There was lots of breaking news Tuesday,
but one story mattered most of all
A COVID testing sign directs drivers waiting in line to get a free
COVID-19 self-test at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles on Tuesday. (AP
Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Good Wednesday morning.
You know, I often roll my eyes when
the cable news networks put up a banner that screams, “BREAKING NEWS” when
the news isn’t all that breaking.
But on Tuesday, there was breaking
news. Lots of it.
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr told The Associated
Press that the Department of Justice has not found evidence of
widespread voter fraud that would impact the outcome of the 2020
presidential election. Barr told the AP, “To date, we have not seen fraud
on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”
This should not come as a surprise.
The election has been over for quite some time and there has been no
evidence of any fraud. But what made the news so “breaking” was that the
comments came from someone seen as a Trump loyalist.
When asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
about Barr’s comments on Tuesday, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the minority
whip, said rather sarcastically, “Isn’t it interesting that it’s a news
story when the attorney general is caught red-handed telling the truth?”
After a pause for effect, Durbin
continued by saying, “I can’t understand why this has become such a novelty
in Washington under the Trump administration, but it has. This attorney
general, time and again, has been willing to say whatever this president
wanted him to say. Today, he spoke the truth and it made the news.”
Durbin went on to say, “Maybe he’s
trying to rehabilitate his resume. I don’t know his motive, but it’s
refreshing to hear. Well, it’s not just refreshing, it’s startling to
hear.”
There was other breaking news, too.
President-elect Joe Biden introduced his economic team on Tuesday. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz broke a story late
Tuesday about how the Justice Department is looking into a potential
presidential pardon bribery scheme. And, of course, there is the story that
never goes away: the coronavirus. Tuesday’s coronavirus news included a
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory group recommending that
vaccines go to health care workers and nursing home residents first and a bipartisan
group of senators introducing a $908 billion coronavirus aid proposal.
So of all this breaking news, which
truly mattered the most?
The major networks — ABC, CBS and NBC
— all led their national evening newscasts with the same story: the CDC’s
recommendation of who should get the vaccines first.
And, ultimately, while the Barr news
was, well, newsworthy, and the aid package is important, it was heartening
to see the emphasis placed on coverage of the pandemic. Ultimately, this is
the story that means the most right now.
Post runs controversial ad
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
The Washington Post made the
questionable decision on Tuesday to run a full-page ad from a private
citizen who argued that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. The ad
said it was paid for by Lawrence Gelman of McAllen, Texas.
One section of the ad reads, “That
the incumbent should be more popular in the re-election bid than when first
elected, as noted by receiving more votes in every single state but,
nevertheless, fails in the bid for re-election is fantastically improbable.
The likely explanation for this outcome is that the opposition, through
manipulation of the electoral process, succeeded in garnering sufficient
votes to win in selected states regardless of the number of votes
necessary. A divergence from historical voting patterns of this magnitude
raises the specter of fraud. When, for example has an incumbent lost a
re-election bid despite receiving more votes in every single state than in
the previous election?”
Why would the Post run an
advertisement full of speculation questioning the legitimacy of the
election when the paper’s own reporters have written fact-based stories
that have shown no election fraud?
I reached out to the Post, which gave
me this statement:
“We have long accepted individual
advocacy ads from readers and they, like other advertisers, are given wide
latitude to exercise their First Amendment rights and convey their
opinions. This ad is clearly labeled as advertising and discloses who
purchased the ad.”
I suppose it’s really no different
than a letter to the editor — well, other than the Post actually got money
for it. And the Post is correct in saying that it’s labeled as an
advertisement with clear attribution. It’s also admirable that the Post
gives “wide latitude” to those who want to exercise their First Amendment
rights and “convey their opinions.”
Nevertheless, to allow a reader to
simply buy his way into a powerful publication such as the Post to offer a
theory that totally lacks proof and casts doubt on our democracy just
doesn’t feel right. It feels irresponsible. Just because the Post
encourages an exchange of thoughts doesn’t mean it HAS to accept theories
that have no basis in fact.
It’s all debatable
As we look back on the 2020
presidential debates, what worked? And what didn’t? PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson digs through that in a story
that includes the first joint interview of the moderators and organizers of
the debates. During a webinar last month sponsored by George Washington
University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, second presidential debate
moderator Kristen Welker of NBC said she was pleased that a candidate was
muted at the start of each topic so the other candidate could speak
uninterrupted.
“I don’t think there were any moments
of a technical difficulty or where it threw the candidates off,” Welker
said.
That mute feature was needed
following the first hot mess of a debate when President Donald Trump
constantly interrupted Joe Biden. Even as it was happening, moderator Chris
Wallace knew it was getting out of control and a producer said in his
earpiece, “Stop Trump from interrupting Biden.”
Wallace said he thought to himself,
“What does he expect me to do, hit a trap door on the president of the
United States? There’s not much you can do in that situation.”
Wallace said he thought that Trump’s
strategy of overwhelming the debate with interruptions ultimately hurt
Trump.
Be sure to check out Jacobson’s story
for more behind-the-scenes of the debates.
|
