Michael Hobbes: Most political reporters think their job is primarily to interpret messaging: "When Biden says he's going to be 'tough on the border,' he's trying to appeal to working-class whites..." etc. But both Trump and Biden have been president! The best way to predict what they'll do is what they've done.

Most political reporters think their job is primarily to interpret messaging: "When Biden says he's going to be 'tough on the border,' he's trying to appeal to working-class whites..." etc. But both Trump and Biden have been president! The best way to predict what they'll do is what they've done.

The extent to which this kind of faux sophistication depends on obsessively remembering campaign talking points and deliberately *misremembering* the granular details of his administration, during which he fucked up everything from disease control to the post office, is underappreciated

Think about *any* political issue and both men have long records in both rhetoric and policy. Abortion, crime, immigration, climate change, the economy, organized labor, Russia, Israel, China — there's a huge contrast between the candidates and no mystery about how they'll approach them in office.

The primary role of journalists in a democracy should be researching these issues and reminding voters of the stakes. "If want to protect abortion rights, vote for Biden. If you'd like to restrict them, vote Trump." But somehow journalists have convinced themselves that's partisan or beneath them.

I think another factor is how many journalists have been laid off in the last 4 years, and who is left now to cover these stories.

And suspiciously, why *these* journalists are the ones left...

There's no mystery why e.g. Maggie Haberman still has a job and lots of better journalists don't.

I think the explanation is simpler than that. Researching and understanding the issues takes work. Talking out of your ass is free, and generates more clicks.

When a previously fringe idea makes the jump to being a "serious" position among political elites, many journalists decide they can no longer just say it's false and have to let readers "judge for themselves".

Ahem!

The anti-abortion plan ready for Trump on Day Onewww.politico.com The stakes of the election go far beyond whether a GOP president signs a bill banning the procedure.

Has someone made that a chart? Because it feels like someone should make that a chart!

Journalists have this notion that they must treat society like a documentarian treats nature, observing and reporting but staying far away from interacting. (synchronicity: the next post in my feed parodies Attenborough)

I think the main really big problem here is that there is nothing novel about reporting what they *have* done, while every word bumbled out of their mouth can be interpreted as breaking news Reflecting on the past is not in anyone's financial interests

They’re also drawn to what keeps unfolding and holds the promise of additional novel developments. Abortion keeps producing the same results. Cons take action; activists oppose. But things like the age issue could send things in any direction—and reporters could potentially influence it. Film at 11!

It's like people don't even know what a policy is anymore and #smh

An entire website was birthed and dedicated to how Trump fucked up *literally every day* of his presidency.

I am so tired of "cult of personality" politics. Biden is boring and competent. He IS paying attention to criticisms of his discourse on Israel, and is almost certainly paddling like a duck underwater to use his influence to get Netanyahu to do it or be removed. For example.

we are all so boned

Yes, but the NYT is angry that Biden won’t give them an interview so they don’t think they’re obligated to discuss what his record is. x.com/talmonsmith/...

x.com

Idk, would anyone have expected Trump to establish the paycheck protection program during the pandemic? I certainly didn't see it coming.

I mean, he signed it because it made him look good and he could put his name on the cheques, but it had broad bipartisan support in Congress. Most countries implemented similar policies. I don't think he gets points for not stepping on the obvious rake.

Operation Warp Speed was maybe the most significant positive thing that he did there (seriously, it sped up the vaccine timeline a lot), but he can't even get credit for it from his own party because they're all antivaxx because of rhetoric from him and other Republicans and owning the libs disease.

And while he did all that, his administration was actively hindering state responses to COVID, people in it were grifting off of all the money going out, and playing political games with it.

Its easy to say that in hindsight. Its very obvious that he'd do it for narcissistic reasons, in hindsight. But I do not believe that people thought it obvious he'd do it at the time.

Depends on their model of him at the time. I wasn't super surprised, esp. since Doug Ford did similar stuff. But him occasionally doing surprisingly good things always has to be held alongside all the crazy counterproductive or outright evil stuff and general norms-smashing.

I am in no way defending Trump. I am simply of the opinion that sometimes people, particularly like him (e.g. narcissists), are somewhat unpredictable.

like the main positive (?) thing you can say about trump is that he has never believed in the republican small-government horseshit. Infrastructure week was an ongoing shitshow because no one on his staff or on his side of the legislature had any desire to do anything positive w government power 1/2

2/2 but when the democrats handed him a yuge spending bill to deal with the pandemic he had no objections in principle and was fine with signing it

Nobody is saying anything positive about Trump. I am merely commenting on his unpredictability.

Trump’s own companies raked in millions from the PPP. Why would you be surprised he supported it?

Because he didn't need to create a program that helped out others. Tax cuts for the wealthy could have raked in millions for him even easier.

Um, he did that too. He didn’t have to choose between door one and two - he took the PPP millions AND he cut billionaires taxes.

But also - that's the point! He has an actual record of governance to point to, unlike in 2016. But instead, the media keeps trying to *interpret* what he *actually* means and what he may *hypothetically* do.

You say this as if he did any actual work on the bill other than picking up a pen

It’s editorializing when they should simply report on the facts, both in terms of what they say and do. Which is interesting given how much these same journalists will decry the lack of objectivity in journalism.

Yeah this is what's wild, they see it as biased to say "Biden is more likely to pass measures to address climate change than Trump" but not biased to spend a week amplifying a Republican hack's hit job about Biden's age.

but very serious and not at all a lying grifter candidate said…

"You're giving me a hypothetical" is a fucking asinine response to this question in the first place but double-asinine considering that THIS IS THE SAME ELECTION AS LAST TIME. It's objectively not hypothetical!

A smart reporter would've just asked, "OK then, who did you vote for in 2020?".

"There's a reason why we have secret ballots."

A distressing number of political reporters appear to think they're opinion columnists rather than, you know, reporters.

The last thing a reporter should do is "explain the message" to their audience. The audience can hear the message with their own damned ears. They need help knowing if it's fact or crap. That’s journalism worth paying for.

🤔

Biden disparages Netanyahu in private but hasn’t significantly changed U.S. policy toward Israel and Gazawww.nbcnews.com As the reported Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip reaches 28,000, the president continues to believe that unequivocally supporting Israel is the right policy.

Covering politics like it’s sports writing. It’s intellectually lazy.

Actually it's not doing that because Sports writing is far more analytical and critical of teams , coaches and players than any political analyst ever dares to be.

Fair point is fair.

It’s actually a fairly unique election in that both candidates have been president - that could be a great frame for a lot of stories! Alas, we won’t get those.

How do you deal with a mass exodus of refugees (let’s stop calling them “immigrants”) … when it is being managed and exploited by narco-terrorists??? Gaza is getting carpet bombed for waaaaayyyy less…

Post