Chuck Schumer highlights the “magical parliamentary trick” and gives the Democrats a 51-vote victory.


After a long period of press bashing, more constructive forms of media criticism are now flourishing.

Donald Trump, as both a candidate and president, dumped the press in the trash. Alex Wong / Getty Images The past few years, and perhaps longer, every day seems to be bringing new attacks to the American press. Some of these attacks are disguised as criticism. The accusation that it is “fake news”. The argument that journalists are biased. However, some threaten the journalists themselves even more seriously. Most recently, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has repeatedly unleashed a “calculated cruel” verbal attack on New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz on his show. Some of Donald Trump’s rallies saw attendees threatening to lynch reporters on their T-shirts. This type of criticism-trying to outlaw the press-helps undermine confidence in the work done by journalists. But even though these media attacks now seem prominent, they are part of a decade-long trend. Public confidence in the media began to decline in the mid-1970s. By 2020, according to a Pew Research Center survey, more than half of Americans were “too” or not confident in the news media. The erosion reflected growing distrust of the institution and a tendency towards political parties to direct readers to the press, which reflected their own views. The rise of conservative critics of the mainstream media has also contributed to the decline in media credibility. However, in the last five years, criticism of another type of media has become prominent after a period of marginalization. The brand’s critique of the media has taken up the free and independent media as a necessity for living in a democratic society. Instead of demanding the outlawing of the media, these critics explain the work of the media to the public and hold them accountable for their role as national representatives and watchdogs. Checked Washington Post quality control at a factory in Springfield, Virginia, August 5, 2013. The Washington Post via Marvin Joseph / Getty Images In recent weeks, these critics have pointed out that many reporters are in a hurry. Eight murder suspects issued a statement by the Sheriff of Georgia that they were having a “bad day.” And they also tried to explain why the members of the press conference were so concerned about whether President Joe Biden would hold the press conference, despite the fact that the public was of little interest. I am a scholar of media criticism. According to my research, sincere criticism of the media can actually strengthen public confidence in the media and it. Much of my work is based on the work of journalist James Carrie, who wrote an essay in 1974 calling for a culture of press criticism to take root in the United States. Rather than criticizing journalism – nonetheless, most people consume far more news than poetry. Carrie believed that critics who understand the media process would help the general public, who consume news, better understand what they are reading and seeing. At the same time, critics and the general public will keep the media at a higher level. Goodwill and Malice Due to the social turmoil of the late 1960s, many reporters in the 1970s concluded that the bland, detached tone required by the so-called objectivity of the press could not accurately portray the division of society. I did. Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter J. Anthony Lucas wrote a book on how the treatise couldn’t cover the Trial of the Chicago 7 as a political show trial he saw. They argued that he explained it “objectively”, using the same court features that the prosecutor used, regardless of the defendant’s point of view or Lucas’ own judgment. Young reporters like Lukas have begun to realize that the so-called objective news values ​​and practices claimed by the editors are actually biasing the media towards maintaining the status quo. In the early 1970s, two major reporting events, the 1971 Pentagon Papers publication and the Washington Post’s Watergate report, have led many reporters to say that the government is not always working for the public good. I was convinced. These journalistic works have exposed governments and politicians who act against the public interest and even illegally. Correspondingly, several regional journalism reviews have emerged. The move, which is based in New York City, culminated in the launch of a magazine called MORE, which aspires to an audience across the country. In my book on (MORE), I argue that publications are the closest to achieving James Carrie’s goal of press criticism aimed at non-expert readers. In the 1970s, (MORE) and other critics pushed publications to hire more women and non-white reporters, and racist, sexist, and xenophobic words were journalists. I pointed out that it permeated the story of. (MORE) pushed the New York Times towards accountability and suggested that from 1972, the daily amendment section would begin to be implemented. But even (MORE) never actually reached an audience other than working journalists and people with a keen interest. How to operate the press. Even some subsequent efforts, such as the magazine Brill’s Content in the early 2000s, failed to find a viewer who could support the job. All of these attempts can be explained as a sincere criticism of the press, on the premise that a strong and independent press that addresses the information needs of enthusiastic citizens is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. .. It acts as a kind of loyal opponent, pointing out the blind spots of the media and suggesting ways to do it better. At the same time, coordinated efforts among conservative critics began to lead to an increase in malicious attacks on the media. Along with efforts to create a conservative counterbalance, they engaged in an attempt to outlaw it by portraying it as irreparably biased. These conservative attacks on the press are direct to more recent incidents, such as Tucker Carlson’s attack and similar criticisms from commentators such as Mark Levin and the conservative Media Watchdog Accuracy in Media. It was a precursor to. This malicious criticism is alive and well. Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan wins January 23, 2018 in Washington, DC in a discussion on “Americans and the Media: Classification of Fake News” McNamie / Getty Images) Potential Media Criticism It’s going to be a golden age. You can always read the perceptual and sharp press critique by Margaret Sullivan at The Washington Post. Sullivan was previously an in-house critic (public editor) for the New York Times. Some publications continue the tradition of this public editor or ombudsman, and the Columbia Journalism Review has several individual publications for publications that do not have them, including the New York Times, which eliminated its position in 2017. Appointed a watch dog. The New York Times media since 2020 has occasionally taken a critical look at the shortcomings of the newspaper itself. He focuses specifically on investigating diversity, fairness and inclusion in the New York Times. The public radio program On the Media has been on the air since 1993. Each week, the program combines press and press commentary with a deep understanding of how it works. Hosts Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield help listeners understand the differences between different news media and how news stories are created. However, it is not only the major media outlets across the country that publish this type of work. Local newspapers are also participating in the act. For example, in February 2021, Bergen Records in northern New Jersey published a media-focused monthly column by Jim Beckerman. “It deals with a lot of things that media beef consumers and critics are involved in. It’s like objectivity, balance, inclusion, and expression,” Beckerman wrote in an introduction to a new column. “It may help newspapers and the media explain how they do what they do-and why, good or bad, they explain what they are.” Today’s electronic media makes this kind of sincere criticism available to more people than ever before. But democracy requires a strong and independent press, and it only lasts if the press finds an enthusiastic audience who believes it needs these critics to be accountable. Is possible. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]This article has been republished by The Conversation, a non-profit news site aimed at sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by Kevin M. Lerner of Marist College. Read more: Journalists are aware that they are writing a rough draft of history-and it can’t be said exactly as it is for companies and organizations that benefit from this article. We do not work, consult, own shares, receive funds for, or disclose any partnerships other than academic appointments.