Friday, October 4, 2024

The New York Times' revealed preference

The publisher and editors of the paper record have told us ad nauseam how seriously they take the threat of a second Trump presidency and how conscientious they are about doing their job, but if you want to know what's really important to them, you should probably consider what economists might call revealed preference.

Thanks to an unusually frank piece by reporter Amy Chozick discussed here, we know that the staff and leadership of the New York Times were aware of what they were doing, that they were helping a hostile foreign power influence election. They just thought they could get away with it.

Stephen Colbert normally hits three or four topics in his monologue. Last night, he did the entire 10 minutes on the Jack Smith January 6 filing. This isn't the first time we've gotten better and/or more timely coverage of a Trump story from the Late Show than from the New York Times. Just this week, we saw Colbert talking about  the disturbing violent imagery and fascist elements of Trump's weekend speeches of full day before the New York Times mentioned them, and doing so in a more direct and informative way.

I could say something similar about the Daily Show, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyer, and a number of others. This is partly a comment quality of political humor at the moment – – lots of these people have stepped up to the plate – – but it's mainly a reflection on how so many in the establishment press have failed to live up to the moment.



Thursday, October 3, 2024

What if the standard narrative on abortion isn't just wrong but directionally wrong?

Quick recap.

Almost immediately after the Dobbs ruling, a standard narrative formed pushed heavily by Politico and the New York Times which argued that the Supreme Court's decision would have very limited impact on the upcoming midterms and diminishing influence going forward. When the results of the midterms did commit, these same pundits and data journalists conceded that ballot initiatives about abortion had done very well and the issue had substantially influenced the election, but they very quickly started coming up with reasons why the same thing wouldn't happen in 2024. These included:

.
Emotions over the issue will tend to fade with time.

Voters who skip midterms but show up for general elections tend to be less engaged (and younger, but we'll get to that later). These voters are less likely to be motivated by the issue.

Lots of Republican women who support ballot initiatives will still vote the straight party ticket in terms of candidates.

Surveys showed that most people did not associate Trump and the Republicans that strongly with unpopular anti-abortion laws.

Trump and the Republicans had effectively contained the issue.

Trump and the Republicans had moderated their stance on the issue.

There were other arguments being made but I think I have hit the main ones. Now let's look at the political landscape in autumn of 2024 compared to 2022.

We have seen more laws and they've become increasingly draconian with disturbing, often horrifying primary, secondary, and tertiary effects. The risks associated with pregnancy whether planned or unplanned have greatly increased. Healthcare for all women in anti-abortion states has been negatively affected. Basic rights like privacy and freedom to travel are being restricted. And every day a new heartbreaking story emerges, be it a child forced to carry a pregnancy to term, or a young couple losing the chance to ever start a family, or a woman bleeding out after being turned away from an emergency room. What were once easily dismissed hypotheticals have become tragically real horror stories and martyrs.

Even the term "abortion" is no longer descriptive of the issue. With the rise of the fetal personhood movement, we are now talking about reproductive rights in the broadest possible sense. Though Republicans are doing their damnedest to downplay the issue, the debate over in vitro fertilization is raging and Republicans are very much on the wrong side of it if you've been following the story closely, you also know that a number of conservatives have been talking about going after the right to contraception. The polling on these Republican positions is beyond terrible.

Abortion and other reproductive rights are effectively on the ballot everywhere this election. Though Trump's position, being unmoored from any sense of principle, has swung from one extreme to the other, when given the biggest audience he is likely to have during this campaign, he refused to rule out signing a national abortion ban. The specter of a national ban hangs over not only the presidential race, but every Republican running for Congress as well.

In addition to being implicitly on the ballot in every state, abortion is explicitly on the ballot in a large number of them. It is possible that a lot of voters will vote yes on these initiatives then turn around and vote for the same Republican candidates who are pushing these restrictive laws, but that's unsupported by convincing data and is wildly contrary to common sense, particularly when you take into account...

The Republicans have a huge misogyny problem starting with the adjudicated rapist at the head of the party. JD Vance has been a nightmare on this issue. An especially memorable aspect of Mark Robinson's porn and Nazis scandal has been the numerous clips of him equating the right to abortion with female promiscuity. Robinson and other prominent Republicans such as Peter Thiel are also on the record saying disparaging things about women's suffrage, an issue which is not likely to help close their gender gap.

On the other side we have Kamala Harris. While the Democratic message on reproductive rights is essentially the same as it was under Joe Biden, the change in messenger is tremendously significant. Even before Biden stepped down, Harris was the campaign's point person on abortion. The arguments were always more effective coming from her and this is even more true now that she is the nominee.

We are in uncharted territory in terms of post Dobbs presidential elections. N=0. We can't say how any of these things will play out or interact with each other. The best we can do is try to make reasonable directional assumptions and possibly, with great trepidation, think about possible ranges of magnitude. That being said, it is entirely reasonable and possibly even likely, that the combined impact of everything listed above will mean that reproductive rights will have a considerably greater impact in the upcoming election than it did in the previous one. With the standard exception of Josh Marshall (and even there a very cautious Josh Marshall),

Nothing I've said so far is intended as a prediction. I'm not even talking about probabilities at this stage, just thinking through some possibilities in their implications, but I will close with one prediction. If reproductive rights does have a big and widespread impact in November, the vast majority of the pundits and data journalists who completely missed it will find a way to claim they knew it all along.

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

It took 3 days, lots of mockery, and being scooped by Colbert, but the New York Times finally got there

Finally talking about Trump's speeches.

Just to review, Saturday and Sunday Donald Trump gave a couple of speeches which draw all pretense of being a short of a cry for fascism. We talked about this Monday. Paul Campos also had an excellent post which included an appropriately outraged video commentary from former Republican operative Tim Miller. It also quotes Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

If you go back to our previous post and watch the clips we included, or watch the Tim Miller video, or review any reasonably comprehensive article on the speeches, I think you will see that every single one of Paxton's boxes has been checked here and in other recent statements by Trump and Vance.


These speeches have generated a great deal of attention – – even Stephen Colbert's Monday night monologue included clips from the Sunday speech arguing for a "day of violence" where police would have free reign to deal with an imaginary wave of looters – – but one place you didn't see any significant coverage was in the New York Times, either the online or print edition.



Finally (and I strongly suspect the criticism the paper was receiving on this was a factor), Trump's speech was finally deemed newsworthy by the New York Times, at least in the online edition. The story itself left a a lot to be desired. There was considerable sane washing, downplaying of language, and the complete omission of the most disturbing parts, but with the paper of record, I suppose we have to take what we can get.


Queued up to the part about Trump's speech.







Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Debates that haven't happened yet aren't news (and vice-presidential debates are seldom news even after they happen)

In case you missed it, over the weekend former president Donald Trump gave a couple of speeches that were filled with racism, lies, violent fantasies, and calls for what would be considered by all but the most technical definitions, fascism. They were bizarre, frightening, and undeniably newsworthy. (They were also newsworthy in other ways such as the questions raised about Trump's mental state, but I think the fascism was enough to prove my point.)





Despite this, they received limited and heavily sane washed coverage from most of the establishment press and went virtually unmentioned by the New York Times.

As of Monday, the big political story was the upcoming vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz, which is odd since that is it news at all. Like I said in the title, "Debates that haven't happened yet aren't news."


It is possible that some significant news will come out of the event, though even that is unlikely. The only case that comes to mind of something memorable coming out of the VP debate is "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" and if you remember the context for that one, it certainly did not produce a noticeable boost to the ticket that came out on the top of that exchange.

If it is not news, what exactly does debate coverage consist of? Mostly it is nothing more than horserace journalism played out in miniature you have tons of speculation, pseudo-thoughtful discussions of who the perceived front runner is, historical anecdotes of little to no relevance, and pregame analysis with recaps of old debates and opportunities to trot out the standard narratives. All of which is supposedly intended to answer questions that will be resolved the following evening and which (to reveal a dirty little secret of politics and political journalism) are almost never that damned important to begin with.

Despite the absurd weight put on them, presidential debates are a terrible way for voters to get a sense of who the candidates are and what their administrations and policies are going to look like. Primary debates are more defensible, but by the time you get down to the choice between two or very, very occasionally three choices, the candidates are familiar enough and the differences start enough that these constrained and highly artificial exchanges almost never tell voters anything useful.

Presidential debates are best viewed not in terms of information exchanged or intellectual skill, but as theater. That's why the few moments that people remember are either embarrassingly superficial (Nixon's lack of makeup, Gore's know-it-all attitude) or gotcha moments. That is the level they operate on. As with the conventions, they are fundamentally spectacles and opportunity for journalists to crank out tons of "news" and analysis without having to do very much work.

2024 is a huge outlier in this respect with both debates revealing important information to viewers.

While most of the discussion about Biden's debate performance has been oversimplified and badly thought out, pretty much everyone can agree that serious doubts raised about how rapidly the man was aging, whether he would be able to complete another term, and most consequentially, would he be able to beat Trump in the general election? As the triggering event in an almost unprecedented reshuffling of a presidential ticket, this was unquestionably newsworthy.

The second debate was important on two levels. For Harris, it gave voters a chance to evaluate a candidate who had stepped into the role very recently and get a feel for her resolve and competence. For Trump, a massive audience saw a tired looking erratic, often delusional, easily distracted and manipulated old man. It also gave us an instantly iconic moment in the history of presidential debates, "[T]hey’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” Also unquestionably newsworthy.

But none of the extensive coverage leading up either debate was in any real sense informative. Worse yet, there were. Genuinely important stories were pushed out of the news by these empty calories then and now. If the mainstream press wants to regain our trust, they should probably start by not wasting our time.