I thought this piece on our media religion, which I meant entirely seriously but which I hope is also fun, might be a useful preparation for the media this weekend and in weeks to come.
The resurgence of both-sideism by media might be traced to pop culture. In 1969, more than half-a-century ago, Joni Mitchell issued “Both Sides Now.” It remains as
iconic as any American song. Today, Hillary Clinton’s current best-seller “Something Lost, Something, Gained” borrows from it. It’s a truth more applicable to human lives than political platforms, promises, and agendas. It is not justification for the false equivalences, not to mention falsehoods, that media has succumbed to. Kudos to Tim Snyder for all he thinks about, does, and communicates to many. He’s a role model committed to knowledge, integrity, and activism.
“The worse the evil of one side, the more artfully it must be forgiven, and the more viciously the other side must be berated.”
It is time to fact check the “fact-checkers.”
The pillar called the “media” (reporter, copy-editor, headline-writer, publisher), needs to be broken down at each point, as “journalism”is a twisted alliance that folds and bends back on itself:
- A reporter covers Tr-mp. A colleague covers Har-ris. A copywriter has to meld the information. An editor writes a headline. A publisher’s preferred “tone” hangs a pall over it all. The Bottom Line rules.
- A reporter tries to transcribe Tr-mp’s incoherence. Afraid that her editor will call her sloppy, she tidies it up a bit. The editor still finds it a disjointed mess and, instead of making THAT the story — tries further to make it sound somewhat sensible to a reader (when, in fact Tr-mp ‘s dysarthria IS the story). The headline writer, whose head is more deeply steeped in the fog of the publisher’s mindset, can’t find a way to make Tr-mp’s vitriol palatable, instead has to make Harris seem to be less.
This needs to be broken down and challenged at every inflection point.
Each rung of the ladder of publishing needs to hold the others to account — from the bottom up, not the top down.
Otherwise, it is simply King Bottom Line, running amok.
I agree. Good luck with that. Too many people don't devote their heads to thinking too deeply about all of this I believe. Simply put the word "fear" sticks out re the print media.. NYT which reverberates.. ripples out. I don't think we can have a democracy with so many tuned out and vulnerable-- unthinking.
Powerful words but they almost exclusively apply to MSM on downward , and not to treasures like Pro Publica or a few invest journalists, for example, Susanne Craig.
Trump and his minions have been spewing lies and conspiracy for a long time and what was unforgivable behavior in the past has been normalized. And it’s exhausting. It’s the repetition of hearing it. And it gets into your brain.
The average uninformed American is such juicy and easy prey for Trump and Company.
I can’t resist going into the theoretical weeds here. I spent most of my brief academic life exploring the role of Germanic-Protestant good and evil in British and American law and politics. Take one “o” out of “good” and what do you have? Add a “d” at the beginning of “evil” and what do you have. One God. One Devil. Roman religion had a panoply of gods capable of many things and sometimes both good and evil. British and American law and politics is two sided — plaintiffs and the defendants, Labour and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, one winner and one loser. Law and politics in countries influenced by Roman law tend to be multi-sided — multiparty and with legal responsibility often being proportioned among parties. Roman legal principles seeped into Anglo American law through the early English Chancellors who were often also Roman Catholic priests. Chancellor’s, through their Courts of Equity, turned to the more flexible Roman law as a balm against the restrictive two-sidedness of English common law. Of course, the concepts of two-sidedness vs. multi-sidedness are ideal types. No culture falls entirely into one or the other, but the rigid insistence on two-sidedness is what makes it so difficult for Americans to see the good in those who disagree with them. That reality gives those with outsized resources a special advantage. It’s easier to control things in a dualopoly than a multopoly. Excuse the introduction of two new words.
Prof. Snyder: As much as I admire your books, essays, and other writings, and hold much admiration for your personal efforts to warn us of the perils of fascism and the dangers of allowing Putin to erase the budding Ukraine democracy, this piece strikes me as pure baloney. I think a simpler framework is to understand that the media are not Protect Democracy NGOs. They are not practitioners of altruistic public service. They are businesses owned by business men and women. They need revenue to pay for reporters and press runs and broadcast equipment; and they need profits because they are like any other business which seeks growth and wealth generation for its owners. Thus, they treat elections as horse races. Tension, suspense, fear, outrage, the absurd and the bizarre all sell papers and generate clicks. Who would care about the race if one horse was ahead by 15 furlongs? They portray both candidates
as being equal in order to keep the race alive over the course of an excessive number of months to keep those revenues pouring in. They sponsor and pay for flawed polling in order to facilitate their profit seeking. Barrett Strom got it right: "You can tell it to the birds and bees, but all I want and all I need is money. Money, money, money, money, money, money."
I've been coming to that conclusion even regarding the liberal media I watch. All of the broadcasts rely on the techniques of entertainment to present their reports - as do also the print media (every feature is repackaged to create profit opportunities...
As addicted as I am to political media in my quest for truth I agree with an analysis a while back that framed political media as forms of recreation for politicos, myself among them. I am rapidly approaching total saturation as the election nears.
Don’t forget Shrub’s, “You’re either for us or against us” crap. Being unable or just unwilling to see shades of gray hamstrings thinking in my book. How could we ever have advanced as human beings by only considering two facets of a problem? Hard to imagine much advancement.
A brilliant essay, which explains the behavior of what has come to be called the Main Stream Media. Both-sideism in the US is not only a description of MSM behavior, but also of our two party political system. We presently have one party which is fundamentally the rebirth of the NSDAP, and another that fundamentally opposes the former on virtually all of its core issues (women's rights, immigration, the role of government.) Yet these two entities fail to prioritize various fundamental issues, which naturally leads to the formation of splinter parties such as the Greens or Libertarians.
The response of the Democrats to the Greens demonstrates the degree to which they adhere to both-sideism: Rather than forming a coallition or integrating key Green demands into their platform, they demonize the Greens and blame them for their own failings. The Greens are to the Democrat both-siders as the Jews are to the Nazis. We cost Hillary Clinton the election in 2016, and will be blamed should Kamala Harris lose in 2024. Oh, and I forgot, we cost Al Gore the win in 2000.
If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at Thom Hartman's most recent rant.
Unbelievably chilling! As a former history student, I recall thinking that we don’t learn from history; case in point made here: the signs of a democracy on the brink of collapse, who would have thought it possible in America, yet as you say, fascism and barbarism can happen anywhere, let’s hope it doesn’t happen this time in America!
Professor Snyder is showing that we can break out of the curseof re-living historic tragedy. If we inform ourselves of the matters of fact the human race (note the singular) can break free from the same mistakes made in the past. It IS a choice responsible human beings must make.
So thoughtful. I have been enraged by the pseudo democratic practice of both sidism. Listening to this piece, I think of those who try to find something nice to say about Russians, in order to « balance » reporting. Or I think of women, who have been demeaned, at the very least by the likes of Trump who have to listen to the « yes but » , so yes, we need to bring back ethics as the basis of analysis
...ethics not as the basis of analysis, but rather as the basis of the pursuit of fact as the basis of analysis. Possibly a distinction without a difference, but a little different perspective.
The resurgence of both-sideism by media might be traced to pop culture. In 1969, more than half-a-century ago, Joni Mitchell issued “Both Sides Now.” It remains as
iconic as any American song. Today, Hillary Clinton’s current best-seller “Something Lost, Something, Gained” borrows from it. It’s a truth more applicable to human lives than political platforms, promises, and agendas. It is not justification for the false equivalences, not to mention falsehoods, that media has succumbed to. Kudos to Tim Snyder for all he thinks about, does, and communicates to many. He’s a role model committed to knowledge, integrity, and activism.
“The worse the evil of one side, the more artfully it must be forgiven, and the more viciously the other side must be berated.”
It is time to fact check the “fact-checkers.”
The pillar called the “media” (reporter, copy-editor, headline-writer, publisher), needs to be broken down at each point, as “journalism”is a twisted alliance that folds and bends back on itself:
- A reporter covers Tr-mp. A colleague covers Har-ris. A copywriter has to meld the information. An editor writes a headline. A publisher’s preferred “tone” hangs a pall over it all. The Bottom Line rules.
- A reporter tries to transcribe Tr-mp’s incoherence. Afraid that her editor will call her sloppy, she tidies it up a bit. The editor still finds it a disjointed mess and, instead of making THAT the story — tries further to make it sound somewhat sensible to a reader (when, in fact Tr-mp ‘s dysarthria IS the story). The headline writer, whose head is more deeply steeped in the fog of the publisher’s mindset, can’t find a way to make Tr-mp’s vitriol palatable, instead has to make Harris seem to be less.
This needs to be broken down and challenged at every inflection point.
Each rung of the ladder of publishing needs to hold the others to account — from the bottom up, not the top down.
Otherwise, it is simply King Bottom Line, running amok.
I agree. Good luck with that. Too many people don't devote their heads to thinking too deeply about all of this I believe. Simply put the word "fear" sticks out re the print media.. NYT which reverberates.. ripples out. I don't think we can have a democracy with so many tuned out and vulnerable-- unthinking.
Powerful words but they almost exclusively apply to MSM on downward , and not to treasures like Pro Publica or a few invest journalists, for example, Susanne Craig.
Trump and his minions have been spewing lies and conspiracy for a long time and what was unforgivable behavior in the past has been normalized. And it’s exhausting. It’s the repetition of hearing it. And it gets into your brain.
The average uninformed American is such juicy and easy prey for Trump and Company.
Excellent writing Dr Snyder. As usual.
Hans G Wesslau, Sweden
‘There were fine people on both sides’ 🤷♀️ #Trumpism
We gotta take sides when it comes to war.
And you have to choose to enter a war — or not.
Sometimes there’s no choice but the will to survive when attacked by bullies. ✌🏻
Fantastic insight, wonderfully expressed. From your lips to the NYT's ears.
(Actually, as James Fallows pointed out recently, the text of the articles is often much better than the tone of the heads and subheads...
Yes.. major disgust here re the headlines.
I can’t resist going into the theoretical weeds here. I spent most of my brief academic life exploring the role of Germanic-Protestant good and evil in British and American law and politics. Take one “o” out of “good” and what do you have? Add a “d” at the beginning of “evil” and what do you have. One God. One Devil. Roman religion had a panoply of gods capable of many things and sometimes both good and evil. British and American law and politics is two sided — plaintiffs and the defendants, Labour and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, one winner and one loser. Law and politics in countries influenced by Roman law tend to be multi-sided — multiparty and with legal responsibility often being proportioned among parties. Roman legal principles seeped into Anglo American law through the early English Chancellors who were often also Roman Catholic priests. Chancellor’s, through their Courts of Equity, turned to the more flexible Roman law as a balm against the restrictive two-sidedness of English common law. Of course, the concepts of two-sidedness vs. multi-sidedness are ideal types. No culture falls entirely into one or the other, but the rigid insistence on two-sidedness is what makes it so difficult for Americans to see the good in those who disagree with them. That reality gives those with outsized resources a special advantage. It’s easier to control things in a dualopoly than a multopoly. Excuse the introduction of two new words.
All I can say is Bless you, Timothy Snyder. You have said much that can save us. Are we ready to hear you is the question .
The GOP has been captured by fraudsters & power by any means authoritarians. The projection & propaganda never stops.
Trump & Vance can’t handle the truth threatening fact checkers, whistleblowers & truth tellers with retribution. https://wapo.st/3XXgHPt
Bidenomics booms while Trump's top general calls Trump "a facist to the core...the most dangerous person to this country” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OkyUCJ6V0
Prof. Snyder: As much as I admire your books, essays, and other writings, and hold much admiration for your personal efforts to warn us of the perils of fascism and the dangers of allowing Putin to erase the budding Ukraine democracy, this piece strikes me as pure baloney. I think a simpler framework is to understand that the media are not Protect Democracy NGOs. They are not practitioners of altruistic public service. They are businesses owned by business men and women. They need revenue to pay for reporters and press runs and broadcast equipment; and they need profits because they are like any other business which seeks growth and wealth generation for its owners. Thus, they treat elections as horse races. Tension, suspense, fear, outrage, the absurd and the bizarre all sell papers and generate clicks. Who would care about the race if one horse was ahead by 15 furlongs? They portray both candidates
as being equal in order to keep the race alive over the course of an excessive number of months to keep those revenues pouring in. They sponsor and pay for flawed polling in order to facilitate their profit seeking. Barrett Strom got it right: "You can tell it to the birds and bees, but all I want and all I need is money. Money, money, money, money, money, money."
Then the media is simply entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less.
I've been coming to that conclusion even regarding the liberal media I watch. All of the broadcasts rely on the techniques of entertainment to present their reports - as do also the print media (every feature is repackaged to create profit opportunities...
As addicted as I am to political media in my quest for truth I agree with an analysis a while back that framed political media as forms of recreation for politicos, myself among them. I am rapidly approaching total saturation as the election nears.
Soooooo well said. I’m with you. They talk about the kids and TikTok then I look in the mirror….
Don’t forget Shrub’s, “You’re either for us or against us” crap. Being unable or just unwilling to see shades of gray hamstrings thinking in my book. How could we ever have advanced as human beings by only considering two facets of a problem? Hard to imagine much advancement.
...Dubya's administration was a retreat from advancement without a doubt, and will be seen as such in the future.
A brilliant essay, which explains the behavior of what has come to be called the Main Stream Media. Both-sideism in the US is not only a description of MSM behavior, but also of our two party political system. We presently have one party which is fundamentally the rebirth of the NSDAP, and another that fundamentally opposes the former on virtually all of its core issues (women's rights, immigration, the role of government.) Yet these two entities fail to prioritize various fundamental issues, which naturally leads to the formation of splinter parties such as the Greens or Libertarians.
The response of the Democrats to the Greens demonstrates the degree to which they adhere to both-sideism: Rather than forming a coallition or integrating key Green demands into their platform, they demonize the Greens and blame them for their own failings. The Greens are to the Democrat both-siders as the Jews are to the Nazis. We cost Hillary Clinton the election in 2016, and will be blamed should Kamala Harris lose in 2024. Oh, and I forgot, we cost Al Gore the win in 2000.
If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at Thom Hartman's most recent rant.
consider tweeting this for friends in media who follow you there but not here
Hi, Laura, fancy meeting you here! Yes, excellent, very good idea.
Unbelievably chilling! As a former history student, I recall thinking that we don’t learn from history; case in point made here: the signs of a democracy on the brink of collapse, who would have thought it possible in America, yet as you say, fascism and barbarism can happen anywhere, let’s hope it doesn’t happen this time in America!
Professor Snyder is showing that we can break out of the curseof re-living historic tragedy. If we inform ourselves of the matters of fact the human race (note the singular) can break free from the same mistakes made in the past. It IS a choice responsible human beings must make.
...We can change history - or re-write it.
I mis-spoke/wrote - we can't change history, we can write a new history though.
So thoughtful. I have been enraged by the pseudo democratic practice of both sidism. Listening to this piece, I think of those who try to find something nice to say about Russians, in order to « balance » reporting. Or I think of women, who have been demeaned, at the very least by the likes of Trump who have to listen to the « yes but » , so yes, we need to bring back ethics as the basis of analysis
...ethics not as the basis of analysis, but rather as the basis of the pursuit of fact as the basis of analysis. Possibly a distinction without a difference, but a little different perspective.
The "yes but" argumentation drives me crazy too.
This is serious philosophy. Thank you.