There was lots of breaking news Tuesday, but one story mattered most of all
A COVID testing sign directs drivers waiting in line to get a free COVID-19 self-test at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Good Wednesday morning.
You know, I often roll my eyes when the cable news networks put up a banner that screams, “BREAKING NEWS” when the news isn’t all that breaking.
But on Tuesday, there was breaking news. Lots of it.
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr told The Associated Press that the Department of Justice has not found evidence of widespread voter fraud that would impact the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Barr told the AP, “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”
This should not come as a surprise. The election has been over for quite some time and there has been no evidence of any fraud. But what made the news so “breaking” was that the comments came from someone seen as a Trump loyalist.
When asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about Barr’s comments on Tuesday, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the minority whip, said rather sarcastically, “Isn’t it interesting that it’s a news story when the attorney general is caught red-handed telling the truth?”
After a pause for effect, Durbin continued by saying, “I can’t understand why this has become such a novelty in Washington under the Trump administration, but it has. This attorney general, time and again, has been willing to say whatever this president wanted him to say. Today, he spoke the truth and it made the news.”
Durbin went on to say, “Maybe he’s trying to rehabilitate his resume. I don’t know his motive, but it’s refreshing to hear. Well, it’s not just refreshing, it’s startling to hear.”
There was other breaking news, too. President-elect Joe Biden introduced his economic team on Tuesday. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz broke a story late Tuesday about how the Justice Department is looking into a potential presidential pardon bribery scheme. And, of course, there is the story that never goes away: the coronavirus. Tuesday’s coronavirus news included a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory group recommending that vaccines go to health care workers and nursing home residents first and a bipartisan group of senators introducing a $908 billion coronavirus aid proposal.
So of all this breaking news, which truly mattered the most?
The major networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — all led their national evening newscasts with the same story: the CDC’s recommendation of who should get the vaccines first.
And, ultimately, while the Barr news was, well, newsworthy, and the aid package is important, it was heartening to see the emphasis placed on coverage of the pandemic. Ultimately, this is the story that means the most right now.
Post runs controversial ad
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
The Washington Post made the questionable decision on Tuesday to run a full-page ad from a private citizen who argued that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. The ad said it was paid for by Lawrence Gelman of McAllen, Texas.
One section of the ad reads, “That the incumbent should be more popular in the re-election bid than when first elected, as noted by receiving more votes in every single state but, nevertheless, fails in the bid for re-election is fantastically improbable. The likely explanation for this outcome is that the opposition, through manipulation of the electoral process, succeeded in garnering sufficient votes to win in selected states regardless of the number of votes necessary. A divergence from historical voting patterns of this magnitude raises the specter of fraud. When, for example has an incumbent lost a re-election bid despite receiving more votes in every single state than in the previous election?”
Why would the Post run an advertisement full of speculation questioning the legitimacy of the election when the paper’s own reporters have written fact-based stories that have shown no election fraud?
I reached out to the Post, which gave me this statement:
“We have long accepted individual advocacy ads from readers and they, like other advertisers, are given wide latitude to exercise their First Amendment rights and convey their opinions. This ad is clearly labeled as advertising and discloses who purchased the ad.”
I suppose it’s really no different than a letter to the editor — well, other than the Post actually got money for it. And the Post is correct in saying that it’s labeled as an advertisement with clear attribution. It’s also admirable that the Post gives “wide latitude” to those who want to exercise their First Amendment rights and “convey their opinions.”
Nevertheless, to allow a reader to simply buy his way into a powerful publication such as the Post to offer a theory that totally lacks proof and casts doubt on our democracy just doesn’t feel right. It feels irresponsible. Just because the Post encourages an exchange of thoughts doesn’t mean it HAS to accept theories that have no basis in fact.
It’s all debatable
As we look back on the 2020 presidential debates, what worked? And what didn’t? PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson digs through that in a story that includes the first joint interview of the moderators and organizers of the debates. During a webinar last month sponsored by George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, second presidential debate moderator Kristen Welker of NBC said she was pleased that a candidate was muted at the start of each topic so the other candidate could speak uninterrupted.
“I don’t think there were any moments of a technical difficulty or where it threw the candidates off,” Welker said.
That mute feature was needed following the first hot mess of a debate when President Donald Trump constantly interrupted Joe Biden. Even as it was happening, moderator Chris Wallace knew it was getting out of control and a producer said in his earpiece, “Stop Trump from interrupting Biden.”
Wallace said he thought to himself, “What does he expect me to do, hit a trap door on the president of the United States? There’s not much you can do in that situation.”
Wallace said he thought that Trump’s strategy of overwhelming the debate with interruptions ultimately hurt Trump.
Be sure to check out Jacobson’s story for more behind-the-scenes of the debates.
|
