Read on Twitter
I want to talk about a problem that conservative media critics have been pointing out for a while, but in a more adversarial way—and on many occasions a more ham-fisted way—than I think is helpful.
Bias can come in many forms, and in varying degrees of obviousness.
Forget about the more obvious ones—such as criticizing an action when a Republican does it, but downplaying it when a Democrat does. I think this happens, but the "MSM" remains our best source for journalism.
Forget about the more obvious ones—such as criticizing an action when a Republican does it, but downplaying it when a Democrat does. I think this happens, but the "MSM" remains our best source for journalism.
Focus, instead, on a more subtle variation: the adoption of article frames, and the suffusion of content elements within articles, that flow from a distinctly liberal or progressive hierarchy of value.
I want to use race as an example.
I want to use race as an example.
I've been reading profiles of incoming cabinet officials.
On January 22, Lloyd Austin was confirmed as Biden’s defense secretary. This makes him the first black Pentagon chief in U.S. history.
This is fantastic, and worthy of emphasis. But not worthy of *overemphasis*.
On January 22, Lloyd Austin was confirmed as Biden’s defense secretary. This makes him the first black Pentagon chief in U.S. history.
This is fantastic, and worthy of emphasis. But not worthy of *overemphasis*.
I remember when Ezra Klein sat down with Ben Shapiro for Ben's interview series. I mostly agreed with Klein throughout. But one area I wished Shapiro had been more persuasive was when they discussed whether all identities are equally valid inputs within political contestation.
What I mean is: Shapiro asserted—correctly—that ideology is a more *politically* salient identity layer than race.
Klein pushed back, and unfortunately Shapiro didn't convey why racial considerations, as important as they are, sometimes take us *away* from political analysis.
Klein pushed back, and unfortunately Shapiro didn't convey why racial considerations, as important as they are, sometimes take us *away* from political analysis.
I read several write-ups about Austin.
A number of them contained no less than a half-dozen references to Austin being the first black SecDef.
In a couple of them, it seemed every other graf contained a reference to, or some media insert for, this particular detail.
A number of them contained no less than a half-dozen references to Austin being the first black SecDef.
In a couple of them, it seemed every other graf contained a reference to, or some media insert for, this particular detail.
Those write-ups contained literally no information about Austin's *military* profile, his views on national security, military technology. They contained no comparisons with past SecDefs, and how Austin might deviate from their approach.
The articles offered no projections about how the *military* might change or adapt, in ways that go beyond its racial makeup and progress, under his leadership.
I mean, it might strike us that analyzing Austin's *military* profile might be of interest now that he's installed.
I mean, it might strike us that analyzing Austin's *military* profile might be of interest now that he's installed.
I’m neither a race maximalist nor a racism denialist. As I see it, progressives sometimes overstate the salience of race in our discussions while conservatives understate it. Both errors lead to predictable problems in media coverage.
In this thread, I'm setting aside for the moment conservative failures on race and focusing on their counterparts.
The reality is that, far too often, within left-leaning operations, the application of a racial frame can distort rather than inform.
The reality is that, far too often, within left-leaning operations, the application of a racial frame can distort rather than inform.
More subtly—and this is really important for those of us in media to understand—when the suffusion of racial considerations crowds out other details, it can leave readers *underinformed.*
Misinforming is the chief journalistic sin. But underinforming is also a problem.
Misinforming is the chief journalistic sin. But underinforming is also a problem.
This is worrisome for a variety of reasons, chief among them that race is a really important thing and, for many stories, the defining feature that should be judiciously brought out. But that doesn’t happen when the coverage *overdoes* it.
We are particularly vulnerable to this when racial concerns occupy the forefront of our minds.
Now, I'm not arguing that we push race aside. I literally just published a piece on my site, just seconds ago, about race.
Now, I'm not arguing that we push race aside. I literally just published a piece on my site, just seconds ago, about race.
I'm simply saying we need to be mindful of the ways our coverage frames can take on a racial valence that may not be warranted by the underlying facts.
Bring it in when the topic calls for it. And be sensitive to the ways culturally dominant considerations can pervade coverage.
Bring it in when the topic calls for it. And be sensitive to the ways culturally dominant considerations can pervade coverage.
Austin being the first black SecDef should absolutely be emphasized. Not just noted, but emphasized. It is a scandal that he is only the first.
But this dimension shouldn't command the column inches. Not if the result is we end up knowing this fact about him but little else.
But this dimension shouldn't command the column inches. Not if the result is we end up knowing this fact about him but little else.
