused ex-wife should insist that her former husband be invited to, say, the annual 4th of July family party? Or should self-respect mean that she doesn’t create a situation that is predictably abusive?

Sometimes when I make the argument to media people that Trump shouldn’t be covered like other presidents, I get what amounts to a scolding in return. Do you expect us to ignore what he does? Should we not cover him? Should we not show people exactly who he is? Do you want a news blackout?

My answer is simple: Of course that’s not what I’m suggesting. The media can cover Trump without sane-washing, without “both-sidesing,” and without normalizing him.

If he’s threatening to disrupt the midterm elections by calling for a federal emergency, of course that’s a big story. If he’s using the office of the president for personal profit, of course that’s a big story.

I’m not calling for a news blackout on Trump. I’m calling for telling it straight. And without kowtowing to him.

After last Friday’s horrendous dinner speech, journalists did not rise in unison and walk out. They should have.

The new president of the White House Correspondents Association, Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News, was all smiles as she actually embraced Trump. That’s an embarrassment — a stain — that should haunt the rest of her career; I don’t care how much her colleagues in the press personally like her or how many nice things she has to say about the First Amendment.

As for her predecessor, CBS News’s Weijia Jiang?

If she were a real leader, she would not have let this happen on her watch. She (and her colleagues in the organization’s leadership) could have called off the rescheduled dinner; they could have re-envisioned it in a way that actually serves the free press. They could have simply decided not to include Trump or anyone of any party whose disdain for the press is so blatant. At the very least, they could have followed the urging of hundreds of prominent journalists and former journalists who were calling for a strong, unified statement at the dinner that clearly rejected Trump’s attacks on the press — in real time.

None of that happened. Yes, Jiang and others made a few remarks defending the press against attacks. It was pretty weak sauce.

And now the reins are handed over to Heinrich of Fox News, the organization that has been so shamefully complicit, for many years, in promoting Trump’s ambitions and circulating his lies.

This ought to be the last straw in the endless media normalization of Donald Trump. But you can bet that it won’t be.

Please tell me in the comments if you are worried about the midterm elections that are coming up so soon. I want to suggest, if you’re looking for a way to protect the vote, donating to two nonpartisan organizations: Common Cause, which is leading pro-voting state legislative efforts, and Democracy Forward, which is leading many important court battles.

Leave a comment

I can’t think of much that’s more important. For two good overviews on this topic, here’s a New York Times story with a gift link, and another from the Guardian.

Readers, thank you so much for your continued support — for reading, for commenting, and for subscribing. It means a great deal. Here’s why one reader became a paid subscriber last week. Please consider doing the same!

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

You’ve heard of the easy A? Well, in this media report card following Donald Trump’s primetime speech on Thursday night, I’ll hand out this easy D.

The D goes to Fox News, which surprisingly managed not to flunk altogether. While it did air every minute of the predictably lie-filled speech, Fox hosts and others managed to interject some skepticism. Even Sean Hannity, a Trump loyalist if there ever was one, noted that truth might be in short supply in this speech, and another Fox host noted that the network could not verify Trump’s claims. Of course, we know why Fox was more careful than usual, since it paid a huge settlement to a voting machine company for the network’s misleading coverage of Trump’s false claims about a “rigged” 2020 election.

To ABC News and NBC News, a couple of Bs. Kudos for the decision not to broadcast Trump live, which seems completely logical but took some institutional guts. I didn’t think the commentary was all that strong. Both broke in to their regular programming later, post-speech. Also, you could find the full speech streaming on these networks’ streaming news channels, which raises the question: Why is that OK, if broadcasting is not? Is it a way to straddle the line? Trump didn’t see it that way. He harshly criticized the two networks during his speech — “they want to protect the radical left.” Talk about lies and falsehoods.

To CBS News, a C-plus. I give that even though CBS News was the one broadcast network that did make the dubious decision to air most of the speech live, thus handing Trump an undeserved megaphone. BUT, their presentation and commentary was outstanding and helpful. As one veteran broadcaster told me, “Bravo to CBS News for extended analysis and context not matched by ABC or NBC. CBS provided fair and balanced coverage that turned out to be excellent.” Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil even started out by warning viewers that he expected the speech to offer a lot of falsehoods. “Much of what the president has said on this topic has been untrue,” he began, and acknowledged the (obvious) “argument that it is irresponsible to air the president’s speech tonight. But this speech will be made, it will be news, and it’s our job to cover the news.”

There are clearly still a lot of pros at the beleaguered Tiffany Network, and, in some ways, they managed to hold sway.

To the Washington Post, a somewhat baffled B-minus. To its credit, the Post didn’t air the speech live and, as far as I could see, never even made it the lead story online. Solid call there. Instead, they stuck with their fine exclusive about the damning real reasons for the reflecting pool’s problems. I was turned off, though, by “Brian,” the AI voice that offered a toneless reading of some of the Post’s speech coverage. It’s just so bad, and there’s no reason for it, except to say, “we’re down with AI here.” (Frankly, same with the AI text summaries of reader comments on Post story; I hate this. I want to hear real voices and read real words.) The Post also offered this mealy-mouthed headline online: “Trump’s address stops short of offering evidence of vote tampering.”

To the New York Times, another B-minus, but for different reasons. The Times — which really, really should know better, after last week’s outrageous subpoenas — decided to show Trump’s full speech live as the lead piece on its site. Yes, there was simultaneous analysis in the form of a live blog, which brought context and fact-checking; but taking the whole speech live nevertheless was a bad call.

To make it worse, every time I left the mobile site and came back to look at it, I got an automated suggestion to send the live speech coverage to others as a gift link. The effect of these decisions was to undercut the relatively courageous calls by ABC and NBC. I was heartened, however, to see a headline on the Times site that told the story remarkably straight: “Trump Asserts Outlandish Claims About Election Results in Address.”

But at other times, it was back to normalizing and both-sidesing: “White House Touts Trump speech as Democrats warn of recycled falsehoods.” It’s the “critics say” approach to truth-telling.

In the aftermath, the Times offered strong analytical reporting like a next-day piece headlined “Trump Brings Full Weight of Government to Bolster False Election Claims.” It stated, without attributing this to “critics” or “Democrats,” that the heavily redacted intelligence documents that Trump was touting “did not reveal new weaknesses in the country’s election systems or show that foreign governments had manipulated any votes.” The story is gift-linked above.

I’m hesitant to grade CNN or MS Now, because I didn’t watch either of them for very long in real time, but they both seemed to do well, with a particular nod to CNN’s approach.

As Tom Jones of Poynter summarized it: “CNN did not air the speech. Instead, CNN monitored the speech and then reported on it after it was over.” That’s the way to go, especially with a strong setup in advance. Truth sandwich, anyone? CNN might even deserve an A.

MS Now started to air the speech live but quit about halfway in. Afterwards, panelists for both cable networks did what panelists do — they chewed it over at length.

Some of the most trenchant commentary came not from Big Journalism but from individual commentators such as scholar and political scientist Norman Ornstein, whose X thread identified a story much broader than just another lie-filled speech: “Far too much emphasis has been put on Trump’s call yet again to pass the SAVE Act. That is not what is behind this speech. Trump is trying to lay the groundwork for seizing ballot boxes in key states and congressional districts based on false claims of foreign interference.” He predicts Trump "declaring a national emergency and abusing the emergency powers,” including seizing control of media outlets. It’s very scary stuff, and I think he’s on target, as usual.

Readers, what did you see in your media coverage and how did you react? Please let me know in the comments. And thank you very much for caring about the subject of this newsletter: The need for strong, fact-based, independent and courageous journalism as our democracy teeters.

Leave a comment

I am glad to have you here in any form, and particularly appreciative if you can swing the $50 a year to become a paid subscriber. Here’s why one reader did so recently:

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

The concept of the “truth sandwich” is pretty simple. When dealing with political lies and propaganda, the media should not simply put false information out there and then offer some mild fact-checking afterwards.

Instead, provide three distinct layers: Present what we know to be truth. Follow it, if you must, by the politician’s false statements, and then follow that with a detailed fact check.

If you want to read more about this, and where it came from, here’s a gift link to a column I wrote for the Washington Post during the first Trump administration. (I’m told Brian Stelter of CNN coined the term; and the concept is from linguist George Lakoff.)

But that was then. Now we need to be even hungrier for the meal that feeds democracy.

On Thursday night, Donald Trump will blast out his version of what happened in the 2020 presidential election and try to build on the Big Lie that he’s been perpetrating for years — that he, not Joe Biden, should have won. That the election was rigged.

He’s doing this to sow doubt and confusion in the public because he’s terrified about the looming midterm elections. If the Democrats regain the House of Representatives (and even the Senate, too) he will lose the absolute power and the absolute lack of restraint that he so enjoys right now. We might get some semblance of checks and balances back again.

White House officials have already leaked what his big 9 p.m. speech is about — he’ll declare that newly declassified intelligence proves that a foreign government tried to mess with that election, and perhaps even insist that a national emergency must be declared to cede control of the midterms to the federal government.

Because Trump is the president, what he says always creates headlines. News organizations can’t ignore his proclamations. But they can serve the public interest by how they cover him. They can at least try to protect the truth.

Parker Molloy this week made the excellent point that the three major news networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) should not simply air Trump’s speech live and, in effect, hand him a megaphone. As of this writing, they hadn’t decided yet. (Hard to imagine CBS News, in its newly compromised state, not airing it live.)

After all, as Molloy observes, “the question of foreign involvement in the 2020 election was investigated to death, in real time, by Donald Trump’s own government, under rules Donald Trump signed.” That investigation found a clean election, as did another similar one by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

I thought Reuters did a good job of laying this out Monday:

“President Donald Trump will give a national address on Thursday night about ​newly declassified intelligence on investigations into U.S. elections and what the White House says are voting machine vulnerabilities, an administration official said. The Republican president could ‌use his televised speech … to again press his false claim that he lost his 2020 reelection bid to Democrat Joe Biden due to massive fraud.”

The story went on: “Numerous courts, ballot audits and his first-term Justice Department found no evidence of such fraud, including voting-machine rigging. The federal cybersecurity watchdog joined other federal state and local officials in declaring the vote ‘the most secure in American history.’”

(Side note for journo junkies: I loved that one of the three bylines on this solid Reuters story was that of Jonathan Landay, formerly of the Knight-Ridder reporting team which broke from the pack in the run-up to the Iraq War. The pack, led by the New York Times, was largely parroting Bush-friendly reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Landay and company reported otherwise, to their eternal credit. The country went to war, a disastrous one, anyway.)

The Reuters headline was okay, too: “Trump to assert voting machine vulnerabilities in Thursday speech.” (I would have liked “claim” more than “assert.”)

It’ll be mighty interesting to see how various media outlets cover this speech. Will headlines merely quote Trump, giving him more credence than he deserves? Will Fox News even nod to reality? Will the biggest “print” outlets — the Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today — avoid both-sidesing this speech? (Here’s how that would look: Trump says this, but critics say he’s wrong, and we really can’t help you figure out who’s right.)

How about the Associated Press, which is famously careful, which reaches far into the nation and world, and which has stood up to Trump in the recent past? How about CNN, which is at risk right now of falling into the same hands as CBS if a planned merger survives the challenges by state attorneys general?

I’ll be tracking this, and I hope you, readers, will let me know what you see in your news sources.

Of course, we also know that people get their information less and less from traditional news sources and increasingly from social media and short-form video such as TikTok. The standards, such as they are, are very different. So because it’s a national address by the president of the United States, Trump’s claims will be heard — and probably believed — far and wide.

Zooming out, let’s not forget what this is really all about: The midterms. The all-important midterms.

Robert Reich nailed it the other day, in a post titled “Trump WILL Try to Steal the Midterms. Here’s how.” The “how” is summarized thus: Eliminate neutral watchdogs. Eliminate all constraints on big money. Intimidate voters. Investigate and arrest alleged leftist “terrorists.” Make it harder to vote and control how ballots are counted. Cast doubt on the outcome of the midterms.

He quotes the former Republican operative Rick Wilson who notes that none of this stuff works if the anti-Trump vote is big enough. “Cheating operations work on the margins. They flip close races. They exploit recounts, certification fights, faithless officials, and friendly courts. What they cannot do, what no operation in American history has ever managed to do, is steal a landslide.”

What happens Thursday night and in its aftermath is part of Trump’s desperate plan to pull out all the stops in every one of the ways that Reich named. The media have a role to play. Reporters and their editors need to be aware of what’s going on and not allow themselves to be manipulated.

Stay tuned. I’ll be tracking it here.

Separately, with the recent Atlantic magazine story, “The Age of Reading Is Over,” I’ve doubled down on mine. Right now, I’m reading poetry (mostly Yeats, Szymborska and Dylan Thomas), novels including “Ghost Eye” by Amitav Ghosh, and non-fiction, including an advance copy of “The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids’ Learning — and How to Help Them Thrive again” by Jared Cooney Horvath. I also stayed up way too late one night finishing a Scott Turow legal thriller I had missed when it came out many years ago, “Reversible Errors.”

What are you reading, and how else are you resisting the soul-deadening digital and AI tsunami? (Handwritten letters? Real-life meetups with friends? Gardening instead of texting?) Please let me know. Finally, you might enjoy this wonderful piece (gift link here) by Alexandra Jacobs in the New York Times about the 75th anniversary of “The Catcher in the Rye.”

Leave a comment

Thanks so much for being here and caring about these issues. Here’s why one reader recently became a paid subscriber. I’d be honored if you’d consider doing the same.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

A former student of mine, a young journalist, wrote to me a couple of weeks ago unhappy with this New York Times headline.

“Supreme Court Mail Ballot Ruling Deals New Blow to Trump’s Election Plans.”

The headline, she pointed out, “normalizes voter disenfranchisement and reduces attempts to suppress the vote to ‘election plans’ and efforts to ‘regulate elections.’”

She continued (and yes, she was an excellent student) that the headline “struck me as a disservice to readers because it normalizes attempts to curtail the vote and ignores the larger context of federal attacks on voting access and voting rights.” She asked me to suggest a better headline. OK, how about something like “Supreme Court Ruling Backs Voting Rights and Impedes Trump’s Hope to Curtail Them.” (I’m not a headline writer by trade — never was — but maybe that’s directionally better.)

She’s right, and so are the people who’ve pointed out other Times headlines to me, or criticized them elsewhere. Here’s another one: “Trump’s Huge Windfall Has Few Known Global Precedents.” As former Chicago Sun-Times editorial page editor Lorraine Forte noted: “A ‘windfall’ is when you win the lottery, not when you systematically profit from blatant corruption.” Do better, she urged the Times on its headlines. The stories, often, avoid these problems. But headlines matter hugely.

Or another: “In Backing President Trump’s Politics, Justice Alito Finds His Moment.” Press critic and former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob points out that this is “an upbeat way for the New York Times to say that Alito is trying to turn our country into a dictatorship.”

I’ve heard a lot of people — including left-leaning commentators — say this kind of thing doesn’t matter a bit. That the real problems in media have far more to do with the right-wing megaphones for Trump like Fox News than with a few off-the-mark headlines in the Times. (Former Wall Street Journal editor and Columbia journalism professor Bill Grueskin took apart a Fox-to-New-York-Post story that was egregiously wrong. Wrong, but it was spread everywhere, including by Trump himself on Truth Social; the New York Post headline: “Illegal immigration caused house prices to rise 30 %.” Not so. Find the details here.)

But just because there are worse problems doesn’t excuse the headlines under discussion.

I admire a lot of what the Times does — like this mind-boggling investigation of how Trump gained at least $2 billion just since his second term began, including more than a billion from his family’s cryptocurrency operations.

I think the defenders are wrong.

Normalizing Trump and the whole right-wing project does matter. It’s part of what got us to this sorry place. And could inhibit our recovering from it.

What the Times does matters, especially now, at a moment when the Washington Post is greatly diminished (thanks to a self-serving billionaire) and when CBS News is a shadow of what it was (thanks to a couple of self-serving billionaires and their enablers) and when regional news is so sadly withered.

The New York Times is more dominant, and more influential, than ever. It is financially successful, it has a huge and talented newsroom, and — thankfully — it is not the puppet of Trump-pleasing oligarchs.

So when, in my former student’s words, it publishes prominent headlines that are “a disservice to readers,” yes, that matters.

I think top editors should grapple with this seriously. They should get staffers together and talk about how to improve these headlines. Less polite deference; more plainspoken directness. More helping the reader see things through the lens of “how does this fit into democratic norms and values?” The answer to that question simply can’t be normalization.

Big Journalism has done far, far too much of that, going back more than a decade. And since the Times is the preeminent source, it has a special — and a deeper — responsibility.

A headline can be technically accurate and yet miss the truth, and that’s what’s happening too often. Let me know what you think, readers!

I’m interested also in your views on the latest with Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, who seems on the brink of dropping out of the race after the latest sexual-assault charges against him. How are you reacting to this?

Leave a comment

I happen to agree with Robert Reich, as I often do; Platner needs to go immediately, and Maine needs to find someone better to run against the pusillanimous Republican Susan Collins. (He may already be gone by the time you read this.) I must say that I don’t like the argument that “the Republicans are worse, so who cares.” Sure, nobody’s perfect, and troubled people can turn themselves around, but character matters. And so do credible charges of sexual assault.

I’ll also like to share this terrific Contrarian piece by political scientist and author Norman Ornstein, whom I also admire and tend to agree with, titled “Reining in a Rogue Supreme Court.” He argues that Congress should take legitimate steps to bring the court back in line with the founders’ original intentions, and concludes that such reform is clearly necessary: “We have a rogue Supreme Court, and it is time to consider more sweeping actions to restore the balance among the branches.”

Readers, thanks for being here for this exploration of journalism’s role in our democracy. I appreciate your comments, which I read and learn from. And while I’m glad to have you here on any terms, if you can swing $50 a year to be a paid subscriber, that will help to keep this effort afloat.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

Soon after CBS News got a new (Trumpy) owner and new (right-leaning) editorial management last year, the company appointed someone to supposedly keep an eye on editorial bias and ensure impartiality.

Kenneth Weinstein would be “an independent, internal advocate for journalistic integrity and transparency.”

Yeah, right.

From the get-go, there was no reason to think this would be a real thing — a person whose first responsibility was to the CBS audience and whose first interest was fairness in the public interest. Indeed, the appointment only happened as part of a commitment to the Trump administration by the network’s parent company, Skydance, as it tried to get its huge merger with Paramount approved; despite the lofty words, this was never really about serving the public.

That soon became obvious.

First off, Weinstein had no background in supervising news coverage. He was a denizen of the right-leaning think tank, the Hudson Institute, a vocal champion of Israel, a critic of the Biden administration and a big donor to Republican and pro-Trump political groups. I’m not sure how this amounts to independence.

Since his appointment last September, he’s been notably unresponsive to public complaints and concerns about CBS News, where one controversy has followed another for months. Most recently, star 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley was fired after he charged his bosses with murdering the legendary news network.

How has Weinstein responded to the tumult?

Certainly not by communicating with the public. Despite the lip service to “transparency,” his role was never meant to face outwards, as is the norm with news ombudsmen; rather, if he saw a problem, he’d report it first to his corporate bosses. That was made explicit in a letter Skydance filed with the FCC.

As a result of all this, he’s been notably silent, even as CBS News has been the scene of a hurricane.

“CBS News’ Independent Watchdog Stays Quiet Amid ‘60 Minutes’ Turmoil,” was the New York Times headline about what Weinstein has been up to.

The story reported that in the nine months since he was hired, Weinstein “has issued no public statements about CBS News’s coverage or its controversies. He has not issued any guidance or feedback in staffwide emails or memos.” And he has told CBS employees that he is scheduled to work only one day a month.

It’s absurd.

I know something about this because I was the fifth “public editor” at the New York Times, a role dedicated to making sure the news organization was fair and was serving the public interest. The way the Times’s position was structured created actual, not fake, transparency.

During my nearly four-year tenure, I officially reported to publisher Arthur Sulzberger, but I always felt that I really worked for the readership of the Times and to some extent for the public at large.

Typically, I wrote blog posts several times a week. These appeared online within the Times website, often promoted on the home page, so readers would know they were there. I also wrote a more formal column that appeared in print every other week, as well as online, again on the Times’s own site.

My office fielded hundreds of emails and calls a week and my columns and posts generated a slew of comments and social media attention. I also spoke publicly about my role when I got the chance. (Sadly, the Times abolished the public editor role in 2017, the year after my term was up.) And my assistant and I replied by email or phone to many readers even when I didn’t write about their concerns.

In short, it was a full-time job — and then some.

With that background in mind, I can say with confidence that the CBS appointment has proved to be a sham.

A real CBS News ombudsman would have been mighty busy.

If I were the CBS News appointee, here are five concerns I surely would have taken up:

• The delay, ordered at the 11th hour, by top editor Bari Weiss in Sharyn Alfonsi’s report about a brutal prison in El Salvador where Venezuelan immigrants charged with crimes had been sent by the Trump administration. Alfonsi called it a political move, one apparently meant to avoid offending the Trump administration at a time when CBS’s parent company was trying to effect a big merger that needed federal approval. Alfonsi has since been fired. The merger went forward.

• The vast exodus of top talent at CBS News, from Anderson Cooper to Tanya Simon, the executive producer of 60 Minutes. Why are all these well-respected people getting fired, failing to have their contracts renewed or walking out the door of their own volition? Doesn’t the public deserve a full explanation?

• The tanking ratings at the CBS Evening News, where Weiss installed a new anchor Tony Dokoupil, brought onto the anchor desk to much fanfare about how he would change things by having his show speak to all of America. The public doesn’t seem to be buying it. How has the coverage changed at what once was the home of Walter Cronkite? To what extent is CBS News reporting aggressively on the Trump administration, its screwups and its corruption?

• And what about CBS Mornings, which has usually led the network pack, but had a horrible May? Then, after Pelley’s firing, according to TV Insider, the show suffered a whopping 28 percent drop in “the demo” — the coveted 25 to 54 year old group most appealing to advertisers. The CBS News audience is voting with its eyeballs and remote controls. Isn’t that a concern, not only from a business perspective but from a journalistic-mission perspective?

• On the CBS ombud website, some outside comments are available for public viewing, including complaints about the news network’s coverage of the Middle East and particularly what’s happened in Gaza. We know that Weiss is an avowed and proud Zionist, so to what extent is her ideology driving the news department’s coverage? Isn’t that an issue of editorial independence? Does she recuse herself from that coverage, given her stance? What has she said, internally, about it?

I could go on, but you get the picture. So does the public, if comments on the Times article are any indication.

“Mr. Weinstein is doing what he was hired to do, nothing!” wrote one. And another put it this way, “Weinstein is a puppet and everyone knows it.”

It’s (yet another) embarrassment to CBS News.

Readers, how has what’s happened at CBS News changed your news habits? Do you still watch 60 Minutes? What about other CBS News programs? If your habits have changed, what have you substituted? Have you ever tried to complain to the CBS brass about what’s happened there? Did you get any response?

Leave a comment

Separately, I was disgusted by J.D. Vance’s televised comments about how Richard Nixon’s reputation seemed to be having a comeback, and how the Watergate scandal would have been no big deal today. It would have been a one-day story, he suggested, and he added that it’s laughable that it brought down a president.

Of course, this was quite a self-own for the opportunistic vice president in this corrupt and ever-grifting administration. Watergate was a monumental scandal, for good reason.

As former Obama strategist David Alexrod, now chief political analyst at CNN, recalled on X:

“Just to review, Nixon’s aides authorized a break-in of the DNC headquarters to install bugging equipment…They then enlisted the CIA to mislead the FBI …the entire operation was paid for a slush fund controlled by the White House …The White House also enlisted the IRS to probe hundreds of Nixon’s political enemies…The Attorney General and White House Chief of Staff and several other top aides all were convicted and served time …Nixon was caught on his own secret tape system conspiring with them…”

As Axelrod put it, the fact that Vance thinks this would be a minor story today “speaks volumes about the moral and ethical degradation of the Trump era.”

Some of the punchiest commentary came on Substack from historian Garrett Graff, whose 2022 book, “Watergate: A New History,” is the definitive retrospective of this sordid chapter. Here’s his recent post.

And just for context, check out this new Times story on Trump, his family and their latest self-deal. We should all be shocked, but I’m afraid too may may have lost the ability.

I hope justice is served someday, as it largely was in Watergate, with the exception of Nixon’s pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford.

Readers, thanks so much for your interest, your comments and your support. They are all encouraging and very much appreciated.

Here’s why one reader decided last week to become a paid subscriber. Please consider joining him, for $50 a year. Thanks again!

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

—

I asked you, the readers of American Crisis, about your Big Hairy Audacious Goals — your BHAGs — to get America on the road to recovery after this destructive and distressing decade.

Hundreds of you responded with enthusiasm and eloquence (both in the comments, on social media and even in person, on a tennis court!). You offered important ideas that mostly fall into a few categories. I’ll hit some of the high points here, and then ask you another question that is equally important.

Get big money out of politics. Here’s a comment from paid subscriber LiverpoolFCfan:

“Goal number one (and it’s huge): Pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Only after we the people kick the oligarchs out of our politics will we be able to have a sane government that SERVES its citizens, not its campaign donors and lobbyists.”

On a tennis court over the weekend, Kathaleen Burke, a retired public-school science teacher in the Buffalo area, told me her most important goal is to restore respect for expertise and science in our society.

Gene Bensinger, a subscriber, wrote this on Bluesky:

“We probably need a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission, tasked with inventorying the wide ranging damage, identifying who/what caused it, and recommending fixes. Otherwise we’re rebuilding on a structurally compromised foundation. But all things come back to keeping $ out of politics.” (Here’s an article from The Hill that details the chapter in South African history from which this arises.)

And many of you wrote about the importance of public education, including civics education.

“I want to get an educated population,” wrote Jelly8Bean. “End school vouchers, develop public schools. Teach history and civics in grade school on up. Eliminate standard tests and get kids reading again….”

And here’s a worthy contender from yesbut: “Eliminate the Electoral College or at least base the number of participants on each state’s population, not the number of its Congressional representatives.”

And at the top of the comments section from that post, see Al Bellenchia’s five priorities: Equal rights for all, private money out of politics, tax wealth, universal health care, universal education.

There were many more worthy ideas. Some were about teaching media literacy and others about the importance of journalism in our democracy, including this one from Mirko Petricevic, who is active in the grassroots advocacy group Ink-Stained Wretches. “Build a culture of appreciation for quality journalism.” I’m certainly all for that.

Now the next question, as promised. How do we get there from here? It’s crucial to have goals, to know what we want and need for a truly democratic and decent nation. But we also need to know the pathway to get there.

The word that comes to mind for me is leadership. Visionary and determined and practical leadership. Elected leadership, especially that of a democracy-minded and reform-minded president. Wishful thinking? Maybe so. But it seems like an absolutely necessary element to me.

But not just the presidency. Congress. And just a reminder — the midterm elections, which have the potential to restrain this out-of-control administration — are just a few months away. It would be a start, and this is far from impossible though no certainty.

Please tell me, in the comments, your best ideas for how to begin enacting all these good ideas. What will it take? How can it begin? Thank you for your idealism, your optimism, or at least your hope. I still would love to change the name of this newsletter from American Crisis to American Comeback. Thank you so much for your thoughts and your interest.

Leave a comment

Separately, I know that if I were still the New York Times public editor, I’d be looking at a current controversy there. This one is about a guest interview in the Times opinion section, in which a non-Times interviewer talks to Kathy Ruemmler, a former Goldman Sachs lawyer and former White House counsel with troubling ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Readers and some Times journalists objected to the opinion-section arrangement because they saw it as a way to give Ruemmler soft treatment when she had dodged tougher scrutiny from the news side. The headline (gift link here) gives you a sense of it: “She Was One of Obama’s Top Lawyers. How Did She Get Tangled Up With Epstein?”

As one reader said in the comments: “I don’t get the point of this interview. Why do we need to hear Kathy Ruemmler’s side of the story?” And another: “I would love to know how this apologia came to be published in the NYT.” And another: “This puff piece is laugh-out-loud funny.”

The Times prides itself on the virtual wall between the newsroom and the opinion section. But that very arrangement can create problems. This interview presents its subject in a sympathetic light, probably much more favorable than an interview on the news side by the Times reporters who have been doing vital and hard-nosed work on the Epstein story.

“Multiple staffers told Status they worry some public figures could begin viewing the opinion section as a way to ‘end run’ tougher scrutiny from Times reporters and secure a more favorable hearing,” wrote Natalie Korach in Status. Just so.

Some new practices may need to be instituted to prevent this kind of thing. Surely, opinion-side editors could check with their news-side colleagues to see if a proposed opinion piece has the potential to undermine their reporting work? It doesn’t have to mean that the separation of church and state needs to be dissolved, since it’s a wise policy overall, but it might mean that subjects can’t interview-shop within the Times.

Finally, welcome to quite a few new subscribers. I’m very glad to have you here, as we try to move the American crisis to an American comeback. Thank you for your support, your interest — and for those who are able — your paid subscriptions. I deeply appreciate you all.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

I’ve been thinking about dramatic comebacks lately. Being down, almost hopelessly so, and then somehow overcoming all the odds.

Some of this is about the national election in Hungary, which in April saw Viktor Orban ousted as prime minister, sending the right-winger packing after decades of having an iron grip on power.

And some of this is about NBA point guard Jalen Brunson who led the New York Knicks to a glorious national championship on Saturday night, after the team was so down in game after game of its final series against the San Antonio Spurs that victory seemed impossible.

“You’re allowed to think about the worst possible scenario,” Brunson told an interviewer, “but you’ve got to go out there and do something about it.”

That was after the Knicks overcame a 29 point deficit to win Game 4 of their series. (If you want to read a great story about New York City’s reaction to the championship win, check out this beautifully written piece (gift link) by Matt Flegenheimer in the New York Times. It’s aptly titled, “Knicks Give Their City Something New: Impossible Joy.”)

Things may look impossibly grim, but you’ve got to go out and do something about it. As Antonio Gramsci put it, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.

Hungarians, sliding ever deeper toward authoritarianism, did something about it.

The Knicks, after a 53-year drought, did something about it.

And now, let’s talk about an American comeback. I’m shocked almost every day at how distressing things are right now as Donald Trump’s unrestrained second term acts as a wrecking ball on our democracy, our global reputation, and our values

But let’s say America can come back. Let’s say America does what Hungary has done, what the Knicks have done, and in literature, what Odysseus and Gandalf did. What happens after falling into the abyss? What can happen?

If America is to come back, reassert its democratic goals, and overcome this awful time, we must “do something about it.”

And in order to do something about it, we must have eyes on the prize, again like Brunson who through tears described winning the championship as “everything I’ve ever dreamed of.”

So, in this post, I ask you to tell me one element of your vision for an American Comeback. And I’ll tell you mine.

Dream big. And be specific.

Leave a comment

Maybe it’s getting dark money out of politics. Maybe it’s fully establishing voting rights for all Americans. Maybe it’s expanding or reforming the Supreme Court. Maybe it’s an ambitious rethinking of public education with an eye to creating good citizens.

To use the expression that was coined in the bestselling business-management book “Built to Last,” What’s your BHAG (pronounced “bee-hag”)? What’s your “Big Hairy Audacious Goal” for an American comeback?

Microsoft wanted “to put a computer on every desk and in every home.” NASA’s goal was to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely.

Please tell me yours, and I’ll devote a post soon to some of them.

When I was editor of the Buffalo News, I told the staff my BHAG — I wanted us to be the best regional newspaper in America. We had some mighty stiff competition, and probably didn’t get there compared to the Boston Globe, the (then-named) St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald, among others, but we won prizes and did important public-service journalism. I think setting the goal, as a North Star, was important.

And, in keeping with that, my own BHAG for the American comeback is to rebuild local journalism, which has declined so precipitously in the past two decades. That decline has resulted in an ever-expanding map of “news deserts,” where the public has little or no source of news about where they live. (The Buffalo News, which still does good work and is essential in Western New York, has not been immune; the newsroom staff I led, which numbered about 200 for many years, is only a quarter of that now. And the paper is printed in Cleveland, rather than on-site in Buffalo. A nonprofit reporting outlet, Investigative Post, founded by News alumnus Jim Heaney, helps to fill the gap. But the loss is still crushing.)

The results of the national decline are far-reaching. When local news diminishes, politics become more polarized, people become less engaged in their communities, and we lose the common ground of facts — and truth — that are the foundation of our democracy. An important nonprofit organization, RebuildLocalNews.org, revealed last week that local governments are paying roughly $1 billion more each year in excess costs because of the loss of public oversight; too often, the local press is no longer a watchdog on government.

That organization, run by Steve Waldman, has practical ideas about how to attack the problem. And some organizations like Press Forward and the American Journalism Project are making headway. I wrote about this sweeping problem and possible solutions here.

In addition, this is too small to qualify as a BHAG, but I’d also like to see the White House and its grounds restored to the beauty they had before the wrecking ball hit. Read my former Washington Post colleague, the brilliant Monica Hesse, about the latest White House embarrassment in this gift link.

Please think about your BHAG for an American comeback and let me know in the comments. And thanks so much for supporting this effort of mine with your interest and your subscriptions. I’d love to change this newsletter’s name someday from American Crisis to American Comeback. You can help.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

As you may have heard or seen, Donald Trump stormed out of his “Meet the Press” interview this past weekend after anchor Kristen Welker pressed him on his insistence that a California election and the 2020 presidential election were “rigged.” She also countered his lie-filled version of what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, in which he claimed that FBI agents ushered the rioters into the Capitol.

Where’s the evidence? she wanted to know. Why have you never presented any evidence for these claims? And why has no court of law ever ruled that there was such evidence?

Trump — who talked over her boorishly for much of the interview — had no actual answer for these reasonable questions, so he resorted to insult and then abruptly walked out.

“You’re crooked….You’re either crooked or stupid…” He reeled off a list of networks from ABC to CNN, and proclaimed they all knew about rigged elections.

“One-sided crooked networks…Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good time,” he said, and walked off camera.

It was a shameful performance, and in some cases, the news media paid it little mind. The New York Times, for instance, gave the abrupt departure a single line in the eighth paragraph of its story about the interview: “Mr. Trump eventually ended the wide-ranging interview after being repeatedly pressed by Ms. Welker about claiming, without evidence, that recent elections in California were rigged.” To its credit, the Times story did clearly state that Trump was wrong when he claimed in the NBC interview that he hadn’t promised he wouldn’t involve the U.S. in any wars. As the story stated without attribution: “He did promise,” and quoted him, “They said, ‘He will start a war…I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.’”

The Washington Post, by contrast, gave prominent display to an article all about Trump’s temper tantrum, headlined “Trump walks out of ‘Meet the Press’ interview when challenged over false claims.” The story (gift link here) noted with a certain amount of understatement: “Trump appeared to become agitated when Welker asked him about the $1.8 billion fund he has sought to pay people claiming they were victims of politicized prosecutions.”

Welker herself downplayed the conflict in her odd tweet: “My interview with President Trump on Friday afternoon was unfortunately complicated by weather issues. In spite of those challenges, we still had a substantial conversation…”

Jake Tapper of CNN rightly described Trump’s behavior as “some wild, unhinged stuff.”

Good for Welker for being persistent. There should be more of this.

I can’t really recommend that you watch this interview because it’s so disturbing to see and hear. Nothing new, really, but it’s awful nonetheless to see the president of the United States becoming so abusive and pushing lie after lie.

By contrast, consider the illuminating New York Times interview with Scott Pelley of Sixty Minutes, who was fired by his longtime employer, CBS News, last week. Here’s some of what he told Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who asked the right questions and gave the thoughtful and eloquent Pelley his head:

“There’s a subtle political bias that I’ve never seen at “60 Minutes” before, or at CBS News before,” he said. “We can save this. It’s possible to land this plane. But right now, CBS News is on fire.”

This one I do encourage you to watch (here’s a gift link) because it is a display of intelligence and righteous indignation about what’s going on at CBS News under its contemptible new ownership and management.

There are parts of it that are mind-blowing in their honesty and emotion, and highly informative about what was really happening at the network and the show. Listen to Pelley particularly about Tanya Simon, the executive producer, who was another victim of Bari Weiss’s purge.

A veteran TV executive with whom I keep in touch urged people not to simply read the transcript. I agree! It’s long, but you’ll benefit by seeing even some portion of it.

All of this, of course, is related to Trump — who even in his dotage and decline has such a forcefield around him. (As I write this, he was due within hours to disrupt New York City by attending a Knicks playoff game at Madison Square Garden — another display of his boundless narcissism and desire to draw attention to himself.)

CBS News’s murder, as Pelley puts it, would not be happening without billionaires like CEO David Ellison cozying up to Trump in order to get federal approval for pending mergers. And Trump’s lies — and the media normalization of them — continue apace.

Readers, I’d love to hear your views of the “Meet the Press” interview and of Welker’s efforts to press for evidence. I’d also love to hear your reaction to what Scott Pelley said — and how he said it. Please let me know your reaction in the comments.

Leave a comment

Separately, I’ve also been paying close attention to the reporting about Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, a populist Democrat and Iraq War veteran, and to the media coverage of Platner’s background.

If you’ve been following it, too, how newsworthy do you find the stories about his “unsettling” or “toxic” relationships with women? If I were still the public editor of the Times, I’m sure this would be on my radar this week, since that story has been sharply criticized by its major source — a Republican woman, Lyndsey Fifield, who has worked for the Heritage Foundation and who depicted the man she dated as physically volatile — as well as by people who insist the story is a “nothing burger,” a Republican smear campaign. It drew fire across the political spectrum for various reasons.

Maine’s primary election is today. Platner is likely to win; the bigger question is how he’ll fare against Republican Susan Collins in November’s general election. Here’s a good catch-up on the story in the Guardian. How do you feel about Democrats like California Congressman Ro Khanna who continues to support Platner despite what he calls the candidate’s “shameful” behavior?

I’ll probably return to this after the primary, assuming Platner wins. Maine public media notes that the controversies don’t seem to have seriously hurt his popularity in the state.

Readers, as always, thanks so much for being here and for caring about the relationship between journalism and democracy. I deeply appreciate your support, your comments, and your subscriptions. Here’s why one reader decided to become a paid subscriber, and below that is some information about my aims for this newsletter. Paid subscriptions ($50 for a year) help keep this newsletter available to all without a paywall. I hope you’ll consider it! Thank you.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

“Just gimme some truth,” John Lennon sang decades ago. “All I want is the truth.”

That simple desire seems harder than ever to fulfill.

A few days ago, for instance, Trump aide Stephen Miller posted a lie clearly meant to damage the campaign of James Talarico, the Democrat who’s running for Senate in Texas. His opponent is ultra-right-wing Ken Paxton. That’s Trump’s choice, despite all the scandals and corruption charges that should be disqualifying for Paxton.

Here’s what Miller posted on X: The Democratic Party had “made history in Texas by nominating their first transgender senate candidate.” No truth to it. But given the hatred that comes the way of trans people, it was well calculated, in the worst possible way.

Soon, that lie was picked up all around, boosted by right-wing commentators, and seen by millions of people.

An official Democratic social media account fired back with a profanity, calling Miller ugly and telling him to shut up, and that set off a round of stories about the fracas, which probably served Trump’s purposes to some extent because they re-surfaced Talarico’s 2021 comment that “God is non-binary” — something that may not play all that well in Texas. (Talarico, a state legislator, is a 37-year-old Presbyterian seminarian, by the way; he’s also not a vegan, although that’s another lie that’s being circulated by the opposition eager to portray him as “not our kind of guy” to meat-eating Texans.)

Were some Texas voters influenced against Talarico by Miller’s lie? Probably. The anti-trans prejudice runs horrifyingly deep, as we saw in the ads against Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential campaign.

Efforts to smear have always been a part of political campaigns, but these days, it’s harder to know what’s true. After all, the liar-in-chief in the White House provides leadership on this issue.

In addition, mainstream news organizations seem less interested now in documenting and challenging those lies. Glenn Kessler, who tracked the more than 30,000 Trump lies and false statements in Trump’s first term, took a buyout from the Washington Post — and despite his efforts to create a succession plan there, the Post hasn’t replaced him in the official role of Fact Checker.

Daniel Dale is still doing his excellent work at CNN, but in recent months, they have rarely put him on the air. That may not be for any nefarious purpose, just the normal flow of news, but it’s nonetheless the case that (as of this writing on June 1), he hasn’t been on the air since mid-March.

Dale continues to crank out smart written fact checks. For example, he offered one of Trump’s false claims at a Cabinet meeting last week. Trump stated about Iran’s military capabilities that “their navy is gone, their air force is gone, everything’s gone.” Dale notes that CNN’s reporting from April indicated that Iran’s military is reconstituting fast and that half of its missile launchers were still intact. Dale also took on Trump’s claims about prescription drug prices: “We have drugs down 400, 500, 600 percent.” Dale notes that, for starters, this is mathematically impossible. Read the whole piece (and others like it) on the website.

But somehow the lies outpace the truth every time, as in this line often attributed to Mark Twain: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

And then there’s AI, and all the truth-related problems that come with it.

A few weeks ago, I got a pitch from the publisher of a new book, “The Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality.” It had already gotten a lot of attention and its premise looked interesting enough that I thought of featuring an interview with the author here. My idea was that Abraham Kenmore, who produces this newsletter each week, could do a Q&A interview with Steven Rosenbaum for publication here — and that I would write an introduction crediting Abe for the interview itself. (Abe is a fine journalist in his own right, and my former teaching assistant at Duke University.)

We were in the midst of arranging this when the New York Times broke a troubling story: “Book on Truth in the Age of A.I. Contains Quotes Made Up by A.I.” (Here’s a gift link.) Since then, the news about the book has only worsened. Wired magazine retracted its published excerpt this past weekend.

But the even-more-twisted part came after Abe told the book representative that we were no longer going to do the author interview because of the fabricated quotes.

Here’s what Richard Kaemer, chief executive of RLM public relations, wrote back, arguing with our decisions: “They were quotes hallucinated from AI. Not fabricated.” This, the book’s representatives seemed to suggest, just made the author’s premise more interesting and perhaps we’d like to discuss or debate these points with the author. We declined.

Readers, I probably don’t need to convince any of you that truth is harder to find — or even identify — than ever before.

But what can we do about it? Here’s what Kessler told me on Monday, and I agree:

“People need to rely on verified sources of information and be willing to pay for it.” I’ve believed for a long time that a good litmus test of a respectable news organization is whether it regularly publishes corrections of its own (inevitable) mistakes. Places like the New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, CNN and others do that. If media organizations don’t correct their mistakes, I wouldn’t be inclined to give them my subscription dollars. Similarly, if they have no clear policy on AI use, I’d tend to steer clear. You can search a news organization’s ethics code or its standards and practices to find out.

Here are some other tips for truth seekers in an age of lies:

• Follow and read fact-check outlets or individuals with a track record of seeking out the truth on contested claims. Among these are Politifact, Factcheck.org and Lead Stories. Kessler’s Substack and Dale’s CNN pieces are good sources, too.

• Before you believe — and definitely before you share — check it out. Something as simple as a (non-AI) Google search may help, since the accuracy of a statement may have been addressed by somebody or you may be able to find confirmation of it from a trusted source.

• Slow down! When it comes to spreading misinformation, speed kills. I found myself doing this very recently when I started seeing stories about Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s sexting infidelity. Was this just political scuttlebutt, or was it based in reality? It turned out to be the latter.

• When in doubt, ask out loud. By this, I mean inquire in your own circle or on social media. Somebody may have knowledge or links to good information. It’s far better to risk looking un-savvy rather than flat-out wrong.

• Be skeptical of anything Donald Trump says. This may seem obvious but he is the president and, though we should know better by now, his word is still taken (too) seriously because of that. Lies, exaggerations, flights of fancy … he’s got them all covered.

Readers, what’s your experience of all of this? Do you have any suggestions or tips that might be useful to us all? Please respond in the comments.

Leave a comment

Some suggested reading on the topics we all care about:

My Guardian colleague Jeremy Barr wrote Monday that the well-respected 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley met with CBS brass and called out editor Bari Weiss: “She’s murdering 60 Minutes … She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it and is doing exactly that.” It was a shocking moment, and Pelley is a truth-teller.

Here’s Dick Tofel’s piece on Substack about the enduring importance of the New York Times. I’d love to hear your reaction.

Here’s Frank Bruni on the midterm elections and Trump’s fears. (gift link)

And here’s Parker Molloy’s analysis of the tragic changes at CBS News and 60 Minutes. It was a rough week there, and a discouraging one for those who care about the relationship between fearless journalism and American democracy.

Thank you very much for your support, your interest and your involvement at this critical time for American democracy.

This newsletter’s paywall remains down so all can read and comment. I deeply appreciate your subscriptions, whether paid or unpaid. If you can support this effort at $50 a year, you’ll help to keep it going for all. Here’s why one reader recently became a paid subscriber.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

—

It takes a lot to get through to Americans, so many of whom have decided to ignore serious news in favor of mindless video reels. Yet, Donald Trump’s presidential approval rankings are tanking — badly.

It takes even more to get through to the right-leaning or right-wing media, who for years have been stubbornly loyal to a terrible president. They care more about catering to the “base” than to the truth.

Yet, in recent days, something has changed even there.

What has changed? It’s not just Trump’s doomed and misguided war with Iran, which is wildly unpopular, and has jacked up gas prices — perhaps the one thing that Americans can’t ignore.

It’s also his outrageous $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” which is increasingly being referred to — across the media landscape — as a slush fund for his political allies. It potentially will benefit even the criminals who attacked police officers on Jan. 6, 2021 at the Capitol.

“One of the single most corrupt acts in American history,” was how Douglas K. Sherman, president of the legal watchdog organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, characterized this development to the New York Times.

Initial coverage of the slush fund last week seemed to be the usual thing — one-day coverage and moving on. (I wrote about that in the Guardian, criticizing the media for its short attention span and failure to communicate the big picture. )

But I’ve noticed something surprising as the days went on. There’s something about this fund that is sticking, something that’s not getting lost in the usual “flood the zone with shit,” in Steve Bannon’s immortal phrase.

Major news organizations were finding followup stories about the fund, which gave the story “legs,” in the newsroom phrase.

Within a day or so, police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 filed a federal lawsuit trying to block the fund. It got prominent display on the Washington Post home page; here’s a gift link to that story.

And on the right, there was a surprising amount of trouble for Trump.

Consider these two pretty reliable media barometers.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, famously ultra-conservative, harshly criticized the slush fund, including the phrase “this payment deal is rotten.”

Howard Kurtz, the Fox News media writer, focused on the anti-Trump sentiment among prominent Republican lawmakers, like Ron Johnson who called it a “galactic blunder” and Mitch McConnell who called it “utterly stupid, morally wrong.” As Kurtz posted on X: “Trump still controls the party but there’s something here that touched a nerve, loosened his grip, that started with his IRS suit and crossed a bright line.”

Granted, Kurtz is an opinion writer but he does work at Fox News, so it’s notable when he writes, “There was something about Trump’s decision to use $1.8 billion largely for those convicted of crimes on Jan. 6 that was a bridge too far. Some of these people had attacked and injured police officers, seized members’ offices and chanted for Mike Pence’s hanging.”

By contrast, many of Fox’s star anchors are sticking with the Trump program, especially when it comes to glowing coverage of the Iran war, wrote Matt Gertz of Media Matters. Trump is depicted on the network “as a steely-eyed negotiator,” and — in the words of one anchor, a leader with “courage, wisdom and fortitude.” But that’s an increasingly insular view, as Fox attempts to hold onto its aging and Trump-loyal audience.

In other quarters, reality is creeping in. And certainly, independent voices are brutally criticizing the slush fund. Terry Moran, formerly of ABC News and now on Substack went so far as to call the deal “plunder,” and Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary, put it even more bluntly with a headline reading “Trump Just Stole Your Money.” He wrote: “I’ve been around politics for over 50 years. I’ve never seen anything as brazenly crooked and corrupt as what Trump and his cronies did today. Donald Trump makes Richard Nixon look like a choir boy.”

Does it matter? Yes, it matters a lot when you consider that the midterm elections now are only about five months away. Democratic control of one or both chambers is probably the only hope for restricting Trump’s next few years.

If enough American people are disgusted enough — and it looks like they might be — there is indeed hope for reining in this out-of-control president.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report seems to think so.

“An Indulgent Presidency Continues to Imperil Congressional Republicans” is how Cook’s editor in chief Amy Walter sees it.

What’s happening is paradoxical given recent election results in which Trump managed to exert enough influence to get his loyalist candidates elected in a number of Republican primaries. But here’s how Walter explained it: “Trump is winning the battle for the soul of MAGA … but MAGA alone isn’t enough to win the midterms.”

What he needs are independents, where his approval rating is at a bottom-dwelling 27 percent, and what Cook calls the “normie” Republicans who are unenthusiastic about going to the polls this fall.

What about the mainstream media, which speaks most clearly to those two non-MAGA groups? There, too, the tone has changed a bit.

The Times — which remains so influential with other mainstream news sources — is using more direct language, as in this recent headline.

“As Trump Politicizes Justice Dept., Prosecutors Struggle With Grand Juries.” I mean, obvious, right? But the wording is blunter. It’s a little hard to get around the slush fund as proof positive of politicization. So, apparently less need to weasel-word it. And that’s a straight news story, not an analysis or opinion piece.

And CNN offered a stark headline: “Targets of Trump’s retribution slam ‘slush fund,’ saying they’re the real victims of weaponized DOJ.”

For those who have waited years for something — anything — to be Trump’s downfall, this may seem like just another chapter in the long running story of how he gets away with everything. The “grab ‘em by the pussy” audio, the Mueller Report, the constant embarrassments on the global stage. He endures, and remains immensely powerful.

But the coming midterms couldn’t be more important. And somehow the combination of skyrocketing gas prices and this blatant corruption seems to be getting through. Yes, the Supreme Court’s ruling that weakens the power of Black votes is going to matter. But even that may not be able to overcome the lethal combination that Trump’s own actions have created.

Byron York, the chief political correspondent for the conservative Washington Examiner, sees a dark outlook for Republicans in the midterms despite the redistricting victory. Read his gloomy-for-the-GOP analysis here.

Readers, what’s your view? Do you think the slush fund story is breaking through? Are your media sources giving it some emphasis? Do you think it will matter in November? Please let me know.

Leave a comment

Thanks so much for caring about the crucial relationship between journalism and democracy, which is what American Crisis is all about. Here’s why one reader decided to become a paid subscriber — a much appreciated move if you can swing it. (Wayne is the former music critic for Newsday; and writes a fine Substack newsletter on that subject. Check out his recent piece in which he perceptively disagrees with the New York Times list of the 30 greatest living American songwriters.)

There is no paywall here, so please do help out if you can. I want to keep this newsletter accessible to all.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

In the years since I left the role of New York Times public editor, I have sometimes said to myself, “This is another good day not to be the public editor.”

As complaints would arise about one controversy or another, I knew that if I were still in that job, I’d be spending my time sifting through criticism, and trying to sort out what had happened and how to respond appropriately. Lots of times I’d know the subject was a minefield, and that whatever I did could safely be put in the category of a no-win situation.

The role — discontinued in 2017, the year after I left — was basically that of an ombudsman, reader representative and internal media critic. Some people called it “the worst job in journalism.” That’s because the public editor was in the uncomfortable position of critiquing the very journalists who might be seated nearby in the newsroom — some with big egos and thin skins — at the influential New York Times. It wasn’t easy, certainly, but I found it to be a privilege.

I was the fifth, and longest serving, public editor. I left voluntarily to go to the Washington Post as media columnist, a very different assignment. At the Post, I was a staff writer, not an internal critic.

In the past week or so, I’ve had reason to say those words again to myself — another good day not to be the New York Times public editor — because of the intense furor over a piece by columnist Nicholas Kristof.

The headline is “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” and here’s a gift link, in case you haven’t read it.

The column begins: “It’s a simple proposition: Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape. Supporters of Israel made that point after the brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.”

It continues that, in “wrenching interviews,” Palestinians recounted a “pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children — by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards.”

Kristof writes that there is “no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” But, citing a United Nations report, he wrote that sexual violence has nevertheless become one of Israel’s “standard operating procedures.”

There’s a great deal more. The column is long and brutally detailed. It relies on a combination of named sources, external reports (some of which have come under fire) and background interviews. Kristof writes that while sexual violence is all too common around the world, “this is sexual violence in which the United States is complicit,” because American tax dollars subsidize the Israeli security establishment. He writes that the Israeli government “rejects suggestions that it sexually abuses Palestinians, just as Hamas denied raping Israeli women.”

In the part of the column that has drawn the most criticism, Kristof quotes an unnamed Gaza journalist who says that in prison he was blindfolded, handcuffed and sexually penetrated by a dog; the columnist writes of reports that police dogs have been “coached to rape prisoners.”

The reaction to the column includes horror and shame expressed by many readers, as you can see in the published comments, and outraged rejection of the reporting by supporters of Israel, particularly the Israeli government. Its foreign ministry called the column “one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press” and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu threatened to sue the Times, charging in a statement that the Times had “defamed soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers.”

The Times has publicly defended the story, with a spokesman describing it as extensively reported, fact-checked and researched. And a Times spokeswoman called the legal threats “part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative.”

What could a public editor do? What might I do?

First, consider any specific facts or claims that are being challenged as untrue. Is the column solidly reported in all ways? Is there verifiable evidence for all the claims and conclusions?

Second, take any objections that may be valid to Times journalists — Kristof, his immediate editors, and top editors — and get their specific response and explanations.

Third, consider outside written criticism of the piece. Possible examples: This commentary in Substack by Rabbi Steven Abraham of Omaha’s Beth El Synagogue; and this one by Prem Thakker and Minnah Arshad in the progressive, pro-Palestinian outlet, Zeteo.

Fourth, try to bring as much context to the subject as possible, short of trying to write a historical treatise.

And finally, I would try to synthesize all of that, and write a column outlining the complaints, the responses, and my own conclusions.

What I would NOT do, as public editor? I would not attempt to “re-report” any aspects of the column myself. I always found that to be beyond my role.

I also would not give credence to the criticism that this piece was invalidated in some way because the Times considered it “opinion,” not regular reporting. Kristof is a columnist, not a reporter on the news side of the paper, and that’s why it appears where it does — not because the editors somehow decided it didn’t meet higher news-side standards.

Columnists do, of course, have more leeway to write in their own voice and draw conclusions, but they must stay tethered to facts and evidence. I would explain this in my column; a public editor can serve the useful role of pulling back the curtain and explaining opaque procedures and conventions.

Would any of this help? It might. There’s always a huge amount of heat and not enough light on the subject of Middle East coverage, especially at the Times. Critics often go to extremes and are simply not able to hear each other. I once had a former Jerusalem bureau chief tell me that Times readers seem to believe, at some deep emotional level, that if they could “fix” the paper’s coverage of the Middle East, they could somehow solve the deeper, endemic real-world problems of the region.

I understand why the Times ended its public-editor role, but I think that decision was a loss to the readership — despite new and worthy efforts to be more transparent and responsive. The role isn’t a perfect solution to dealing with criticism or addressing journalistic problems (such as the over-reliance on anonymous sources). Fallible human beings are involved, after all. But it can be useful and valuable.

Readers, I’d be grateful to hear your response to all of this. What do you think of the Kristof column? What do you think of the criticism and legal threats? And do you think the loss of the public editor’s role makes any difference here? Is there a better way to respond?

Leave a comment

I always want to add, when I write about this, that I left the Times of my own volition, after serving longer than any of my predecessors or my successor. Some people think I was fired, but that’s not the case. Then-publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (father of the current publisher, A.G. Sulzberger) even suggested I stay beyond my term for perhaps another year, but I was ready to move on. And I certainly would have no interest in resuming the job now.

Separately, I want to recommend this piece by my former Buffalo News colleague Jerry Zremski, who joined Substack recently and is doing some really smart work on his newsletter This Hard Land. This one is titled, “Today’s tech titans aren’t robber barons. They’re worse.”

Thanks so much for your interest in the importance of good journalism at a time when democracy is so threatened and when the world is in such turmoil. Your comments and subscriptions encourage me, and are deeply appreciated.

Here’s why one reader recently became a paid subscriber to American Crisis. And beneath that is some information for newcomers about who I am and what I’m trying to do. (And why I removed the paywall a while back.)

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

As a media critic, I often identify what I see as the failings of Big Journalism. I did that here last week in my post titled “The media’s double standard for Trump needs to stop.”

I gave examples of that double standard that too often gives this president the benefit of the doubt — or sane-washes his words — when that isn’t warranted. That does harm because it misleads the public.

I also promised to suggest some solutions or improvements, since it’s no good to criticize without suggesting a better way. That’s what I’m setting out to do here today.

First, don’t fall for every distraction. Trump is a master of this; it’s a key part of Steve Bannon’s advice years ago to “flood the zone with shit.” In recent days, Trump has been talking about making Venezuela the 51st state. It’s absurd, of course, but the claim captured its share of headlines and alerts. John Roberts of Fox News posted about it Monday morning, and outlets as disparate as the New York Post and the Daily Beast picked up on it, giving it headlines with varying degrees of seriousness. Didn’t we hear that about Canada and Greenland? Don’t chase every squirrel. Eyes on the bigger picture. Where, for example, is the sustained reporting on Trump’s physical and mental health?

Second, relentlessly provide historical context. How does a particular situation (for example, the White House ballroom or the golden-idol statue of Trump at his Doral golf club in Florida) stack up when seen through a longer lens? We often see the soft-focus word “unprecedented” but let’s be much more explicit whenever possible. I thought the AP did a good job with this in its story quoting preservationists and historians about the ballroom plans.

Third, don’t put lies or falsehoods into headlines or news alerts. Just because the president says something it doesn’t warrant handing over a megaphone. Here’s a headline from Scripps News that falls into that trap: “Trump Declares US has won the war with Iran as nuclear deal negotiations continue.” He can declare all he wants but it’s not true, and therefore should not be magnified — even if he is the president. The deference to the Oval Office may have been defensible in an earlier era, but not now. That practice is misleading, and that’s not the role of journalism. Our job is to seek and publish the truth.

Fourth, dig deeper to avoid taking Trump’s utterances at face value. I loved what NBC News did recently after Trump claimed he had spoken to a former president about bombing Iran. Reporters did the due diligence, getting in touch with aides for George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama — who all denied it — and ruled out Joe Biden as well. Straight-up reporting, nothing fancy, was the answer to the nonsense. More of this, please!

Fifth, use direct language. When Trump not long ago made a shockingly boorish joke about Pearl Harbor during a White House meeting with Japan’s prime minister, the New York Times described this as an example of his “penchant for tossing aside diplomatic norms.” That soft-pedaling is a close cousin of sane-washing. It takes something that’s way out of bounds and files off the rough edges to describe it with deference and politeness. Trump’s was a crude utterance and could have been safely described that way. There was more of the same in Politico’s credulous headline that accepts the premise that Trump ever really gave a damn about furthering a noble cause.“U.S. oil rush into Venezuela tests Trump’s democracy promises.” Mark Jacob suggests a truer version that acknowledges what Trump has cared about all along: “Trump’s in a much bigger hurry to get oil out of Venezuela than to bring democracy in.”

The newly expanded Washington-based outlet NOTUS (which is soon and wisely changing its name to The Star) published the ideas of 16 former Washington Post journalists about how to make DC journalism better.

Among them: Marc Fisher calling for fewer “suits yelling at each other on TV or YouTube” and more of the “harder work of gumshoe reporting” — the kind that happens door-to-door.

Jose A. Del Real wants to see reporters rewarded for something other than “palace intrigue and scooplets,” which rely on access reporting. Instead, he urges more reporting on “the texture and tenor of American life beyond Washington.”

And Dana Milbank wants to see more local news about the Washington region, noting that the decline of local news is a huge reason for our “political polarization and dysfunction.” He’s right.

As a former Post columnist, I got my say in the roundup, too, suggesting that the annual White House Correspondent’s Dinner — that glitzy and counterproductive schmoozefest — be radically rethought. I was happy to read in Brian Stelter’s newsletter that this year’s disrupted dinner may be rescheduled as a luncheon or a more “modest” dinner. That’s a good start, and one that could set the tone for following years.

I was also glad to see that ABC and its parent company, Disney, are standing strong for First Amendment principles — in contrast to the way they buckled in 2024 by settling a Trump defamation lawsuit rather than defending it. This time, they are taking the legal fight to the Trump-friendly FCC over its apparent attempts to censor The View by investigating whether the daytime talk show is breaking rules requiring equal time to candidates from both parties. As the only Democrat on the FCC, Anna Gomez, put it bluntly: “I’m glad Disney is choosing courage over capitulation.” More of this, please, too, since letting bullies get their way only encourages them. Here’s a gift link to the front page story about this gutsy pushback in the New York Times.

And finally, be sure to see this excellent tribute to CBS News Radio which is, sadly, signing off the air very soon. The 11-minute piece, which traces the storied history of the network, aired on CBS Sunday Morning this past weekend. Media is changing, of course; that’s inevitable. But this one hurts and could have been avoided. If CBS News hadn’t come under the sway of right-leaning new management (David Ellison, Bari Weiss et al), it surely would have lasted longer. As one veteran broadcast journalist told me, terming the tribute “magnificent” after he watched it Sunday morning: “The length and star power was a clear f-you to Weiss.”

Readers, thanks so much for being here, and for caring about how journalism affects our fragile democracy. I appreciate your comments, your subscriptions (paid or unpaid) and the way you share these posts on social media or with friends.

If you have the means, I’d deeply appreciate your upgrading to a paid subscription for $50 a year. It would help to defray the costs of publication and keep the paywall removed so all can read and express their views. (A tiny fraction of total subscribers here are paid, but I resist returning to a paywall.)

Do any of the suggestions above resonate with you? Do you have any improvements of your own to suggest? Let me know in the comments, please. I read your comments with interest and appreciation.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

This week, she and her Post colleagues won journalism’s highest award, the Pulitzer Prize for public service, for coverage of the Trump administration’s radical overhaul of government agencies under the auspices of Elon Musk’s DOGE.

And also this week, a second judge blocked the Justice Department from searching Natanson’s devices. The judge said he could not ignore “the harassing and chilling effects” of the seizure, as the Hill reported.

Erik Wemple of the New York Times wrote about Natanson, his former Post colleague.

Here’s a gift link to his piece, which includes this quote from her former editor, Lynda Robinson, about Natanson’s work ethic, as she gathered more than 1,100 sources for her stories.

“She was working so hard, I worried about her. She probably has two years’ of comp time.”

Readers, because I know you care about journalism and democracy, I’m sure you’ll appreciate learning more about Nathanson and all that’s happened. I also loved her words to her sources as she acknowledged the Pulitzer in the Post newsroom: “To every government worker who risked so much to confide in me, I want you to know your trust is the highest honor I will ever receive.”

Let me know your reaction in the comments. Thanks to all for reading and subscribing to American Crisis.

There’s a lot of great journalism being produced these days, despite a troubled business landscape for the media. Look no further than the Pulitzer Prizes announced Monday to see some of the best, from the Minnesota Star Tribune to the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Washington Post and many more. I was thrilled to see Julie K. Brown, the investigative reporter from the Miami Herald, recognized with a special citation for her groundbreaking work on Jeffrey Epstein’s abuses. See the full Pulitzer list here.

All of this work is important. Admirable. Essential. It makes me proud to be a journalist, and makes me realize again why democracy needs journalism — and needs it to be at its best. Especially at this critical moment.

And yet. In general, the mainstream news media continues to do what it has done for more than a decade: Fail to cover Donald Trump in a consistent way that truly serves the public interest, or that holds him accountable.

We all know how it plays out, over and over again.

“Flood the zone with shit,” was Trump ally Steve Bannon’s advice — and prediction — years ago. Read this Sean Illing piece in Vox to recall this pernicious plan of overwhelming the public with misinformation for political ends.

Trump has taken heed. And he gets away with it. True, his disapproval rating is at a whopping 62 percent, but he’s still in office, still calling the shots, still waging an illegal war, still threatening sovereign nations with takeover.

His craziness, grift, and unpredictability are already priced in to the coverage in a “there Trump goes again” way.

Donald Trump utters or does something vile, and the media notes it and moves on. Or he does something outrageous, and the media takes the edges off it with polite wording. And moves on. Or he acts in a way that no other public figure could do, but somehow he gets away with it. Everybody moves on.

In recent days, for example, he proclaimed in a speech in Florida that Cuba was the next thing in his sights, echoing his earlier comments on the same subject.

The U.S. will be “taking over [Cuba] almost immediately.”

“On the way back from Iran, we’ll have one of our big — maybe the USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft Carrier, the biggest in the world, we’ll have that come in, stop about 100 yards off shore, and they’ll say ‘thank you very much, we give up.’”

Just imagine if President Biden (or any other president) had said such a thing. Huge headlines. Weeks of coverage. Opinion pieces about the need to employ the 25th Amendment. Cast your mind back to the coverage of Biden’s age after that infamous 2024 debate if you want to know what all-out, relentless coverage that questions a public official’s basic competence can look like.

You won’t be seeing that here, I can promise you.

Consider also the 60 Minutes interview he did right after the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

In an ironic move, CBS was compelled to publish the entire transcript of the long interview, even though they edited it down very significantly for the broadcast. They had to publish the transcript because of Trump himself, who sued CBS over the editing of its interview with Kamala Harris in 2024. One of the conditions of the settlement was that full transcripts of similar interviews would be published in the future. So Trump has no one to blame but himself for the publication of his lunatic ramblings.

But what did he say in the interview (read it here if you have the stomach for it)? Here’s how the Hollywood Reporter described his comments: “about Democrats disagreeing with his policies, needing his White House State Ballroom finished for security purposes, blaming the internet for radicalizing some people, slamming No Kings protests, criticizing former President Joe Biden, reacting to conspiracy theories that the event was staged or didn’t happen and his plans to ‘hit people really hard’ with humor in his White House Correspondents’ Dinner speech, among other topics.”

In other words, as the New Republic observed on social media, his “wild rants depict a man who is much more petulant and incoherent than the broadcast would suggest.”

“You know, I’m not a king.… I see these No Kings which are funded just like the [Southern Poverty Law Center] was funded. You all that Southern Laws, financing the KKK and lots of other radical, terrible groups. And then they go out and they say, Oh, we’ve got to stop the KKK. And yet they give them hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. They work. It’s a total scam run by the Democrats. It shows you that, like Charlottesville, Charlottesville was all funded by the Southern Law,” Trump said—a completely outrageous claim given that neo-Nazis and white supremacists like Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes were there. “That was a Southern Law deal too. And it was done to make me look bad. And it turned out to be a total fake. It basically was a rigged election. This was a part of the rigging of the election.”

Most of the press coverage of that 60 minutes interview was about Trump’s criticism of Norah O’Donnell or about how he wasn’t worried about the alleged assassination attempt.

Axios: Trump lashes out at ‘60 Minutes’ for asking about gunman manifesto

CBS News: Trump ‘wasn’t worried’ during White House Correspondents Dinner shooting.

New York Post: Trump calls ‘60 Minutes’ host ‘disgraceful’…

You get the idea. The conflict with Norah O’Donnell, not the lie-filled rants about everything else, were deemed newsworthy.

I liked what NJ.com did: “Trump unfiltered: The revealing moments CBS cut from his ‘60 Minutes’ interview.” The site, which is New Jersey’s largest local news source, managed to hit some of the lowlights, such as his false claim that CBS had paid him a $38 million settlement; it was $16 million.

Why does the media continue to sane-wash like this? Why does Trump get a free pass so often from the media? Be sure to see Greg Sargent’s piece on Dana Bash of CNN’s off-base questioning of Rep. Jamie Raskin, in which he ponders the media’s “tolerance for Trump’s (incivility alert!) fascism.”

So many headlines give Trump the benefit of the doubt, even when stories themselves are clear.

Jennifer Schulze, a sharp media observer and former TV-news executive, singled out this New York Times headline: “Trump Faces the Complicated Reality of a Costly, Unpopular War in Iran.” She noted that the story itself was perfectly clear about the war with no endgame, but saw the headline as “upside down and not nearly as direct as it should be.” She suggested something like this: “Trump’s promise of a short term conflict with minimal economic impact proves wrong.” The Times headline isn’t false, in my view; it’s just too deferential in tone.

Dan Pfeiffer, the former Obama aide turned podcast host, offered several reasons why the news media so often give Trump and Republicans a pass — even shrugging off outright corruption. In his newsletter, Message Box, he wrote:

First, Trump has worn down the media. He is so corrupt in so many ways that the story has become old news. The folks at Popular Information looked at the coverage of Jared Kushner’s involvement in the Iran negotiations and found that only a fraction of the reports even mentioned his obvious conflicts of interest.

For the press, the story of Trump and his family being corrupt is old news. The New York Times and others still do deep investigative pieces uncovering the corruption, but those stories rarely make it into the daily coverage of the Trump administration. Trump, Karoline Leavitt, and other Trump surrogates are rarely pushed to answer tough questions about it, and when they are, they just feign outrage and never engage with the substance.

The second reason is that the press holds Democrats to a higher standard. This has always been sort of true, but it’s been particularly true in the Trump era. Reporters think Democratic voters care about whether their leaders are corrupt and Republican voters don’t. Therefore, a Democratic scandal could have bigger political implications, while a Republican scandal dies on the vine.

Third, most of the media is VERY sensitive to accusations that they are biased against Republicans. This is less true than it used to be, but most reporters are personally liberal on issues like abortion, guns, and climate. Some end up overcompensating by being tougher on Democrats.

Finally, Republicans do a better job of hammering these issues than Democrats. Plenty of Democrats have raised concerns about Don Jr. and Jared Kushner’s blatant corruption, but as a whole, we don’t do it often enough, loud enough, or in ways that break through. If and when Democrats have control of Congress, we will have additional tools to highlight the corruption for the world to see.

In another post soon, I’ll make some suggestions about remedying these media shortcomings. But for now, I’m just noting, once again, how common they are and how they endure, even when the press really should know better by now.

A couple of other notes:

One of the best analyses of last week’s devastating gutting by the Supreme Court of the Voting Rights Act was from the always excellent Richard Hasen of UCLA Law School, writing in Slate. He called it “the worst ruling in a century.” Please read it if you have a few minutes.

World Press Freedom Day was on May 3 and I offered some thoughts to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on why the FBI’s January seizure of a Washington Post reporter’s devices in a raid on her home was so alarming for press freedom. The story includes this from me: “Source protection is at the heart of investigative and a lot of other reporting. We have to be able to tell sources, ‘You’re safe with me.’” But this unprecedented raid sends the opposite message.

Hannah Natanson, the reporter I’m talking about, was a key contributor to the Washington Post’s reporting on DOGE that won the Pulitzer’s highest honor on Monday, the award for public service. That was great to see.

By the way, readers, RCFP is a great nonprofit organization and is always worthy of your charitable dollars. It offers expert legal help to journalists, including those in small newsrooms or freelancers who work without the help of house counsel.

Readers, do you agree that Trump media coverage continues to soft-pedal his behavior and his statements? Do you think, as I do, that Pfeiffer has it mostly right? If that’s the case, why is Trump’s disapproval rating so high? Where are you turning for a more straightforward treatment?

Thanks to all for supporting this venture of mine that advocates for journalism that does its crucial job in our democracy. Because I removed the paywall a while back, I very much appreciate those who have stepped up as paid subscribers so I can keep it going. For those who have sent kind messages with their paid subscriptions, please know how much those mean to me, and how encouraging they are.

Here’s one:

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

Last week, I wrote a Guardian column outlining my longstanding objections to the White House correspondents’ dinner, which predate Donald Trump’s terms in office.

Was it really a wise idea, I wondered, for Washington DC journalists and their bosses to chum around with the very government officials that they were supposed to be covering? Shouldn’t reporters maintain some critical distance? What about the “optics” of this much-publicized event (and the week of gala festivities surrounding it) that made journalists appear frivolous about holding the government accountable to the public? Given the American public’s rock-bottom trust in traditional media, hasn’t this annual, televised display worsened that problem?

That was written before a gunman appeared at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night, allegedly in an assassination attempt on the president. The thousands of attendees were still eating their burrata and spring pea salad; the chateaubriand and lobster hadn’t even been served. (Yes, these details are for real.)

Now the organizers are considering rescheduling the dinner. And Donald Trump, who told an interviewer over the weekend that he had planned a speech that really ripped the press corps, is urging the rescheduling happen within 30 days — as if he were in charge of that decision. (He’s not; he was an invitee.)

I can’t disagree with former CNN journalist and now independent journalist John Harwood who has an easy solution, not too different from what I advocated years ago in my Washington Post column about the dinner where I suggested the organizers “stick a fork in it.” “For cryin’ out loud, cancel the dinner permanently,” Harwood posted Monday, calling it a “godawful event that serves no useful purpose.”

But I know that there’s a strong urge to rebound, undaunted, from what happened last weekend.

“We will do this again,” was the way the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, Weijia Jiang of CBS News, put it on Saturday night.

I have some strong suggestions for the next such gathering whenever it may be. To wit:

First, if this is really about celebrating the First Amendment, free expression and press rights, don’t invite people who stand in clear opposition to that. Yes, for starters, do not invite Trump, Pete Hegseth, Brendan Carr or Stephen Miller. Their anti-press behavior is disqualifying and there’s no need for “unity” with them. On the unity topic, be sure to read the former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob’s post: “The press isn’t supposed to seek unity with politicians. It’s supposed to seek the truth. That’s easier to accomplish – and to get the public to believe – when you’re not clinking champagne glasses with the people you’re reporting on.”

To those who think it’s essential to observe longstanding tradition and invite the president and other prominent government officials, think about a couple of analogies before things move forward.

Here’s one from Oliver Darcy, who publishes the Status media newsletter: It’s “akin to a fire department inviting arsonists to a gathering aimed at celebrating firefighting.”

And I’ll add this one: It’s akin to a woman who has been battered by a man’s verbal and psychological abuse — name-calling, insults, unjustified legal charges, threats of imprisonment — inviting this man and his buddies to a cozy family gathering.

It simply makes no sense.

Second, make this gathering an authentic celebration of its stated goals. Put the spotlight not on government officials but on those who have stood up for First Amendment rights.

If a big glitzy party is deemed necessary, then take a few cues from another annual event that raises money for journalists — the Committee to Protect Journalists gala. Some elements are similar — formal dress, fancy menus, plenty of buzzy schmoozing at a glamorous venue.

At the CPJ dinner, the speakers are those journalists from around the world who have persevered despite being arrested, jailed, or having their lives threatened. Some of the honorees can’t attend because they are in prison or missing. The honorees are certainly not the press-hating government officials in authoritarian countries who have persecuted journalists. Again, that would make no sense at all.

Give the spotlight to those with an impressive track record of standing up for press rights. At last fall’s CPJ gala in New York City, David McCraw, the longtime newsroom lawyer for the New York Times, spoke. His speech was eloquent and moving; you can read it here. (An earlier version of this post misspelled David McCraw’s surname. Apologies!)

For the WHCA’s dinner, this could include government officials on either side of the aisle who have been stalwart defenders of, or advocates for, First Amendment rights. For example, those lawmakers who have introduced or supported legislation to support local news might be recognized, or those who have spoken out in favor of an FCC that is truly impartial and independent, or those who see today’s endless media-giant mergers as a problem for democracy.

You don’t get invited or honored just because you have a particular title. You have to earn your way in by standing up for the actual stated reason for this event.

It was notable that within hours of the shooting, Trump was calling Norah O’Donnell a “disgrace” for reading, on 60 Minutes, the suspect’s alleged manifesto which said, without naming anyone, that he couldn’t “permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

“Well, I was waiting for you to read that because you’re horrible people,” Trump told O’Donnell. “You should be ashamed of yourself reading that.” (He also insisted he was “totally exonerated,” apparently referring to the references to rape; in the E. Jean Carroll case, Trump was held liable for sexual abuse.) O’Donnell cleverly queried Trump: “Do you think he was referring to you?”

I’m in sympathy with those who noted in disgust that the fear that this event caused the tuxedoed crowd is what school kids around the nation live with every day in our gun-happy culture.

And one more thing: I’m floored by many right-wing accounts that tweeted nearly in unison shortly after the event, all with a single brief message — support for Trump’s White House ballroom. Typical was this from Meghan McCain: “I don’t want to hear one more fucking criticism of Trump’s new ballroom at the White House.” Apparently they got their marching orders. This ballroom is Trump’s obsession.

Here’s a gift link to a related New York Times story: Firm Building Trump’s Ballroom Got a Secret No-Bid Contract for a Nearby Job. Funny how that works.

Readers: What do you think? Do you see a way to salvage this event and turn it to good? Or is it simply time to stick a fork in it, once and for all? What’s your reaction to what happened over the weekend?

On a totally different subject that may provide a respite from the daily madness, I’ll offer a book recommendation. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying Jim Windolf’s “Where the Music Had to Go,” which explores how The Beatles and Bob Dylan influenced, imitated and competed with each other. Windolf’s research is impressive, he got a lot of people to talk, including Paul McCartney at some length. He does a masterful job of connecting seemingly disparate events; and his writing is tight and engaging. If you are someone who can sing the first few words of “Strawberry Fields Forever” or know what comes after “Something is happening but you don’t know what it is,” I can promise you an absorbing read — and a welcome escape. You’ll even learn how the Traveling Wilburys (the late ‘80s band that included both Dylan and George Harrison) came up with their peculiar name.

Finally, I talked with Dahlia Lithwick, before the weekend, for her award-winning podcast, Amicus, about both the DC dinner and the media’s misguided quest to capture the elusive “center.”

Thanks to all of you for caring about journalism and democracy, and thanks so much for your continued support. Welcome to all the newcomers! Find some information about my mission below. And here’s why one reader became a paid subscriber:

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

In my last post, I asked you, readers, to tell me what you thought about this concept that seems to intrigue media owners — that their news organization should set out to appeal to an audience that craves some sort of middle ground and identifies politically as centrist.

Most recently, this has come up at CBS News under its new, right-leaning management, and previously at CNN. Other media executives seem to agree, though it’s not always as clearly articulated.

Aiming to attract the political middle has always seemed like a weird concept to me, and so far, it hasn’t seemed to benefit those news organizations at all. Quite the contrary.

I asked you to tell me if you see yourself as one of these center-searchers. Your answers were fascinating; most of you said that you’re looking for something different in your news choices — factuality, fairness, authenticity, a sense of mission and yes, truth.

On the same subject, I’ll share a recent speech by the renowned former editor of the Washington Post and the Boston Globe, Marty Baron. Speaking at a journalism-ethics awards gathering a few days ago, he covered a lot of ground; the whole speech is worth your time.

But here’s why this “aim for the center” notion runs counter to his idea of ethical journalism.

Finally, I’ll mention a mindset in vogue among a certain crop of media executives. Although they claim to want politics out of the newsroom — and I do, too —they simultaneously propose a political calculus for their journalists. The new owner of CBS and the current editor-in-chief of the news division, for instance, set an explicit objective of appealing to the center right and the center left. That is a political goal. It is not a journalistic one. And it is a far cry from how Jack Knight instructed his newsroom: “Get the truth and publish it.” That is a journalistic goal.

Media owners who substitute political goal posts for news values find refuge in sophistry. They lay claim to ethics; instead, they subvert them. Their path may be one of commercial convenience. Or of timidity. Or of appeasement to regulators, legislators and the president himself. Or the instinctual path of those who see the press only through the lens of politics. But a news outlet of that formulation is fated to compromise ethics when a rock-solid story moving toward publication is deemed to fall outside the designated political comfort zone.

Accurate, independent, ethical coverage may be well received by the center right, or it may not. It may be well received by the center left, or it may not. No one should set out to alienate anyone. But at times, as Jack Knight said, the best journalism may end up facing “public wrath and displeasure.” That is the price, at times, of honest work. So be it.

Personal note: Marty (who was played by Liev Schreiber in the Oscar-winning movie, “Spotlight”) hired me as media columnist at the Washington Post, where I began in 2016, and encouraged me to track the overarching story of Donald Trump’s disparagement of, and attacks on, the independent press. Baron left in 2021; I departed the following year, far less certain that his successors would have my back as he always did.

On another subject, I want to praise and question two recent stories in the New York Times.

First, praise to Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak for their stunning scoop revealing the “shadow docket” in John Roberts’s Supreme Court. Here’s a gift link to the main story, which describes the politicized fast track that many consequential court decisions have been on over the past decade. The story is based on confidential memos the justices wrote to each other, obtained by the Times.

Kantor’s name may be familiar as one of the two bylines (with Megan Twohey) on so many of the investigative stories that held powerful men — including Harvey Weinstein — accountable for sexual misconduct; to a large extent, this coverage launched the #metoo movement. When I read some months ago that Kantor would be focusing her reporting now on the Supreme Court, I thought something remarkable might follow. Her reporting partner, Adam Liptak, has been covering the court for many years as his beat, and is an expert on its workings and its people.

In contrast, I’m baffled by the Times’s decision to devote its entire Sunday business cover to a fluffy feature story on Lauren Sánchez Bezos, who professes how much fun it is to be rich. Headline: “Someone Has to Be Happy. Why Not Lauren Sánchez Bezos?” Longtime journalist Katie Couric was among the most prominent critics, and you can read all about the reaction here. To get the flavor of the story, written by Hillary Clinton chronicler Amy Chozick, here’s a sample: “Unabashed rich-person exuberance is back with a Blue Origin bang, a Mar-a-Lago makeover of the White House, and a Zuckerberg rap cover. The Bezos marriage seems, at times, as much a cultural inflection point as a love story — the moment American money stopped apologizing and decided it might as well enjoy itself.”

I asked Assistant Managing Editor Patrick Healy why this deserved to be a business story at all, and one that on a recent Sunday dominated the business section front as if it were a matter of great import. Here’s his response

I would argue that writing about powerful and wealthy people in America IS a business story. Many magazines and trade newspapers do such pieces regularly as a window into how society, industry and culture intersect, and Sunday Business often does deep profiles of these people as well to take readers inside how they operate and think. In recent weeks, the business department of The New York Times has also written dozens of stories on the crisis in oil markets, the economic fallout from the war with Iran, inflation, the administration's feud with the Fed chairman, the impact of the war on Asia, Europe and global industry, the financial markets in the U.S., Asia and Europe, the price of gasoline in the U.S., the shortage of jet fuel, the impact of the war on retail, disinformation, AI, Anthropic's new Mythos model, crypto, private credit, earnings, EVs, shipping and the list goes on. We are providing a wide range of stories to our audience. Many readers found this piece compelling; other readers didn’t like some of the details and framing. The Times provided new reporting, information and insight about a part of our society, and let readers make up their own minds about it. That's what journalism does.

Readers, what say you? Is this a good use of resources? Is it worthy of the Times business section front on its best-read day? I would have found it far less objectionable in Styles as a celebrity profile; it’s an entertaining-enough read, but frothy enough to float away on the next spring breeze, and its celebratory tone seems more than a little tone-deaf at a time of extreme turmoil and income inequality in America. I’m also appalled by Jeff Bezos’s blatant cozying up to Donald Trump in order to become ever richer, and by his diminishment of the Washington Post, which he owns. That makes me a lot less likely to admire his lavish lifestyle. Gift link here.

Separately, I had a good chat with Parker Molloy for Long Lead’s Depth Perception newsletter, where we talked about billionaire press barons, about my former gig as Times public editor, and other media topics. Parker also writes an incisive newsletter, the Present Age, where she’s offering new subscribers 40 percent off to recognize her own 40th birthday. Here’s a link to our conversation.

Readers, as always, thank you for your support and interest. Both are deeply appreciated. Those who’ve upgraded to paid subscriptions at $50 a year are keeping this newsletter and its comments section open to all.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment

The initial name of this newsletter (back when it was a fledgling podcast) was “Can Journalism Save Democracy?”

A wise counselor at Substack, Dan Stone, suggested something a little punchier, and I immediately responded, “American Crisis.” And here we are a few years later.

But that initial question of whether journalism can help save democracy has continued to be at the heart of what I look at here, and something that I know many of you care about, too.

Maybe it’s just the glorious effects of spring in Central Park, but I’m feeling surprisingly encouraged, despite all the craziness of the recent past. It’s strange to recall that it was only a week ago that Trump made his unhinged social media post heard ‘round the world.

More horrible things have happened since then. The president of the United States has threatened Pope Leo, and posted an image of himself as a Jesus-like figure. After criticism from even his most loyal supporters such as the ultra-conservative Knight Templars, he retreated and took it down by Monday afternoon. Many have died as a result of his misguided war, including hundreds of Lebanese civilians (you can see a full breakdown by country of the casualties, from Reuters, here).

I don’t need to tell you what to worry about.

But here are my reasons for believing that journalism can at least help to save democracy, and I am hopeful that better days are ahead for the United States.

First, Hungary’s rejection of autocrat Viktor Orban in last weekend’s election. One major reason he lost so overwhelmingly is that Hungarian citizens were disgusted by corruption in government, and knew about it because of investigative journalism that remained strong despite Orban’s all-out effort to control the legitimate press. As Brian Stelter of CNN wrote:

Analysts say that pervasive corruption in Hungary was a key factor in the fall of Orbán’s illiberal Fidesz party. Outrage about corruption, CJR’s Ivan L. Nagy wrote before the election, has a “lot to do with the tireless work of investigative journalists.”

Some Hungarian reporters held onto their independence and found ways to be heard, and their investigations “helped Magyar build a strong anti-corruption platform,” Nagy wrote.

Overnight, THR’s Steven Zeitchik also highlighted the recent release of a documentary that uncovered “a wide network of bribery and blackmail.”

Independent and investigative websites “brought out a steady stream of scandals” during the campaign season, Eddy Wax wrote for Euractiv. He quoted Hungarian media entrepreneur Martón Kárpáti saying “this campaign showed the importance of the free media. If you had only just read or watched the pro-government websites or outlets then you would have no idea about what’s going on in the country.”

Second, American journalists are prevailing in court against the Trump administration’s efforts to control and punish them, over and over. A federal judge tossed out Trump’s suit against the Wall Street Journal for its story on the infamous “birthday letter” from Trump to his then-buddy Jeffrey Epstein. As Kyle Cheney of Politico put it, the claim of actual malice was “completely undermined by the article itself, which showed the paper's due diligence and included Trump's objection in the story.” The story was certainly damning but methodically careful. Separately, another federal judge rejected the Pentagon’s latest press policy, siding with the New York Times in saying Hegseth is attempting to “dictate” what journalists report. And he called this the “mark of an autocracy, not a democracy.” And one more: Trump Media (the parent company of Trump’s Truth Social) last week withdrew its suit against the Guardian over its reporting on the organization’s financing.

Third, journalism has revealed so much about Jeffrey Epstein, a storyline that simply won’t go away for Trump and his regime. One of the heroines, of course, is investigative journalist Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald (who, by the way, deserves to win a Pulitzer Prize); but she’s far from alone in this.

Julie herself shared on social media a gift link (and here’s one for you) to a New York Times story that helps to explain why Melania Trump made her strange public statement last week. Brown noted “this story has legs.” Yes, it does, and so does the overarching Epstein story.

Even amid the troubled and chaotic state of American journalism (the weakened Washington Post and CBS News, among many other developments), journalism is doing its essential job. The New Yorker did a deep dive into Sam Altman and Open AI; the New York Times described how deeply influenced Trump was in entering the Iran War by Israeli prime minister Netanyahu; and let’s face it, we may be disgusted by Trump’s constant grifting but we do know about it. We know about it because of journalism at every level, including here on Substack from such a wide array of writers and reporters.

Zooming out, I happen to agree with Dan Pfeiffer that the answer to Trump’s dangerous behavior is not going to come from the 25th Amendment. The former Obama advisor and co-host of Pod Save America put it this way: “The best way to rein in Trump is not to appeal to his cabinet — it’s to elect a Democratic Congress.” He sees the 25th as something of a fantasy idea.

What really matters is people-power and an overwhelming vote in the midterm elections, now only six months away.

Speaking of people power, the Media and Democracy Project’s report card on coverage of last month’s No Kings protests gives A grades to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. The New York Times gets a C-minus and the Boston Globe a C.

Executive director Milo Vassallo told me he will “never forgive or forget the editorial decision to juxtapose the Times for the ‘primal scream’ opinion headline with #NoKings photos.” You can see the full report here on more than 75 front pages. My own consideration of the Times coverage was somewhat more positive; I saw it as a vast improvement over the paper’s past protest coverage. You can revisit my comments here.

(I apologize for misspelling Milo’s surname in an earlier version of this post.)

A few other items of possible interest:

A Guardian podcast about the Ellisons, who now control CBS and will probably soon control CNN. And here’s my appearance on WNYC radio, along with the Wall Street Journal media reporter Isabella Simonetti, in which Brian Lehrer interviewed us on the role of AI in newsrooms. (He had seen my piece here in which I pledged to always write my own stuff and looked askance at AI writing news stories.)

And a six-minute treat, related to the 50th anniversary of the movie version of “All the President’s Men.” Check out this clip. I was in high school during Watergate, and the Senate hearings as well as the Washington Post’s investigative work helped to draw me into my lifelong craft. I love this clip and hope you’ll enjoy it, too. Accountability journalism is every bit as important today as it was then, and yes, it may at least help to save democracy. As you know, I’m often disappointed and critical about how the press fails its mission by normalizing, both-sides-ing, and sane-washing — but its overall value endures. We need it. And we need it to be better.

Here’s my question for you this week: many media owners seem to think there’s a huge swath of America that is desperately seeking “middle ground” journalism. My Guardian colleague Jeremy Barr (whom I also worked with at the Washington Post) wrote a good piece about how this theory doesn’t line up with reality. This idea failed at CNN under Chris Licht and seems to be tanking at CBS News, whose evening newscast has sunk deeper into last place among the three major broadcasters under the guidance of the Ellisons and editor Bari Weiss.

Do you consider yourself a “centrist” and are you seeking journalism that takes things down the middle? Or is something else driving your media choices? And if so, what is that something? Is it independence? A mission to serve democratic goals? Authentic voices that bring a sense of perspective and sanity? Please tell me in the comments here. I’m sure I’ll be writing more about this, and would love your help.

Thank you, and thank you for being here, for caring about these intertwined issues of media and democracy at a critical time. I deeply appreciate your comments and your subscriptions, and your reading and sharing. All of this means a lot, and is surely an element in staying reasonably positive in the months ahead.

Here’s why one reader decided to subscribe. And below that is some information about what I’m trying to do here on American Crisis.

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment