No One Likes The Media. Fair Enough

Delete all the accounts

Journalists tend to get especially animated when reporting on and pontificating about gun violence tragedies. Most journalists are human beings, so in many ways this is just a normal human response to tragic circumstances. There's also an undercurrent of professional self-importance: That these tragic moments underscore the indispensable role of journalists in our society; That they must rise to the occasion, and live up to the noble responsibility inherent to their privileged role as Guardians of Truth; That a perfectly crafted tweet could make a difference.

No one likes the media, and that's fair enough.

In the wake of deadly shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the journalists are at it again, shaming politicians who offer "thoughts and prayers," appealing for a federal ban on "automatic weapons" (which already exists), posting absurd firearms graphics, making definitive pronouncements as to whether a crazed gunman's political views are "relevant," and discussing whether or not a pair of deadly shootings could offer a flailing presidential candidate "a chance…to gain momentum." Mostly, however, they've been arguing with other journalists about journalism — specifically, about whether or not it's okay to cancel your subscription to the New York Times after the paper wrote a problematic headline about Trump. You know, the sort of thing most normal, well-adjusted Americans really care about.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1158571921186967553

As it turns out, journalists are adept at finding the "journalism angle" to just about any story.

Speaking of which, some journalists have been attacking CNN for reporting on the Dayton gunman's political views.

Some, including an editor at the Daily Beast, which recently published a piece revealing the identity of a private citizen who shared a video making fun of Nancy Pelosi, were upset because the Dayton shooter's political views " have zero relevancy," and accused CNN of "recklessly" speculating.

You know, because those details aren't relevant. Not always.

As all of this was playing out in the minimally relevant confines of Twitter, a federal appeals court ruled that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times could proceed. Palin sued the paper after a 2017 editorial suggested, without evidence, that Palin had motivated the actions of the gunman who killed six people and wounded Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords at a Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Ariz.

Whether or not Palin's case ultimately succeeds is not especially relevant. The Times editorial, which prompted a correction, is just another example of the media running afoul of its own standards. More often than not, these transgressions are injurious to the right-leaning half of the political spectrum, to which few journalists themselves belong. They could probably be dismissed as gaffes if they weren't so annoyingly consistent.

For example, when former ABC News correspondent Brian Ross recklessly speculated in 2012 that the gunman who shot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., might have been a Tea Party member because his (relatively common) name, Jim Holmes, appeared on a local Tea Party website.

Or the time NBC's Pete Williams said the motivations of the former Bernie Sanders volunteer and left-wing political activist who targeted Republican lawmakers at a baseball practice in Arlington, Va., remained "a puzzle."

In the media's defense, the people who consume their products can be just as annoying. Our increasingly politicized society insists on viewing everything through a political lens, a dynamic fueled by media consumption. Every story, even (or perhaps especially) the tragic ones, requires a villain to blame, or at least an angle that casts our political opponents in an unfavorable light. We get increasingly agitated when the media fails to sufficiently reinforce our worldview, and eventually no one likes the media anymore, and we end up with the media we deserve. Fair enough.