Margaret Sullivan is a super-journalist who previously served as ombudsman for The New York Times. She is dedicated to fearless truth-telling, and she gets very cross when journalists go wish-washy and presents”both sides” while ignoring facts, evidence and truth.

Sullivan writes a blog on Substack called “American Crisis: Can Journalism Save Democracy?” She has no paywall and invites readers to subscribe if they are able. This column was published on October 14. I missed it. It remains highly pertinent.

She writes:

The midterm elections are three weeks away, as I write this post, and I’ll remind you of what historian Timothy Snyder aptly said several weeks ago: “We are now two months from the American midterm elections, probably the most consequential since the eighteenth century. Given that the presidency is held by an oligarch who wishes to bring our republic to an end, a victory of the opposition is a prerequisite for the maintenance of the rule of law and anything resembling political democracy.”

Because they are so consequential, I’ve been pushing here, on American Crisis, for news coverage that concentrates less on the horserace and the polls and the prediction markets, and more on the importance of the midterms to our democracy.

Readers, there is precious little of that latter kind of coverage in mainstream media. That’s more than disappointing. Instead, there’s a broad range of stories that either a) really don’t get it and indulge in false equivalency; or b) make a few gestures at the importance of the elections but don’t shout the consequences from the rooftops.

Here’s a sampling of what I saw, with some grades. Let me know if you agree and if you think the coverage is better than I’m giving the media credit for. Please point out anything you found excellent and I’ll be happy to spread the word. 

First, an article and podcast rife with some of the worst sins of the current media era — false equivalence, sane-washing and soft-pedaling language. This was on the Times opinion site, titled “How Worried Should We Be About the Midterm Elections?” It’s led by Sarah Isgur, whose background includes posts in the first Trump administration, specifically the Justice Department, in conversation with NYU law professor Richard Pildes. (In the podcast itself, she refers to herself as a former Republican operative and Pildes expresses surprised interest in this. This was not exactly a state secret.) You can read the transcript here or listen to the conversation, but here’s the kind of thing you’ll run across; this from Isgur: “You have the left talking about voter suppression. You have the right talking about voter fraud.” 

To clear away the thick smoke of false equivalence, you need to go to the top reader comments, where there’s a lot more straight talk. (I love reader comments!) 

To wit: “I felt like I was going crazy listening to today’s podcast. Am I the only one who remembers Jan. 6? Hang Mike Pence?…You guys spend way too much of your energy (framing) mistrust of elections as some sort of both-sides issue when it is a matter of public record that a significant and dominant faction of the Republican Party tried to overturn the 2020 election. There is no Democratic equivalent.” Or this: “Should we be worried about midterm elections? No, we should be worried (about) Trump and Republicans cancelling them or disallowing the results.”

I give this podcast a generous D. 

At the other end of the spectrum, an A to a ProPublica piece that goes to the heart of what we SHOULD be worrying about related to the midterms. “Inside Trump’s Effort to ‘Take Over’ the Midterm Elections.” The reporting highlights are summarized at the beginning of the April piece, a device I appreciated. They are three: 

  • Safeguards Destroyed, about how Trump has systematically demolished the federal guardrails that prevented him from overturning the 2020 election.
  • Changing of Guard, about how career staff have been replaced by employees from the election denial movement.
  • Political Interference, about how once-fringe players have access to vast power within the voting systems. 

Everything about this is excellent. Check it out here.

And another A to the New York Times’s Theodore Schleifer, who revealed the detailsabout Elon Musk’s $276 million funding of midterm races, “trying to save Republicans’ Senate majority with some of the largest donations in American political history.” [Diane notes: Musk’s funding for Republicans is now close to $500 million.] And again, I can’t resist quoting the top comment: “This is exactly why Democrats should make repealing Citizens United one of their first priorities (because it) has effectively silenced the voices of the American electorate to the point that now only corporations have a seat at the table.”

Then, there’s a lot in between. This NBC News piece, described as “breaking down what matters most to voters before the 2026 elections,” is overall very good, though heavily dependent on a network poll. But the way Sahil Kapur explores and explains the data is direct, informative and in the public interest. I don’t love poll-based reporting but still: Solid B.

The Guardian (where I write a media and politics column) had a good piece interviewing voters across the political spectrum about what issues matter to them. I am a bit weary of hearing from people like the self-described Maga Republican voter, Sharon Anderson of Tennessee, who proclaims that while she would like to see the war with Iran end, “the person that’s able to end this conflict is in leadership today.” She means Trump, who she says has also caused America to be more respected on the world stage. But many of the answers, especially those from independents, are interesting and the piece is issues-oriented. I give it a B.

Similar in many ways is a Washington Post piece reported out of Youngstown, Ohio at a Trump rally by a fine reporter, Cat Zakrzewski, who observes that “entire sections of the Covelli Centre arena and upper levels sat mostly empty” and quotes local people saying they are disillusioned with Trump. (But, of course, not many sound like they’re ready to cross the aisle when voting; that, apparently, is a bridge too far.) 

I thought the piece was poorly served by its headline, “In Ohio, some Trump voters question whether he’s still fighting for them.” (Was he ever really fighting for the working people of Ohio? Again, from the comments: “Trump was never fighting for you, he just needed your votes, geniuses.”) I wish stories like this would ask people what it would take to get them to vote their disappointment. But overall, factoring in the bad headline, but appreciative of the on-the-scene reporting: B-minus. Read it here with a gift link.

Given Jay Rosen’s excellent guideline for better politics coverage — “not the odds, but the stakes” — I thought the name of a new podcast from Kara Swisher and Hillary Clinton was on target: “High Stakes.” It’ll be interesting to see what they do in the days ahead. Here’s what Clinton had to say in advance: “I don’t think the stakes for the country and the world could be any higher. If we don’t reverse this chaos and corruption and cruelty that is being visited upon us by this administration, we won’t recognize our country.” 

Please let me know what media coverage you are seeing that gets that point — and Timothy Snyder’s point — across in clear, direct terms