Dem
51
GOP
49
Last week. The New York Times had yet another of those "trying to understand Republican/Trump voters" pieces. This one was quite elaborate, with pictures, and some fancy web design, and about 4,000 words' worth of reporting. If you read it, you will learn nothing, because you already knew that the kind of people chosen for these features are substantially out of touch with reality.
Of all the most clichéd article types that one sees in modern political analysis, there may not be any that we find more annoying than these pieces. To start with, they are a little patronizing when it comes to their subjects, holding them out as nutters or freaks or simpletons. If we have seen even one of these kinds of articles that had any real empathy, as opposed to faux empathy, we don't remember it.
Meanwhile, the pieces are also dishonest when it comes to "serving" the readership. Again, the lack of real empathy suggests the goal isn't understanding so much as it is performing "balance." "See, we don't just cover left-wing perspectives," the Times can now say, for at least the next month or two. The thing is, if the real goal is to understand the underlying dynamics of the American body politic, then where are the pieces trying to understand the mindset of urban Democrats? Latino and Latina voters? LGBTQ voters? Educators? Baby Boomers? People earning less than $20,000/year? Such pieces are unheard of, or nearly so. And yet, "what are Republican/MAGA voters thinking?" is a genre unto itself.
There's also one other problem. These pieces are almost invariably written "without judgment." People are allowed to share their views, which go unchallenged in the name of "fairness." But, of course, their views are often counterfactual, at best, and offensive/bigoted at worse. Platforming, and amplifying, such viewpoints in the news section can be problematic, to say the least.
We are not the only ones who think this way, it would seem. This week, Jonathan Last of The Bulwark had a piece taking the Times, in particular, to task. He writes:
Over the weekend, The New York Times ran Part #937 in its continuing attempt to understand Trump voters. It's a gorgeous, premium package filled with portrait photography and earnest quotes. The Times wants you to know that they're not just hearing these patriotic Americans, they're listening to them.
For example, Jan Altena is voting for Donald Trump because "he's got principles, that's the key feature there."
That is a very real statement that the Times accepts and presents to readers...
Because we must understand why all of these people support a man who wrecked the American economy, attempted a violent insurrection, is under 91 felony indictments, and has been disavowed as a threat to the country by a large number of the high-level Republicans who worked directly for him.
As always: The New York Times is part of the effing problem.
This package does nothing to help readers understand the motivations of Trump voters. It merely amplifies their fact-free feelings.
We don't have much to add to this, beyond "hear, hear!" It's a reminder that there's definitely some political coverage out there that pretends to embrace high ideals, but that is really quite insidious. (Z)