Dan Froomkin discusses why Epstein is the only Trump scandal the mainstream press isn't afraid to cover

 

 

 Yesterday I made a passing reference to the role that this being Republican-on-Republican violence made the story an acceptable target for respectable news organizations. 

While Trump's long, close friendship with Epstein had been well known for years, Musk was able to get it on MAGA’s radar, which re-energized the scandal. Suddenly the story wasn't the president's creepy relationship with arguably the world's most famous pedophile; it was the base's reaction to that relationship.

 I meant to come back to this idea, but now, thanks to veteran press critic Dan Froomkin, I don't have to.

From Why can’t journalists cover democracy like they cover Epstein? 

Coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal shows that mainstream journalists still have the capacity to latch onto a story and not let go.

They’ve thrown everything they’ve got at this story, and delivered the goods. Every day there’s something Epstein to report about: New reactions, old reactions, new evidence, old evidence, fresh quotes, old quotes.

They’re reaching out to sources, mining the archives, asking everyone what they think.

Print journalists are not letting this story fall off the tops of their front pages no matter what. Cable news anchors are leading their newscasts with it on the hour, one after another.

It’s impressive.

But now that we know that our top journalists can sustain a major story and stoke public outrage when they choose to, the question arises: Why haven’t they done that with other stories whose long-term significance in many ways dwarfs this sordid sex scandal?

OK, yes, I get it: The Epstein scandal represents the first major split between Trump and his base, which until now has been resolutely behind him. That’s new, and therefore news.

The story also has sex.

But most of all, the reason our top journalists are so excited about this story is because, for once, the criticism of Trump is coming from “both sides.”

The leaders of our top newsrooms are pathologically afraid of being accused of partisanship. So only if people on “both sides” agree does the media consider something a real scandal.

That effectively gives the right veto power over what the media cares about. If the right presents a united front, the coverage — even of threats to American democracy, or to the planet — will be listless and sporadic. Which it is.

But I would argue that if you weren’t afraid of accusations of partisanship there are many bigger and more consequential scandals that deserve the all-hands-on-deck, keep-the-story-on-the-front-page treatment Epstein is getting.