What does "outrage" look like?
June 7, 2024 12:47 PM Subscribe
Many of my fellow American liberals frequently complain about the media's coverage of Trump and the Republican Party. They say things like "Where is the outrage? Why not call it out as fascism? Why treat [X] as legitimate political policy and not the horrifying violation of the Constitution that it is?"
I think we all agree that the news media is covering these issues, and reporting all the awful things the Right is doing (or planning, or talking about). So I'm trying to figure out what the complainers want. What would an "outraged" article in the New York Times or Washington Post or the CNN website actually look like? What outrage are we missing?
I think we all agree that the news media is covering these issues, and reporting all the awful things the Right is doing (or planning, or talking about). So I'm trying to figure out what the complainers want. What would an "outraged" article in the New York Times or Washington Post or the CNN website actually look like? What outrage are we missing?
The language that they use when describing those issues is most likely what people are referring to. Mind you, there's only so much that a proper news outlet can do before "news" crosses into "opinion" - and there are so-called News Outlets on both sides that do exactly that. But even more straightforward news outlets can still make choices about the words they use - that can matter a lot, as can how you refer to someone and the kinds of articles you prepare.
For instance: here are some passages from a recent Reuters' article about Trump and one of his campaign moves...
People might also be referring to the very great many articles that have been written where a journalist interviews Trump supporters in small towns to find out What Makes Them Tick, focusing on their very real economic hardships, but there are comparatively few articles from journalists interviewing people directly and negatively impacted by Trump's actions - you know, like families separated at the border or Asian-Americans subject to hate crimes. We did get the occasional article about Asian victims of hate crimes in the wake of Covid, but almost none of them mentioned that "there was a sharp increase in this kind of activity after Trump referred to Covid as 'the China flu'" or whatever. But there have been tons of "Whither the poor Trump supporter, why do they support him - oh, it's about economic instability, it's not racism" articles.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:51 PM on June 7 [18 favorites]
For instance: here are some passages from a recent Reuters' article about Trump and one of his campaign moves...
June 5 (Reuters) - Donald Trump plans to post a stream of short-form videos on TikTok targeting young men with messages on inflation and other economic issues, two campaign advisers told Reuters, giving the first glimpse of the Republican presidential candidate's strategy for the popular app as the 2024 race intensifies.Just for fun and a for-instance, here's a rewrite I've done, which might come closer to what more progressive readers might want to see (I've bolded any changes):
Trump joined TikTok on Saturday with an inaugural video from an Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts event. It underlined his campaign's effort to court young voters, particularly men who form the core of the UFC fan base.
The 13-second video, which features footage of him mingling with UFC fans, quickly amassed tens of millions of views, establishing Trump as a force on the Chinese-owned platform he once tried to ban as president. As of Wednesday, Trump's account had 5.5 million followers on the app, and 5.8 million likes.
As president, Trump tried to ban TikTok through an executive order, calling its owner, Chinese tech firm ByteDance, a national security threat, but the move was blocked by the courts. In April, Democratic President Joe Biden, who will face Trump in the Nov. 5 election, signed legislation that would outlaw TikTok in the U.S. unless ByteDance divests.
June 5 (Reuters) - Convicted felon Donald Trump plans to post a stream of short-form videos on TikTok targeting young men with his opinions on inflation and other economic issues, two campaign advisers told Reuters, giving the first glimpse of the Republican presidential candidate's strategy for the app.So, that's a pretty subtle difference there - but there's still some real differences. In the first take, it just sounds like a straightforward thing about Trump making a Tiktok video and a bunch of younger voters getting jazzed about it, and there's an afterthought mention of "oh, yeah, Trump tried to ban this back when he was president, incidentally." My own edits bring more attention to "he tried to ban this back when he was president but now he's all up in it," and to "he tried to ban it but couldn't, and Biden managed to actually get the ban done when Trump couldn't". It also reminds everyone of the "convicted felon" bit because why not. They also describe Trump's statements as his "opinions" rather than "messages", which hints that maybe he's not that much of an authority on the matter. I also point out that his first-ever TikTok video isn't about his platform, it's just footage of him hanging out after a UFC fight, which suggests that that's a really frivolous thing for an aspiring political leader to be doing. And yet - I have a feeling my own edits, even though they give a bit of a different spin, would still be comfortably on the side of "journalism" instead of "opinion". (I'm not a journalist, though, so I'm happy to be corrected if any journalists in the house want to take me to task.)
Trump joined TikTok on Saturday with an inaugural video from an Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts event. It underlined his campaign's effort to court young voters, particularly men who form the core of the UFC fan base.
Rather than an inaugural post discussing his platform, his 13-second video features footage of him mingling with UFC fans and quickly amassed tens of millions of views on the Chinese-owned platform he once tried to ban as president. [Most of my edits here are cuts.]
As president, Trump tried to ban TikTok through an executive order, calling its owner, Chinese tech firm ByteDance, a national security threat, but the move was blocked by the courts. Trump's current embrace of TikTok suggests that Trump's campaign managers have pointed out its appeal to younger voters is more important than his professed earlier concerns for national security, however. By contrast, President Joe Biden, who will face Trump in the Nov. 5 election, has signed legislation that would outlaw TikTok in the U.S. unless ByteDance divests.
People might also be referring to the very great many articles that have been written where a journalist interviews Trump supporters in small towns to find out What Makes Them Tick, focusing on their very real economic hardships, but there are comparatively few articles from journalists interviewing people directly and negatively impacted by Trump's actions - you know, like families separated at the border or Asian-Americans subject to hate crimes. We did get the occasional article about Asian victims of hate crimes in the wake of Covid, but almost none of them mentioned that "there was a sharp increase in this kind of activity after Trump referred to Covid as 'the China flu'" or whatever. But there have been tons of "Whither the poor Trump supporter, why do they support him - oh, it's about economic instability, it's not racism" articles.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:51 PM on June 7 [18 favorites]
I don't know that I agree with the basic premise of the question - when I've seen or heard things that get a "where's the outrage" reaction, it's more to people who worked with Trump, either before or during his administration, who all of a sudden are writing tell-alls about what a deranged incompetent baboon (apologies to baboons) he is, well after the time period where they could personally have done something about it or it mattered.
posted by LionIndex at 2:00 PM on June 7
posted by LionIndex at 2:00 PM on June 7
NYTimes, WaPo, and other mainstream outlets steadfastly refuse to draw conclusions out of some misguided idealism about journalism, and it gives credibility to the lies of fascists.
I want them to say: "Trump is a liar, here he is lying again, look at all the past lies", and "the GOP are attacking democracy. Look at these GOP moderates, shameful cowards, who go along with the big lie even though they know it's false. Call them out!" and so many more things. This is not a time for uncritically repeating what fascists say, nor even for subtly debunking it by offering opposing viewpoints in footnotes. Take a stand.
There's a point at which you have to pick a side, and we are well past it!
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 2:07 PM on June 7 [17 favorites]
I want them to say: "Trump is a liar, here he is lying again, look at all the past lies", and "the GOP are attacking democracy. Look at these GOP moderates, shameful cowards, who go along with the big lie even though they know it's false. Call them out!" and so many more things. This is not a time for uncritically repeating what fascists say, nor even for subtly debunking it by offering opposing viewpoints in footnotes. Take a stand.
There's a point at which you have to pick a side, and we are well past it!
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 2:07 PM on June 7 [17 favorites]
This may not be exactly what you're looking for, but here's a perspective from my having lived through the last couple of decades regularly following the news.
American cities used to have newspapers that had journalists that regularly did deep dive investigations into political figures and lesser known problematic actions by civic figures. This was a point of pride after World War II; I happened to be very close to a veteran of that war who went on to attend UC Berkeley, and he wrote for the Daily Cal, the campus newspaper, and the executive editor of the Oakland Tribune. He was a great liberal journalist. During his life time was the McCarthy Era, the HUAC, and then segued into the Student Freedom Movement, the Vietnam War, etc. Lots to cover as a journalist, and critical to have an independent voice. As the US segued from the mid seventies to the Reagan eighties, figures like Rupert Murdoch and Sam Zell began to buy up media and push the media outlet to the right.
With the rise of electronic media, further demand for independent journalism began to further wane, and these days lots of writing, both electronic and paper tries for a very bland voice to maintain the widest audience. A lot of little independent newspapers folded, and took some great investigative journalism away.
With Reaganism, the rise of talk show hosts began to stoke the flames of the conservative agenda, and targets disaffected men and women who want things to go back to the "good old days". I distinctly remember the GWBush administration reviewing NPR with a fine toothed comb in an effort to shut them down, and NPR became a "both sides" perspective rather than the decidedly leftist media voice they used to be.
Anyway, the tone has become shallower and crazier with the further push to the right of the Republican Party, which is now completely reactionary at this point. Independent newspaper and even electronic media still struggle to stay in business, and the sort of investigative journalism that used to be the hallmark of a civic function of a newspaper is problematic; this is why you will see a lot of people on this site complaining about the New York Times or The Guardian. They are a shadow of the function they used to serve.
I think that's what people miss when they are calling for the dissenting outrage; it's the voice of independent journalism.
posted by effluvia at 2:21 PM on June 7 [10 favorites]
American cities used to have newspapers that had journalists that regularly did deep dive investigations into political figures and lesser known problematic actions by civic figures. This was a point of pride after World War II; I happened to be very close to a veteran of that war who went on to attend UC Berkeley, and he wrote for the Daily Cal, the campus newspaper, and the executive editor of the Oakland Tribune. He was a great liberal journalist. During his life time was the McCarthy Era, the HUAC, and then segued into the Student Freedom Movement, the Vietnam War, etc. Lots to cover as a journalist, and critical to have an independent voice. As the US segued from the mid seventies to the Reagan eighties, figures like Rupert Murdoch and Sam Zell began to buy up media and push the media outlet to the right.
With the rise of electronic media, further demand for independent journalism began to further wane, and these days lots of writing, both electronic and paper tries for a very bland voice to maintain the widest audience. A lot of little independent newspapers folded, and took some great investigative journalism away.
With Reaganism, the rise of talk show hosts began to stoke the flames of the conservative agenda, and targets disaffected men and women who want things to go back to the "good old days". I distinctly remember the GWBush administration reviewing NPR with a fine toothed comb in an effort to shut them down, and NPR became a "both sides" perspective rather than the decidedly leftist media voice they used to be.
Anyway, the tone has become shallower and crazier with the further push to the right of the Republican Party, which is now completely reactionary at this point. Independent newspaper and even electronic media still struggle to stay in business, and the sort of investigative journalism that used to be the hallmark of a civic function of a newspaper is problematic; this is why you will see a lot of people on this site complaining about the New York Times or The Guardian. They are a shadow of the function they used to serve.
I think that's what people miss when they are calling for the dissenting outrage; it's the voice of independent journalism.
posted by effluvia at 2:21 PM on June 7 [10 favorites]
I mean the NYTimes has reported Trump as lying and has reported on GOP attacks to democracy. The news section won't call someone a "shameful coward" because that sort of language is editorializing. Anyway, I think some of the calls for "outrage" are less about the reporting happening and more out of a sense of impeding doom (Trump's re-election).
But, a slightly different critique that I think has a bit more teeth is that the media swung from reporting Trump's every breath and Tweet, then got backlash for giving him too much air, and then swung the other way of barely reporting on him at all. WNYC's On the Media has had a number of episodes on this, with guests arguing that while it's important not to amplify Trump, it's a mistake to ignore all the batshit statements he's making as well as his plans for a second term - like, I think there should be more reporting on Project 2025. And if I was in charge of a major media company, I'd be designing a series of articles/podcasts to remind voters of all of what happened during his first term. I mean, I know I've probably forgotten half of it - and I'm pretty sure the average 18-22 year old who was a little kid when Trump was elected probably remembers even less.
posted by coffeecat at 2:28 PM on June 7 [1 favorite]
But, a slightly different critique that I think has a bit more teeth is that the media swung from reporting Trump's every breath and Tweet, then got backlash for giving him too much air, and then swung the other way of barely reporting on him at all. WNYC's On the Media has had a number of episodes on this, with guests arguing that while it's important not to amplify Trump, it's a mistake to ignore all the batshit statements he's making as well as his plans for a second term - like, I think there should be more reporting on Project 2025. And if I was in charge of a major media company, I'd be designing a series of articles/podcasts to remind voters of all of what happened during his first term. I mean, I know I've probably forgotten half of it - and I'm pretty sure the average 18-22 year old who was a little kid when Trump was elected probably remembers even less.
posted by coffeecat at 2:28 PM on June 7 [1 favorite]
qxntpqbbbqxl has it. “When one side says the sky is blue and the other side says the sky is green, you don’t print both statements; you go to the window and look for yourself.”
posted by Melismata at 3:10 PM on June 7 [10 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 3:10 PM on June 7 [10 favorites]
To me, it's the difference between a headline of "Trump says COVID is not contagious; some disagree" and "Trump says COVID is not contagious; here's why that's false". The first is both-sides-ism to a ridiculous degree, while the second reports what he said but doesn't mistake "journalism" as being an excuse to not treat facts as facts. And that's really what it comes down to--they're reporting what he (and most of the rest of the GOP) claimed, but need an "expert" to tactfully debunk him near the end of the article instead of just saying "No. Despite the fact it came from the lips of a former president, it is wrong" directly in the first paragraph. Writing that actual fact conflicts with the viewpoint of the person you're covering is not opinion, it's journalism.
(Granted, you don't always have facts to counter with, only opinion. But starting with the cases where we're acting as though facts are malleable and only true if you can find someone to say them to you would be a huge step in the right direction.)
Here's an actual example from very early in the pandemic: "Trump Suggests Lack of Testing Is No Longer a Problem. Governors Disagree." The linked piece above contains a now-deleted Twitter fight between epidemiology professor Gregg Gonsalves and Jonathan Martin of the Times, after Martin dismissed Gonsalves' initial complaint about the headline and article.
That said, this NYT headline from a few days ago really surprised me (in a good way): "Trump Spews False Claims and Fury in Wake of Conviction". Maybe we're getting somewhere.
posted by tubedogg at 3:16 PM on June 7 [11 favorites]
(Granted, you don't always have facts to counter with, only opinion. But starting with the cases where we're acting as though facts are malleable and only true if you can find someone to say them to you would be a huge step in the right direction.)
Here's an actual example from very early in the pandemic: "Trump Suggests Lack of Testing Is No Longer a Problem. Governors Disagree." The linked piece above contains a now-deleted Twitter fight between epidemiology professor Gregg Gonsalves and Jonathan Martin of the Times, after Martin dismissed Gonsalves' initial complaint about the headline and article.
That said, this NYT headline from a few days ago really surprised me (in a good way): "Trump Spews False Claims and Fury in Wake of Conviction". Maybe we're getting somewhere.
posted by tubedogg at 3:16 PM on June 7 [11 favorites]
Mod note: One removed. Please stick to the framing of the question: (re Trump and Republicans, "What would an "outraged" article in the New York Times or Washington Post or the CNN website actually look like?").
posted by taz (staff) at 1:46 AM on June 8
posted by taz (staff) at 1:46 AM on June 8
There's a contradiction in terms here that others have pointed out and that your question gets at: while very little writing is wholly unbiased, the mainstream news media has already reported on the things that the "where is the outrage" folks want reported. They do not look like what the "complainers" want because, as noted above, that's an editorial, not a news article.
The outrage we are missing is some sort of national media revolt associated with a completely morally bankrupt presidency taking outrageous actions. Many of the "complainers" feel that we are living in a situation unprecedented in recent memory and want to see some sign that they are not alone, that they aren't being gaslit by the media, etc. The polling for November's presidential election does not at this time indicate a decisive Democratic victory, which I think is increasing agitation around this issue.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:18 AM on June 8 [1 favorite]
The outrage we are missing is some sort of national media revolt associated with a completely morally bankrupt presidency taking outrageous actions. Many of the "complainers" feel that we are living in a situation unprecedented in recent memory and want to see some sign that they are not alone, that they aren't being gaslit by the media, etc. The polling for November's presidential election does not at this time indicate a decisive Democratic victory, which I think is increasing agitation around this issue.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:18 AM on June 8 [1 favorite]
When I think, "Where is the Outrage??!" I'm not imagining it would come from the NY Times. But I'm wishing it would come from fellow citizens. In my fantasy, the Outraged Citizenry would Rise Up and Defeat Trump/Other Bad Things.
Cognitively I understand the barriers to that happening spontaneously, but I think this is what people are saying when they say, "Where is the outrage??!"
posted by latkes at 8:01 PM on June 8 [1 favorite]
Cognitively I understand the barriers to that happening spontaneously, but I think this is what people are saying when they say, "Where is the outrage??!"
posted by latkes at 8:01 PM on June 8 [1 favorite]
« Older What happened in the Saint John NB Home Depot 2... | Aargh! The stink! Make it stop! Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
There's nothing like that shouting leftist talking points on the mainstream media.
Outrage isn't necessarily a good thing, but it sure is productive. People love to be mad about things. That's not a judgment call, I love being mad about things! I am mad about things right now! AND I DON'T HAVE AN OUTLET FOR MY SPECIFIC BRAND OF ANGER IN THE MEDIA GOD DAMNIT!!!!!
People asking where's the outrage want headlines and news programs that reflect the anger they're feeling about their side of the issues. The authoritarian right gets that, why not me.
posted by phunniemee at 1:45 PM on June 7 [12 favorites]