Columnist, One dog barking
It is a common lament that political journalism has come to resemble its sports counterpart, with its emphasis on predictions and who’s ahead. However, that comparison goes only so far: Sports journalism, at least, is fact-based.
Reading advance analysis of Thursday’s presidential debate, my thoughts turned, inevitably, to the Boston Celtics, who last week won their 18th NBA championship. In dominating fashion. The NBA record.
The Boston Globe’s coverage of the championship series (and the celebration that followed) was comprehensive — serving, as it does, the most discerning and engaged pro basketball fan base in the country. Meanwhile, over on the other coast, it was difficult to find even a wire service article in the Los Angeles Times two days after the Celtics’ win.
Nonetheless, while fans of the Los Angeles Lakers, the Celtics’ archrivals, may not have wanted to hear about it — fair enough — they’re not denying it happened, and the LA Times isn’t saying, well, some people have doubts.
This week, in the run-up to the debate,
The New York Times — solid coverage of the Celtics in
The Athletic, by the way — entertains us with news that some Biden supporters are creating bingo cards and planning drinking games. But the coverage does not address the unsettling peculiarity of the debate’s context: that a significant portion of the audience will view the debate not merely with different rooting interests, but also with a completely different factual context.
Based on polling by
Ipsos released in May, viewers of Fox News and other right-wing media outlets in large numbers do not believe that President Biden legitimately won the 2020 election, and they are doubtful about the integrity of the upcoming election. They believe Biden opened the border with Mexico to all undocumented immigrants, and that a flood of migrants is making the United States more dangerous. That is, they believe things that are not true, encouraged by both Fox and Trump.
Not surprisingly, Fox News consumers by large margins view immigration as the most important issue facing the nation — a staple of right-wing media, and a view not shared by consumers of any other news source, according to Ipsos.
For the candidates, then, the question is: To whom are you speaking? What segment of the audience will listen to what you say?
The Times and debate host CNN have promised comprehensive fact-checking. But it’s unclear how effective that practice will be; fact-checking can engage in the same “both sides lie” fallacy that daily political coverage does. And it’s safe to say Fox News will not attempt to alter the views of its audience.
The Washington Post points to a fundamental dynamic: "Fox News is right-wing because its audience is right-wing and its audience is right-wing because the network is right-wing. The result is a diverging view of reality, one that at times tips into surreality.”
John Dineen is a former senior congressional staffer and media executive; founder of
briefing.center, a policy news and information service; and my husband. (He also is a long-time Boston Celtics fan.)