Stories to keep an eye on:
Happy Wednesday! We start with some notes from my colleagues, Tim Miller and Amanda Carpenter: The Dems Actually Did Some Good Politicking TuesdayBy Tim MillerTim's Tenet (we're still workshopping this name) is to choose fights on issues that unite your party and wedge the other side. For some reason the Democrats have spent much of the last 19 months ignoring this advice and fighting amongst themselves. That was not the case yesterday when the House voted to codify the right to marry for gay couples with every Democrat voting in favor. By contrast, only 47 Republicans supported the bill with 157 apparently believing that my marriage should be able to be revoked by the state. Freedom! This is a case where the politics and the policy align perfectly. If Chuck Schumer brings this bill up it may very well attract 10 Republican votes, giving President Biden a worthwhile win. And if it falls short, then the Democrats will have another campaign issue to use targeting suburban swing voters and the apathetic youths. In fact the House vote is already providing political opportunity for Senate Democrats. Among the NAYs in the marriage vote was Rep. Ted Budd, the GOP nominee for Senate in North Carolina. Budd is now on the record with a vote that would allow the state of North Carolina to annul gay marriages if the Republicans are swept into power. That is...not a winner in Charlotte, let me tell you. Will it be the #1 voting issue in NC? No. But it could be part of a broader campaign to demonstrate how radical the GOP is. Imagine if the Democrats expanded this same notion out across a host of issues. Codifying Lawrence. Guaranteed access to contraception. A right to abortion in the case of rape and incest. A ban on semi-automatic firearms for people under 21. Prescription drug prices. Hell how about the Mike Pence Memorial Act of 2022 clarifying that the Vice President has no role in overturning an election. Would some of those garner 60 votes in the Senate? Maybe! Would the Republicans look insane if they blocked all of them? Yes! This is something Democrats could build on, if they chose to, and prioritized it over the oh so critical August recess that appears to be Dick Durbin's top priority. ** Bonus take:  The Secret Service’s Deplorable TimelineBy Amanda CarpenterThe Secret Service’s story about its lost texts from Jan. 5th and Jan. 6th keeps getting worse. Last week, the Jan. 6th committee issued a subpoena to the Secret Service after the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General notified the committee that relevant messages were “erased” supposedly due to routine data migration. But now we know the migration didn’t start until Jan. 27th, which is after multiple congressional committees made explicit requests to preserve such records. Absurdly, the Secret Service still insists it properly reviewed and turned over all relevant documents. Including the ones the agency disappeared. That sounds unbelievable–in the truest sense of the word. The Squad’s No-risk Arrest To hear AOC and the rest of the squad-aligned Democrats tell it, these were arrested yesterday after they put “their bodies on the line” during an abortion-rights protest outside the Supreme Court yesterday. Which is like slapping a fake tattoo on your arm and pretending to be Kat Von D. The only body parts they put on any lines were their posteriors when they plopped themselves on the lane markings in the middle of the street outside the Supreme Court. Blocking traffic on a tourist street — so hardcore! These kinds of protests happen so often in Washington D.C., that the police blared a pre-recorded message to issue the three standard warnings asking them to move. The Squad kept squatting. Then, just as they wanted, per standard procedure, Capitol Police had to ask them to leave. But there were more obvious tells. Like the way members were escorted away. To make it look believable, a couple of them put their hands behind their back and marched solemnly. But, even they slipped and broke character when they raised their arms in solidarity with their fans. See images HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. After they got their photos for the gram, the members were given a $50 fine and released on-site. Why bother with the charade? Well, it worked. After being tipped off, because duh, it was a planned media event, all the big outlets covered it and gave the progressives their desired headlines. Everyone pretended the squad actually put their bodies at risk, in the tradition of civil disobedience and “good trouble” embodied by leaders such as Martin Luther King and John Lewis, when in reality, they weren’t risking anything more than getting a slight sunburn from being outside in the middle of the day. They were soon back on the House floor for votes. Sure, they may have technically been arrested, but all they really did is make a mockery of the process. This is not how journalism worksBy Charlie SykesIs the media too mean to Joe Biden? Is that why his numbers are in the tank? Perry Bacon Jr. thinks so. In a widely shared (by the Biden White House) op-ed Bacon complains that negative coverage hasn’t just hurt Biden — it’s bad for democracy itself.
Such complaints are not new either from pols or their partisans. And surely there are many things that the media has done that chap the Biden-stans. But Bacon centers his critique on the coverage of (checks notes several times) Afghanistan. He writes:
In Bacon’s telling, Biden’s problem wasn’t just the shambolic, chaotic, disastrous pull-out, but the “highly negative’ coverage. This complaint is also not new. Ramesh Ponnuru wrote about similar grumbling last year:
Despite the kvetching about the Afghanistan coverage, Ponnuru noted, “the reason for the bad press is the most important: The news that’s being reported is just bad.” ** But now with Biden’s numbers south of 40 percent, Bacon has decided to revisit the mean-media meme. He concedes that Biden “deserved blame” for what he called the “tumultuous” and “chaotic” exit. But he saves his indignation for the media that covered the retreat.
Of course, Axios, Engel and Tapper were right. But Bacon describes this as “media hysteria.” Really? As other critics have noted, Bacon’s account leaves out several salient details about the Afghan disaster, including the death of 13 service members.
There was also the drone attack that ended up killing an innocent aide worker and several children.
While neglecting those details, Bacon tries to put all of this in a larger context. Biden’s coverage shifted, he writes “because of the media’s long-standing biases toward bothsidesism and strong criticism of those in power.” Bacon recognizes that this is how journalism operates:
Well, yes. But Bacon argues that Washington journalists “consciously or unconsciously, were poised to “balance” that negative Trump coverage with criticism of Biden, even if his actions weren’t nearly as deserving of condemnation.” And now Biden is polling even worse than Trump two years ago. For Bacon, “these poll numbers reflect something gone wrong.” Bacon’s solution?
Lord knows, the media often deserves the criticism it gets. It can be one-sided, too quick to pull the trigger on stories that turn out to be half-baked, and there is a definite herd mentality to much of its coverage. But calling for more positive coverage is not substantive media criticism. It is a call for partisan hackery. Exit take: Denial is seldom a sound strategy. Blaming media coverage is excuse-making at a time Biden World desperately needs an actual course-correction. The problem with inflation is not the media coverage: it’s the inflation. The problem with the climate is not the coverage: it’s the climate. The problem with Biden’s age is not…. etc. etc. Cheap Shots **
You’re a free subscriber to Morning Shots. For the full experience, become a paid subscriber. © 2022 The Bulwark
|
Is The Media Too Mean to Joe Biden?
July 20, 2022
0
