Jim Sleeper blames the media for allowing the second debate to degenerate into empty posturing and failing to ask sharp questions. Worst of all, the moderators forgot that it was supposed to be a “town hall,” where citizens were supposed to interact with the candidates. Not much of that happened.
He writes:
“This is a crisis of American journalism, not only of American politics. Media critics should stop letting their colleagues off the hook in explaining what’s happening to us. Chris Lehmann did it devastatingly well in The Baffler late last month. Neal Gabler has eviscerated the journalists’ performance even more comprehensively today at Moyers & Co. Where’s everyone else?
“Journalism deserves a lot more blame for Trump’s success as a vulgar self-marketer, because that’s what so much of journalism itself has become.
“The journalism that pretends it’s a civic art that makes public deliberations go well is firmly in harness to publicly traded media corporations that, with increasing intensity and mindlessness, come on to us as passive (or infantile) consumers, not citizens. They bypass our brains and hearts on the way to our lower viscera and our wallets with moderators, pundits, and “reporters” who care mainly about ratcheting up drama and their own self-importance as tribunes.
“Neither Cooper nor Raddatz gave any hint of wanting to stimulate and to draw out anything thoughtful and strong from “ordinary” people. Their every gesture and word demonstrated only that they don’t care about that. Cooper withdrew into astonishing passivity, punctuated by little bursts of civic remonstrance, and Raddatz tried to sound both tough and balanced while hiding both her mind and her face under her bright blond helmet.
“Sorry about putting it like that, but since “production values” are all that matter to these people and their producers, I’m actually not sorry at all. What I’m writing is what they deserve for forgetting how to practice journalism as a civic art, not as reality TV.
“What especially galls me is the contempt with which the “ordinary” citizens who’d supposedly been recruited to ask good questions were set up and then ignored by the program’s designers as much they were by Trump and, to a lesser extent, Clinton. At the very least, the producers could have vetted and enabled more astute questioners.
“The truth is that they no longer knew how to do that. The few live questioners that the moderators did call on, leaving the rest to sit in silence, were decent but little prepared and intimidated by the bright lights and, undoubtedly, the Big Bully himself.”

Glad we did stargazing and planet gazing through telescopes rather than watch the three-ring circus.
Want to take your mind of this lowest of the low presidential run, go to:
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov Cassini: Mission to Saturn. Share with others, esp. our children and teachers.
This is terrific stuff and we sure do need a good dose of enlightenment.
LikeLike
I thank Diane Ravitch for sharing my short post, and I hope that readers will look at the much longer (and more thoughtful) essay I wrote in March on what Trump’s rise reflects about what’s become of our news media, as well as our politics. Journalism, as a civic art whose purpose is to help public life go well for citizens, is housed within publicly traded media corporations whose purpose is not to serve a deliberating public but to assemble and dis-assemble audiences on any pretext — including the sensationalist, erotic, nihilistic — that will boost ratings and returns. Hence, CNN and most of the Murdoch media, not only the fringe outlets. In March, I wrote a long essay, from a part of which the above post is drawn, that has worn pretty well and that I dare say anticipated a lot of the analysis I’ve seen since:
http://WWW.ALTERNET.ORG/ELECTION-2016/HOW-BOTH-PARTIES-HAVE-NEARLY-ABANDONED-US-CLINTON-VS-TRUMP
LikeLike
What media? You mean the side shows we watch on cable “news” [sic] TV? I can count the number of actual journalists in this country without taking off my shoes, but so few people bother to read them (and, yes, you have to read – they are all primarily print journalists). People are far too entertained by the horse-race mentality to pay attention to actual issues rather than what pantsuit one of them is wearing or what the other one has to say about beauty pageant contestants.
LikeLike
So true.
LikeLike
I always get confused at first when I read these indictments of “journalism” and “media.” Then I figure out that people are talking about network and cable news. Do more people watch that stuff than I realize?
LikeLike
Cable news is the worst (I have no idea of their viewership), but other mainstream new sources are no better – the NYT, WaPo, etc. are all owned by the same megacorporations and billionaires that own everything else. If you want to know what’s actually going on, you have to seek out a handful of independent sources – TomDispatch, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Naomi Klein, Jane Mayer, Ben Norton and a small handful of others. Everything else is establishment/corporatist/military cheerleading.
LikeLike
I would disagree about the Times. Their reporters do high-level work and break news on a consistent basis, regardless of what’s on the Opinion page.
LikeLike
I think generally you are right about the debate. I do feel that Raddatz did try to draw substance out of Trump and continued to ask the questions about Syria in different ways and he would not answer the questions directly. I feel Cooper also tried to keep the candidates on track but they were not playing along. I really do not feel the media are totally to blame here, trump had an agenda and he is very tough to control. I think is great to be critical of what you see but The whole format is very difficult to control and its necessary to get credit where it is due.
LikeLike
I agree. No one can control Trump. The failures of his children and campaign staff in this regard are obvious. He brings everything down to his base level.
LikeLike
The Syria questions were loaded with propaganda.
LikeLike
Actually Trump would not talk about the questions asked but continually went on a rant about Hillary, she is a liar ad nauseum. I am not a great fan of where journalism is now but Martha Radditz tried to bring him back to answer the questions but he just ignored them.
Most believe that this was a terrible “debate’. It disintegrated into name calling etc rather than focus on issues.
It is SCARY what is happening in this election, on so many fronts.
LikeLike
Trump almost never answers any question. It just gives him another opportunity to sling mud. His method: deflect, blame, rant.
The first question was “ARe you a role model?” That sent him into a rant about ISIS and cutting off heads.
LikeLike
Trump is indeed a role model, but only to his supporters, who love his angry, unstable persona. Hillary said half his supporters are a basket of deplorables. Why is it when Clinton does tell the truth, Republicans still attack her?
LikeLike
THANK YOU Jim Sleeper. I have wondered why we are not hearing more noise about how the debate was pushed into, and maintained as, a sleazy drama, especially in its beginning moments.
LikeLike
Here is an extended commentary from the Columbia Journalism Review.
I recommend it.
and http://www.cjr.org/special_report/medias_weimar_moment.php
LikeLike
I explored the Weimar analogy at some length last March, in an essay that was much longer and, I dare say, more thoughtful than my short post above. Here it is,
http://WWW.ALTERNET.ORG/ELECTION-2016/HOW-BOTH-PARTIES-HAVE-NEARLY-ABANDONED-US-CLINTON-VS-TRUMP
along with a link to the interview it prompted on WNYC, the New York NPR Station:
http://www.wnyc.org/story/elites-vs-trump-voters/
LikeLike
I skipped all the debates since the primaries ended. It’s not like I was trying to choose between the two participants (or their VP nominees).
And while I don’t doubt that there’s been a major failure of American journalism (of the mainstream variety, anyway) since the beginning of this entire electoral process – such as it is – but Jim Sleeper isn’t the guy I would go to for anything. He wrote the execrable LIBERAL RACISM, the book that helped a host of anti-progressives turn conversations about meaningful change in mathematics, literacy, science, and social studies education into non-stop diatribes on how university professors and other people left of center have lowered the bar for underserved minorities because it’s actually liberals who are the ‘real racists.’
More recently, he launched an attack in the NY TIMES on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a bipartisan organization that has been doing yeoman work for years protecting 1st amendment rights on campuses across the nation. https://www.thefire.org/new-york-times-corrects-jim-sleeper/. You should read his original piece http://nyti.ms/2e4VgVh and judge what version of reality inhabits Mr. Sleeper’s imagination. You can also get insight from this Salon piece of his: http://bit.ly/2dZotBO. I’m afraid he’s someone who manages to attack his conception of liberals while promoting some of the most bankrupt ideas to hit college campuses in my lifetime.
I don’t want my son attending any college that inhibits free speech, makes faculty members post “trigger warnings” on their syllabi or course descriptions, and acts to stifle the free exchange of ideas on campus, even when those ideas or their expression are upsetting to others. And when I want to read about the dereliction of duty of which our media is collectively guilty, I can readily find more rational and reliable sources than Jim Sleeper.
LikeLike
Michael,
I don’t think it is fair to say that you won’t read a writer because he wrote other things you didn’t like. Read the article rather than attacking the messenger. If you don’t agree, so be it. I don’t like Fabod Brooks’ writing, but he had an excellent article today.
LikeLike
Diane, I did read it before offering my take on him. I wouldn’t comment otherwise. He’s simply not my go-to guy for anything because I’ve found him to be both untrustworthy and to be forwarding an overall agenda that I have no use for or patience with. I’m not suggesting that he’s wrong about the failures of our major media to do due diligence in this campaign – though I think that failure goes back to well before the primaries began – but he’s been one of those people who if he gets something right, I want to cite the stopped clock metaphor. I’d compare him to George Will, but I’ve agreed with a higher number of the latter’s pieces, and that’s not saying much. If my grandfather were still alive and in business, I’d send Will and Sleeper some bowties.
LikeLike
The FIRE’s seeming devotion to “free speech” is almost a mirror image of the devotion shown by the old left’s Popular Front groups in the 1930s and ’40s: nice and sometimes even noble, but serving funders and a strategy and agenda that run way beyond and below its selective crusading. I exposed this at some length in “What the Campus ‘Free Speech’ Crusade Won’t Say”:
http://www.alternet.org/education/what-campus-free-speech-crusade-won't-say-0
and I responded to the organization president’s charges here, where I also air the Popular Front analogy:
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/jim-sleeper-campus-political-correctness
LikeLike
Did you know that Steven Singer got the candidates to talk about education? Well, okay, but if he did….
https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/what-if-clinton-and-trump-debated-education-policy/
LikeLike
It’s bigger than the media, it’s corporatocracy.
Prevalent and insidious.
I’m afraid we’re headed for something like the sixties again, because we don’t learn, here in the Information Age. We don’t need Common Core rubrics to find common sense and integrity. In fact, if you create rubrics for that stuff, or, say, talent, you’re lost, you’re a lost soul stuck on a friggin’ Disneyland ride.
LikeLike
Elevating Trump, by Richard Moser:
“The new evidence provided by Wikileaks’s Podesta files makes a convincing case that the Clinton team wanted extreme Republicans as the best possible opponents. They wanted not rational discourse but exactly the kind of mean-spirited bigotry that Trump has delivered so well.
The Wikileaks documents are a window into the soul of power. We can see how the Clinton machine played the strategy of triangulation on the level of action and tactic.
(Triangulation: “Triangulation proclaims: “there is no alternative,” and works to enforce that claim. This strategy has demobilized a near majority of US voters into non-voters and induced a significant minority to knowingly vote for parties that do not represent their views or interests.”) R. Moser
The Motive
For the Clinton machine to maintain power, it needs the likes of Donald Trump. It’s a package deal. The Clinton’s lesser of two evils campaign can corral voters most efficiently if their Republicans competitors are extreme, scary and incoherent. Trump is so frightening and potentially disruptive that even powerful Republican elites turn to Clinton for refuge.
The Intent
Here are excerpts from an email (click on attachments) outlining strategy and goals to the DNC dated 4/7/2015. Well before Trump officially declared his candidacy.
Force all Republican Candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election…
The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
Ted Cruz
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously.
The Means
(We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously.)
Given the already “cozy relationship” between political elites and the corporate media the means to do the deed was right at hand.
And indeed the press did follow orders and took Trump seriously.
For months mass media was quite comfortable broadcasting Trumps bigotry.
I always wondered why media giants, so deeply committed to the Clinton machine — big donors to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton campaign alike — lavished so much attention and so many resources on Trump.
They are driven by the same desire to maximize profit as other corporations, true, but it still seemed like there were other stories that could sell soap. The candidacy of a Jewish socialist from Brooklyn was such a story but, well, never mind. And it’s true that Trump fit the entertainment model of what we still think of as mainstream news.
The New York Times estimates that two billion dollars worth of free media coverage was given to Trump. Half that would be astounding. The Trump campaign is a study in corporate welfare.”
LikeLike
Thanks – that was powerful. I fear for my children’s future.
LikeLike
Wow! Who knew the Clinton machine was so powerful that they were able to choose the Republican candidate. Hey! This is a great out for the Republican establishment: blame Trump on the Clintons!
LikeLike
This sounds like very basic campaign strategy and analysis. Not very sinister stuff.
LikeLike
That’s tin foil hat stuff. There is no way Republicans can blame this one on Obama, Hillary, liberals, Democrats, intellectuals, teachers, unions, women, immigrants, LGBT people, or anybody but themselves. Republicans own Trump. Time to be big GOP boys and girls and take personal responsibility.
LikeLike
But Clinton thought Trump would be the easiest to beat in a general election. Ergo, she wanted Trump to win the Republican nomination. Ergo, thought crime.
LikeLike
Yes, I’d go further to suggest we’ll hear something about the GOP meltdown being secretly orchestrated by Clinton and the FBI and Trump was really bankrolled off the books by the Clinton Foundation.
But the Reptilian Elite are listening, so I cannot broadcast any more.
LikeLike
While this is interesting, it did not take wiki leaks or any other analysis to suggest that democratic strategy attempts to trap Republicians on the right. This has obviously been the way democrats have been aiming since the political base that produced the New Deal died in its season. Without workers, whose political demise preceded their actual death, democrats have been hunting an active political base. Without a group of people who will reliably support your positions, demonizing the opposition is about the only way. Republicians have obliged with a new tolerance for people further and further to the right. Positions now taken by mainstream republicans push far to the right of Barry Goldwater, and the belief that government is responsible for all ills has become a mantra.
Small wonder that democrats gloat that their opponent is Trump, at best a laughable caricature of all things on the right. If they plotted to push the Republicans to the right, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, helped by an almost insane hatred for the government on enpart of Republicans.
LikeLike
“Cooper withdrew into astonishing passivity, punctuated by little bursts of civic remonstrance, and Raddatz tried to sound both tough and balanced while hiding both her mind and her face under her bright blond helmet.”
Everybody’s a critic. Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz don’t need me to make them feel better about themselves. But I would love to slip into an alternate universe where Jim Sleeper tried to moderate that debate. I see a lot of inarticulate babbling and awkward deer-in-headlights moments, followed by indictments from all corners (including from the alternate universe’s version of this universe’s Jim Sleeper) of what’s universally agreed to be the absolute worst moment in broadcast journalism history.
LikeLike
With most news outlets belonging to large corporations, I wonder if we get anything but propaganda.
LikeLike
And no one told him to sit down. He was allowed to distract the viewers by moving constantly into her frame… but it backfired, because everyone saw him as he stalked her.
Other journalists described his movements as’ prowling’ around the stage.
At 6:01 in this tape, Seth Meyers shows how he did this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UkAjnx7x1g
in a Ny Times piece said he was ‘LURKING behind her,”…“hovering over Hillary Clinton like some dyspeptic Mafia boss”
They needed to tell him to sit down when she was talking Set the Rules!.. and Anderson was MUTE.
LikeLike
I thank Diane for quoting much of my post blaming a lot of our civic disarray — so obvious in the staging as well as the content of the second presidential :”debate” — on what media corporations have done to journalism. This is part of a much longer assessment I made in March of Trump’s rise, in which — like Lee Siegel in the recent Columbia Journalism Post that one of the commenters links below — I looked at analogies to what happened to journalism and politics in the Weimar years:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-both-parties-have-nearly-abandoned-us-clinton-vs-trump
LikeLike
What Raddatz and Cooper needed was a giant gong. As soon as any “contestant” oh I mean politician started to resort to buffoonery and go off task, the gong would be sounded until they closed their mouth! Surely the “politicians” could understand that reality game shows have rules!
LikeLike
As long as American journalists will not form a stronger gild and union and as long as they give into their corporate-sponsored network producers and studio heads who skewer and limit the news, the media here will be equivalent to the Mexican media, which is polished and laden with all sorts of oligarchical propaganda and tons os frothy, frilly entertainment to keep people smiling, dancing, singing, distracted, and under informed. Please note that I have nothing against the Mexican people whom I adore, but rather, against their ruling, cowardly class.
Journalists here will not rock the boat because especially the famous ones have become more TV personalities and celebrities than actual journalists, and they are very well paid, with lifestyles that equate to Brad, Jennifer, George, Julia, and Tom, Hollywood’s A-list. Barbara Walter is a prime example of this nonsense.
Trump has ripped into the media, and he is right to do so. Trump has ripped into Hillary. Hillary has ripped into Russia. Hillary hates Assange; Assange hates her. Russia is not fond of America and America is not fond of Russia. The GOP hates on the surface the Democrats, and the same is true about the Democrats’ apparent attitude toward the GOP. Although the two parties seem to dislike each other not because they have such disparate political philosophies nearly as much as they are so similar and simply vie for the power grab. Obama, a false progressive, is a prime example of that.
Hillary, Trump, the media, the GOP, Assange, Russia, and the one percent: they are ALL now at each other’s throats in a free-for-all, all vying for power, all trying to keep dignified as the their truths become unrobed, and all proving once and again that the two party system desperately needs to implode and be replaced with something, as Bernie Sanders has stated, of a revolutionary nature.
It’s not impossible at all, and it does not and should not involve violence, but it is an opportunity for Americans to evolve. In a way, it’s an exciting time to be an American now.
These are my perceptions as a foreigner and they are informed but perceptual only. I do not wish to come off, as you Americans say, as a “know-it-all”.
LikeLike
Norwegian Filmmaker: There is a war on all unions in this country. During the 1950s, the unionization rate was in the 30% to 35% range. After many years of union busting, the unionization rate is down to about 11.2% and falling all the time. The country’s largest private employer is non union….Walmart. I think Norway’s unionization density is in the 50% range.
LikeLike
We are at about 52% unionized, and once you go over 30 employees, a certain percentage of the Board members must be elected by employees. Our unions are always in the know about cash flow and executive compensation, so we generally know what is realistic to ask for and what is not, as we don’t want to cripple the very company we work for. At the same time, because we partner more with the owners, there is balance and equality of information and knowledge so that everyone can render decisions that are fair and more equitable.
Contrarily here, everything is adversarial with the 1% clawing to maintain their imbalanced pay systems, further oppressing workers by influencing politicians to pass laws that have workers paying disproportionately more in taxes than wealthy executives and corporations. Many of your union bosses have become reprehensibly corrupt. I recently read about your Randi Weingarten, supposedly the leaders of one of the country’s largest unions (is that true?), reporting to Hillary that she would “go after the nurses’ union for supporting Sanders”.
This is diabolical because those protecting democratic institutions are the same ones that suppress democracy and show clear bias against the democratic voice and process. May the nurses’ union break away from Weingarten after learning what she really thinks about them.
LikeLike
NF: the largest union is the NEA, not Randi W’s union which is the AFT. The NEA is more of an association that advocates and lobbies for teachers nationwide, it can’t declare a strike or job action to my knowledge. I live in NJ with the NJEA but the actual nitty gritty day to day negotiating is done by the local unions. The locals deal with the local school boards, not the NJEA. NJEA does advocacy and lobbying with the state legislators and does supply back-up to locals in extreme cases of a prolonged strike. For example: In Princeton it is the Princeton Teachers association that negotiates with the school board. Each town or district has its own teachers’ association to bargain with the duly elected school boards. The NJEA is affiliated with the NEA not the AFT.
LikeLike
Joe,
Then why have a larger union that you pay dues to and that agrees to all of this reform? I am confused by this contradiction, unless it is just another form of corruption. You know better than I.
LikeLike
“There is a war on all unions in this country.”
Joe, It seems to me in my limited lens that there is a war from the union leaders themselves against their own members.
LikeLike
NF: What complicates things is that we have 50 states with differing educational and labor policies. The NJEA, for example, fights for the bigger issues on a NJ state level, such as pensions, state rules and regulations that affect all NJ teachers. The locals can only fight for their local issues since they do not have the money or resources to lobby state legislators. The locals are manned by teacher volunteers who teach and also are building reps. The NEA is national and lobbies the politicians in Washington, DC. I think most of the union leaders are helpful and positive but there are always exceptions and the leadership do make mistakes. The NJEA has not gone along with the reforms and has fought hard for the teachers. Christie has viciously attacked the NJEA nonstop and smears it constantly. We really do need all these layers of unions from national all the way down to some small town. Lots of people (non educators) hate the NJEA and the media in NJ vilify and demonize the NJEA.
LikeLike
I see what you are saying. It sounds complex.
LikeLike
I thought they were bad questions but they often are in town hall debates. Have you been to a local meeting by a Congressional representative? Half the time people ask them about issues that aren’t even federal and these are the MOST engaged people- the people who show up. Half the time they’re asking the wrong person- they should be asking a state or local rep about state or local issues.
I’m frankly sick of the idea that The Leader is supposed to “bring us together”. We disagree. It’s not the end of the world. Why aren’t we all joining hands and singing the Star Spangled Banner? Because we have legitimate and profound disagreements.
I thought Raddatz did a great job. I was cheering her on. I don’t know much about foreign policy, frankly, and she seems to know something.
I don’t recall Anderson Cooper at all 🙂
LikeLike
I criticize President Obama here all the time, but in my opinion no one could have tried harder to “bring us together” and he’s a really gifted person! He’s very persuasive!
He failed, utterly.
So who is this magic Leader who is supposed to solve all our problems and bring The Truth?
That’s a pipe dream.
LikeLike
Chiara,
No politician can bring us together. The divisions are too deep. But I would rather go with one who wants to than one who deepens the divisions and exploits them.
LikeLike
I agree with that! Pick the better of the two.
LikeLike
Politicians can help, but it is always ultimately the people who must bring themselves together.
LikeLike
I thank Diane for sharing so much of my post. It’s really an admittedly angry outburst, written after Sunday night’s “town meeting,” but it draws on my more extensive assessment, from last March, of how Trump’s rise reflects — more than causes — the disarray of the liberal-democratic public sphere, much of it prompted by what’s happening to journalism. That long essay, which prompted an interview with Brian Lehrer of the New York City NPR station, is at
http://WWW.ALTERNET.ORG/ELECTION-2016/HOW-BOTH-PARTIES-HAVE-NEARLY-ABANDONED-US-CLINTON-VS-TRUMP
Its argument about “media,” in a nutshell, is that journalism — which should be the oxygen of a liberal-democratic public sphere by providing real information and thoughtful commentary — is housed increasingly in media corporations whose concern is not to strengthen a democratic public but to weaken it by assembling and dis-assembling “audiences” on whatever pretexts — sensational, erotic, nihilistic — will bring the most profits.
This is not due to malevolence but to civic mindlessness: “Free markets” like this do not make “free men,” as the old saying presumed; and breaking their glass ceilings doesn’t make free women, either, if the walls and foundations of quarterly bottom lining remain unchanged. This is how we get the Anderson Cooper and the Martha Raddatz that we saw on Sunday night — performers, not journalists, pitchmen, not democrats. I hope that people will read the long essay I’ve linked here, not least because it also addresses analogies between the condition of our public sphere and that of the Weimar Republic, an analogy that one of the commenters here has invoked.
LikeLike