One dog barking

by John Dineen

"If both sides are mad at me, I must be doing something right."

Yes, it’s a cliche, one in which less imaginative members of the press have long taken refuge.

But with a public approval rating dipping below 20 percent, even journalists not given to introspection may sense that this particular bit of self-satisfaction is a bit frayed.

The cliche itself may be a clue in our search for What’s Gone Wrong for Journalism.

Journalists are famously — and, in fairness, understandably — fond of the "two sides" approach to storytelling. That framing of an issue focuses on a dispute and allows both sides to have their say. It provides sturdy, judgment-free narrative.

The approach is not without flaws. It’s the culprit in the false-equivalency lament — the complaint that, when candidate A is a felon and candidate B had a parking ticket, the news story says both candidates have had run-ins with the law.

Democrats point to coverage of Congress as an example. News stories and analysis frequently bemoan the increasingly toxic partisanship on Capitol Hill, and point a judgmental finger at all who toil under the dome.

And that’s what the frame does: It tells us that, no matter the issue, Republicans and Democrats can’t agree, and the gulf is widening. A pox on both their houses, say the keepers of the frame.

But independent congressional analysts say that’s wrong. Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann have concluded that Republicans on the Hill have moved sharply to the right in recent years, that partisan gridlock is not a bipartisan sin.

Which brings us to the election of Donald Trump.

After much soul-searching among journalists about reporting on Trump’s serial prevarications, many eventually stepped out of their comfort zone and explicitly labeled his falsehoods as, well, falsehoods. Some have gone a step further, branding some of his statements as lies.

This new on-the-fly fact-checking is not the only contributor to journalists’ heartburn. They are still taking the measure of Trump’s random Twitter remarks that are often more noise than light.

On the other hand, there is nothing random about his attacks on the press. Trump and his advocates frequently characterize the press as dishonest, and they have commandeered the term “fake news” for information that contradicts the administration’s narrative. This strategy, in concert with the administration’s comfort with misinformation, may be degrading the value of — and the public’s ability to recognize — accurate information.

The press, teetering on a broken business model, is poorly positioned to fight a battle over public trust. It has been subjected to continual change since the web began to flourish some 20 years ago. Maybe the time has come to be the agent of change.

(One dog barking is an occasional column. John is a former senior congressional staffer and media executive whose observations I enjoy. He also is my husband.)