Posts

Millions of Americans ‘Disappeared’ — Thanks to U.S. Media

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

In her post about Saturday’s “Hands Off” protest rallies, Marcy noted the “increasingly constrained media” — coverage by U.S. news media which doesn’t reflect facts on the ground of importance to the public.

This has been a problem since at least the buildup to the Iraq War, when massive anti-war protests took place and little coverage emerged in mainstream media, or Occupy Wall Street’s prolonged resistance with little reporting documenting its activities.

Much of this can be blamed on the corporate-owned nature of most U.S. news media, combined with the rolling change in business model over the last 30 years since the internet became a common household feature.

But some of the blame also lies with the movements and organizations that continue to act as if this is the 1970s instead of 2025.

Let’s look at how the largest print news media outlets covered the protests.

First, the largest print outlets by circulation as listed by Press Gazette as of March 6, 2025:

I’ve taken screenshots of the print edition first page where available from these ten newspapers, via Newseum.org.

~ 1 ~

The Wall Street Journal — doesn’t have a Sunday edition. Tomorrow’s edition will likely be the most read of the week, and many leaders of U.S. industry will do so tomorrow. Will it cover the “Hands Off” protest rallies at all? Or will it try to keep the business class in the dark while serving up tariff news.

~ 2 ~

The New York Times:

The rally did make the front page though it’s below the fold and confined to a photo and blurb, the story itself on A18. This is an utter embarrassment — a massive gathering in its own backyard and this is all the attention it gets.

At least the story was syndicated and featured elsewhere in US newspapers, just not in the paper of record where one of the largest rallies took place.

~ 3 ~

Next, the New York Post.

It’s as if nothing happened in New York City at all. What a useless POS. This is the Late City Final edition, too, making it even more obvious the Murdochs don’t want to acknowledge the rally.

~ 4 ~

The Washington Post is smaller in terms of print circulation than the Murdochs’ NYPOS. Who would have thought that would ever happen? But this is probably a key reason why:

That pathetic little photo and blurb is all a nationwide protest rally garnered lest Bezos and his weak sauce managing editor piss off his orange overlord. No freaking wonder the number of people willing to buy a print edition has dropped below a NYC tabloid.

Relatedly, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson resigned from WaPo — one less reason to read.

~ 5 ~

On to USA Today, a paper built to be a national outlet: there is no print edition on either Saturday or Sunday.

I will note that the outlet’s digital edition allows readers to tweak the content they see; while Saturday’s rallies didn’t appear in the top segment, there are two choices related to the rallies from which readers can choose.

One might wonder if the selections help shape editors’ future coverage choices.

~ 6 ~

The sixth largest print newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, is even worse than the Washington Post as far as coverage of the rallies is concerned.

You almost need a microscope to find a reference to coverage on the first page; Nazi-friendly Kanye West garners at least eight times the page space. No wonder LAT continues to bleed subscribers.

~ 7 ~

Minnesota is home to a bright star among the nation’s top print outlets: the Star-Tribune gave the rallies the top spot.

Finally, the seventh largest print paper deep in the heartland recognized a nationwide protest by millions of Americans against an 11-week-old administration.

~ 8 ~

The eighth largest paper, Newsday, is a local tabloid covering Long Island, NY, and nearby NYC. Apparently nothing of note happened in NYC on Saturday as far as Newsday is concerned, though editors managed to choke out two words, “nationwide rallies” in the lower left column. I didn’t highlight them — see how long it takes for you to find them.

~ 9 ~

Honolulu Star Advertiser is the ninth largest print edition, a paper with more challenging physical distribution than the rest above as it is the largest in Hawaiian islands. Unfortunately I couldn’t locate a copy of the print edition for Sunday. Here’s its digital entry covering the protests which began five hours earlier in Eastern Time Zone:

Not great considering the lead time it had to cover the events. However the right-hand column identifying subscribers’ favorites tells us protest coverage was important to readers in spite of the less-than-stellar placement on the digital front page.

~ 10 ~

The Seattle Times is no stranger to covering protest rallies:

Above the fold, large amount of text on the front page, and a great photo conveying both the crowd’s energy and a localizing landmark in the background. Thumbs up.

~ Other ~

I should note the two major wire services’ coverage, beginning with the nonprofit Associated Press:

No story on digital front page but a good slice assigned to a collection of rally photos. An article on the rallies is the second most read article as I type this.

Reuters’ articles about the protests weren’t high on its digital page but they did occupy the slot for news about the United States and included a story about the related protests in Europe.

Online news media may have done a better job than print media did; the “Hands Off” protests occupied the top slot in Google News on Sunday based on this screenshot taken about 2:00 pm ET:

One interesting detail: note the time of each story’s publication. NYTimes’ piece was roughly 10 hours later than the others featured here. Why?

~ ~ ~

All of the above is a very lengthy way of saying the US media is still disappearing millions of Americans by editorial fiat. These same outlets which failed to dedicated adequate space to national and international protests against the Trump administration less than three months after inauguration day are missing a critically important story.

Worse, they may also be missing the stories that drove protesters to the streets. The signs tell observers Americans are pissed off about an unelected oligarch rifling through their Social Security; they feel betrayed by a president undermining the rule of law and national security, so intent on enacting authoritarian rule.

And they haven’t yet begun to feel the economic pain from tariffs though they are angry already about the deep damage to their retirement portfolios. When tariffs begin to eat at their household expenses, these kinds of protests are only going to swell.

Americans can’t count on corporate-owned media to do the right thing when they are already failing. A different approach to communication will be necessary to convey solidarity with other Americans while telling the Trump administration and state governments aligned with Trump that Trumpism isn’t working and the public demands better.

I can think of a specific example here in Michigan that feels like a bellwether, an indicator the national media isn’t getting this moment right by a long chalk.

Benzonia, a tiny town in Benzie County, located in northwestern lower Michigan, had a “Hands Off” protest rally. There were an estimated 350 participants. What’s unusual is that Benzie County is very red; it’s only voted for Democratic presidential candidates three out of the last ten presidential elections, and only four times since 1884. The county has only ~15,000 residents. Benzonia is also located 33 miles from Traverse City, where an estimated 4,000 people participated in a rally. Benzonia rally participants chose to protest in very small municipality in a lightly populated red county; their numbers represented roughly 3% of persons who cast a vote in that county in 2024. The number of participants may have been more since media typically underrepresent participants; another local observer estimated 500 attendees.

This isn’t the only such example; there are many more like it given over 1000 protest rallies across the country. At least a local media outlet from a small blue city covered Benzonia’s rally; how many frustrated red towns weren’t afforded that?

More local organizing is necessary to help Americans exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and free association, to express their frustration with the Trump administration’s repeated failures to ensure laws are faithfully executed.

But that organizing needs to address the repeated failures of a corporate-owned media environment as well, finding ways to make it difficult for media to avoid coverage, and developing alternatives to corporate-owned media to ensure coverage happens anyhow.

Share in comments below how your local media covered the “Hands Off” rallies.

_______
Image used with this story is from the 2017 Women’s March.

Share this entry

Dear Media: Media Crit Like It’s Football, FFS

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I’ve been fuming about this since — oh, check the date and time on this graphic:

For the NFL football or Michigan uninformed, the Detroit Lions played the Buffalo Bills on Sunday evening at home. The hometown crowd was amped up because the Lions had a 12-1 season and already garnered a playoff slot.

But they also knew things would be tense because of the number of injured players on the team.

The Bills opened up a 14-point lead in the first quarter and the Lions were never able to catch them; the final score was 48-42.

That’s the frame from which the above report in Gannett’s local affiliate the Detroit Free Press (Freep) reported on CBS Sports’ coverage of the game.

Gannett is the largest newspaper publisher in the US; it’s the owner and publisher of USA Today and 32 other news papers. Freep’s criticism of CBS Sports coverage follows decades of CBS missteps in the Detroit market.

During what little I watched of the game, CBS’s talking heads were shit. Very little commentary on a couple lousy calls, or not-calls, in at least one case of pass interference early in the game.

I won’t bother to post his crap here but commentator Tony Romo was a dick, not exactly endearing CBS to the Detroit Metro audience. You’d think he’d know by now there’s quarterback smack talk and then there’s former player professional broadcaster sports talk, the latter for which he is paid.

All that aside, this article does more to criticize another media outlet’s coverage than we have seen among national outlets who have systematically fucked up coverage for decades.

How and why can a large newspaper owned by a national organization freely criticize a national broadcast and streaming media organization about its coverage, but the same kinds of organizations have failed our democracy by bootlicking for fascists?

By bootlicking I offer as an example ABC News which folded like a broken lawn chair settling $15 million on Trump who’d claimed he was defamed by ABC. ABC had used the same language leveled at Trump in court but somehow a national news broadcaster is no longer permitted to exercise free speech reporting facts in Trumplandia.

After the gross moral and ethical failure of the Washington Post to make an endorsement in the presidential race, after Los Angeles Times’ similar failing, one can only wonder what’s left of the country’s once-free press.

Don’t get me started on the bullshit coverage which parroted right-wing talking points over the last three presidential elections, from “But her emails” to “Joe’s old” to “Hunter Biden Hunter Biden Hunter Biden.”

NYU’s Jay Rosen has encouraged news media to depart from its toxic horse race coverage of elections and move toward reporting the stakes of the race. Stakes coverage should be a minimum across all coverage of politics and governance.

If media can’t do that — and they’ve demonstrated they can’t — if they insist on treating our democratic governance like sports, the least they can do is criticize their own industry’s performance like they do when it comes to football.

 

This is an open thread.

Share this entry

Doesn’t Anyone in the Media Read the Actual Election Laws?

Election Resolution Judges
(h/t Lance Fisher and used under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic [CC BY-SA 2.0])

Back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and all elections were conducted either with paper ballots or “pull the lever” machines, my high school government class was given an election season project. For the precinct around our high school, we were to do four things: (1) canvas the neighborhood to determine who was registered and who was not, (2) work to increase the number of registered voters, (3) try to get as many of these folks to the polls on election day as possible, and (4) report back to the teacher how it all went.

Shorter #4: It was a blast.

Oh, it was a lot of work, too. Lots of knocking on doors (and going back and back again when no one was home), and also lots of reading the elections laws. What were the deadlines? What did we have to do in order to be polling place observers, so that we could see who voted in the morning in order to start making calls or knocking on doors in the afternoon and evening? What were we allowed to do in the polling place, and what were we not allowed to do? Who would make the GOTV visits in the afternoon and early evening? Who had a driver’s license and a vehicle, so we could offer rides to the polls, if needed? Who could be available to babysit, if needed?

In a precinct that generally had turnout of around 30%, that year it hit 70%. We weren’t allowed to be advocates for a candidate or ballot proposition (this was a non-partisan school project, after all), but simply were trying to get as many folks as possible to the polls, and we did a damn good job. In the years that followed, I’m sure there were campaign strategists who looked at that number and figured it must have been a typo, because it never came close to that again.

Since high school, I’ve worked on a number of campaigns, from local school board stuff to Paul Simon’s presidential campaign and a bunch at every level in between. One thing I’ve never forgotten is simple: read the election law.

With all the “will we have a winner on Election Night?” blather, it seems few in the media have bothered to do that one very simple thing.

So let’s give it a try, OK? From the Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 115:

115.508. Certification of election prohibited prior to noon on Friday after election day.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no election authority or verification board shall certify election results, as required under section 115.507, before noon on the Friday after election day.

What? You mean it’s illegal (at least in Missouri) for an election board – city, county, or state – to certify a winner before Friday?

115.507. Announcement of Results by verification board, contents, when due—abstract of votes to be official returns.—
1. Not later than the second Tuesday after the election, the verification board shall issue a statement announcing the results of each election held within its jurisdiction and shall certify the returns to each political subdivision and special district submitting a candidate or question at the election. The statement shall include a categorization of the number of regular and absentee votes cast in the election, and how those votes were cast; provided however, that absentee votes shall not be reported separately where such reporting would disclose how any single voter cast his or her vote. When absentee votes are not reported separately the statement shall include the reason why such reporting did not occur. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the election authority to tabulate absentee ballots by precinct on election night.

What? You mean that each election jurisdiction has two weeks to submit their certification, and ballot counters don’t have to pull an all-nighter on election night?

115.430. Provisional ballots, used when, exceptions, procedure, counted when, how—rulemaking authority—free access system established—provisional ballot only used,when—no jurisdiction in state courts to extend polling hours.—
All provisional ballots cast by voters whose eligibility has been verified as provided in this section shall be counted in accordance with the rules governing ballot tabulation. Provisional ballots shall not be counted until all provisional ballots are determined either eligible or ineligible and all provisional ballots must be processed before the election is certified.

Here’s part of why you can’t certify a winner before Friday, and you get two weeks to finish the count. By Missouri state law, every individual provisional ballot has to be either accepted or rejected before ANY provisional ballots are actually tabulated and added to the regular count. If you get a lot of provisional ballots, or if there are lots of challenges to these ballots, this could take a while. And if you have both of those things, it *will* take a while.

What is reported on election night is — and always has been — unofficial. When you go to any state’s election website next Tuesday evening and frantically refresh the page to get the latest numbers, they will tell you that these results are unofficial. They aren’t official until at least a couple of days later, after every precinct has verified and counted all their provisional ballots, checked all their math, and filed a formal certification with their Secretary of State. Careful media voices may project a winner on election night, but it’s not official until the certification of the results is complete.

And at least in Missouri, that is not allowed to happen before the Friday after the election, and could be as much as two weeks after election day.

Look, I get it. I want to know who will win all kinds of different races as soon as anyone, but it’s not an automatic sign of any nefarious goings on if no clear winner is projected on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. More than anything, it’s a sign that everyone from the election judge in your local polling place on up to the Secretary of State wants to be really sure that they got the count right before they declare it to be official.

I know that Donald Trump doesn’t know election law, or even the mechanics of how elections work once the polls close, and I have no illusions about educating him on that subject. I just wish the media would quit imitating his ignorance.

Share this entry

A Less Obvious Question about NYT’s Reporting on Trump-Russia

[NB: As always, check the byline. /~R.]

Over the last several years, one thing has bothered me about The New York Times, something not immediately obvious in these related pieces of what may be the most important work the paper published since the early 2000s and the Iraq War. By “important” I don’t mean effective, nor do I mean constructive.

October 31, 2016

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
POLITICS By Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers

WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump. …

January 20, 2017

Trump, Russia, and the News Story That Wasn’t
PUBLIC EDITOR By Liz Spayd

LATE September was a frantic period for New York Times reporters covering the country’s secretive national security apparatus. Working sources at the F.B.I., the C.I.A., Capitol Hill and various intelligence agencies, the team chased several bizarre but provocative leads that, if true, could upend the presidential race. The most serious question raised by the material was this: Did a covert connection exist between Donald Trump and Russian officials trying to influence an American election?

One vein of reporting centered on a possible channel of communication between a Trump organization computer server and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin. Another source was offering The Times salacious material describing an odd cross-continental dance between Trump and Moscow. The most damning claim was that Trump was aware of Russia’s efforts to hack Democratic computers, an allegation with implications of treason. Reporters Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers led the effort, aided by others. …

May 16, 2018

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation
POLITICS By Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos

WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.

The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane. …

January 11, 2019

F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia
POLITICS By Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and Nicholas Fandos

WASHINGTON — In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.

The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice. …

I can’t help wondering what NYT’s former former executive editor Jill Abramson would have done in 2016 when presented with a draft of what would become the October 31st article.

I can’t help wondering yet again, a handful of years later, what the real reasons were that Abramson was fired in May 2014 — during a mid-term election year — after a mere 32 months in that role. Her predecessor Bill Keller had been in that same role for eight years.

Admittedly, I don’t think much of current executive editor Dean Baquet‘s decisions, and not just about this particular story arc. But it’s this arc which really gives me pause about NYT’s editorial management, as does the irrational amount of coverage the NYT focused during the 2016 campaign season on Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Did we end up with this mess because a traditional media company had difficulty with a woman’s editorial management style? Or because she might be sympathetic to women running for public office?

You’ve got a lot to say about the NYT’s reporting on this topic. Go for it.

Share this entry