The Russia-Gate Tree Falls in the Lame Stream Forest

Why a sprawling attempt to hold the MSM to account went pfizzz

Last month Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Jeff Gerth wrote a 24,000 word piece for the Columbia Journalism Review that I thought might have sparked a wider conversation, or even, in some quarters a reckoning.  It did not.  It’s curious, isn’t it? That a thorough analysis of media actions in a traditionally influential outlet with a reputation in recent years for an unapologetic leftward bent and a clear anti-Trump orientation could not break through.  There are a few possibilities as to why:

A)    The reporting just didn’t get there

B)    The reporting wasn’t worthless but was largely tendentious

C)    The reporting threatened the media which therefore could not dare give it coverage

Here is my assessment of how each of the above explanations factored into the series’ lack of wider impact, presented in pie-chart form:

But if you add a fourth explanation, I think the Pie-Chart looks like this

:

It’s hard to overstate the silence that met Gerth’s reporting. As far as I can tell he wasn’t interviewed on CNN, MSNBC, any of the TV networks or NPR. The piece wasn’t covered in The New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, or just about any of the outlets criticized within the piece. All of Gerth’s podcast appearances (the true information dissemination tool of the 21st century) have been on left-wing podcasts already amenable to his arguments. There were a few media critics who engaged with the piece, with their dismissiveness ranging from “Gerth totally misses the point by paying attention to the wrong part of actual Trump-Russian collusion ” to “Gerth totally misses the point that anyone paying attention knew this all along.” But none of the coverage actually tells you what Gerth reported.

I’ve decided that Gerth’s piece could use some help, in the form of a Cliff’s notes guide, because it really does document a number of serious missteps in the reporting of the Trump-Russia connection. As a news consumer I actually yearned for the authoritative analysis of what the press got right and wrong, uninflected by partisanship. The CJR Four-parter “The press versus the president” doesn’t quite achieve that, perhaps nothing can, but it comes closest, or at least longest, in providing fodder for anyone who wants to engage in an honest look back. Maybe looking back isn’t the proper mode for the moment: the specter of Trump, disinformation and the media business models built around all that have hardly dissipated. But in case there was anyone out there like me, who wanted a digestible guide to all of this, I decided to put one together. Tomorrow: CJR’s first 12,000 words in less than 1200 words. You’re welcomed?