How you can demand better media coverage as the midterms loom
A couple of weeks ago, I promised the readers of American Crisis that I’d be pressing for better media coverage of the midterm elections.
What I meant by that (and many of you agreed) is journalism that is focused on the consequences, not the horserace. Journalism that calls out lies. Journalism that takes its role in our democracy seriously.
In Jay Rosen’s pithy words, coverage that stresses “not the odds, but the stakes.” I, and you, want to see coverage that acknowledges the fragile state of our democracy and that does not practice “sane-washing” of lunatic behavior, or indulge in “both-sidesing” people or situations that should not be equated.
As of tomorrow, perhaps the most important election of the modern era is five weeks away. I’ve seen some admirable coverage, but not enough.
Not everyone thinks this matters. Who cares, they argue, what’s in a New York Times headline? Or how ABC News decides to describe a authoritarian ruler’s visit to Washington? Or how news organizations treat the incessant right-wing charges of “commie Democrats”?
I disagree. I’m convinced that it really matters. And I’m convinced that the next month or so will make a difference.
So toward that end, I want to share with you an effort that invites your participation. It’s a way for you to push for better journalism at this critical time.
The Media and Democracy Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, is gathering signatures for a letter intended for the eyes of newsroom leaders around the country. The project has also compiled a 27-point list of election guidelines for the media. I think their suggestions make excellent sense.
“We are under no illusions that newsrooms will snap to attention, but this is part of a growing movement advocating for more pro-democracy journalism,” the organization’s executive director, Milo Vassallo, told me over the weekend.
The letter says, in part:
The 2026 elections are not normal elections. The outcomes could actually determine if American democracy survives. Our democratic principles continue to be degraded by an authoritarian movement at odds with Constitutional order, the rule of law and the common good.
In one year, America’s democracy ranking has plummeted from 20th to 51st place on the V-Dem scale of global democracies. Harvard Professor Steven Levitsky, author of the book How Democracies Die, has downgraded America to “competitive authoritarianism.” Historian Timothy Snyder recently said: “We are now two months from the American midterm elections, probably the most consequential election 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 decency.”
Reporting unvarnished facts, uplifting democracy and condemning corruption is not partisan. In fact, for a truly free press, pro-democracy bias is crucial for the survival of our nation and Constitutional order.
You can read the full letter and the election guidelines that it urges here, as well as add your own name.
Among the guidelines:
It’s been my experience, as a longtime newsroom leader myself (I edited a metropolitan daily newspaper, The Buffalo News, for 13 years) that editors do care what their readers think. A letter signed by thousands of individuals may indeed get their attention. Whether it can overcome ingrained practices is a different matter, but it’s worth the effort.
Maybe then we’ll see less of this kind of headline, for example, from the New York Times: “White House Says Access is a ‘Privilege’ in Court Filing Defending Media Ban.” The sub-headline, even worse, reads: “President Trump determined that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were ‘in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum’ expected at White House.” Really? He “determined” that? Vassallo describes it as “stenography” that fails to center the media ban as an attack on democracy. (On a related note, my former Buffalo News colleague, Jerry Zremski, has a strong post on his Substack newsletter that’s worth your time on Trump’s failures to respect the First Amendment in many ways.)
Maybe, if the project is successful, we’ll see more coverage like that of the Minnesota Star Tribune. That regional paper adeptly used a syndicated Times article, added an informative headline and sub-headline, and put it on the front page with a supermarket photograph, to emphasize how legislation is having real-world impact on Americans’ lives. The headline read: ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Backfires on Some Voters.” The sub-headline: “Health care, food-aid cuts in tax package taking a toll on many ahead of midterms.” Not the odds, but the stakes — in action!
Separately, some of the most impressive reporting I’ve seen recently was ProPublica’s investigation into Maine senator Susan Collins’ allegedly accepting bribes as she steered federal contracts to a company. ProPublica then responded to her strong denials by debunking them in a subsequent piece.
One of the great things about ProPublica is that it makes its reporting free to other news outlets. As a result, many of the local newspapers in Maine featured this story on their front pages. Kudos to ProPublica, a national treasure.
As for scary developments, two things. I was disgusted by the remarks made by Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, a hugely influential, rich and powerful media figure, at a gathering in Berlin. Read about it here. Thiel called the mainstream media “extraordinarily lopsided,” and said it has degenerated into a “left-wing hate factory,” according to Status. That Thiel was then gushed over by CBS News chief Bari Weiss only added to my dismay.
And I found a lot to worry about in this report about how “pink slime” sites are influencing what people know about midterms candidates. (Pink slime gets its name because, just like fake meat products, it looks like something — legitimate local news — that it isn’t.) Politico reported last week that AI is “quietly reshaping the perceptions of voters who are simply trying to educate themselves about the candidates — and are unknowingly being served partisan talking points in the guise of neutral news summaries.”
Ugh, this is awful. Read the story here.
Readers, what are your thoughts about AI’s influence on our news and society more broadly? Please let me know in the comments what your approach is to using it, or trying not to. And how worried you are about its effects on the world. (As I’ve said before here, I write my own stuff. I promise that I will never serve you AI slop.)
All of these developments makes it even more important that legitimate news organizations do their job as well as possible, with our democracy hanging in the balance. Let’s keep pushing for it.
Readers, I’m so heartened by the many new subscribers to American Crisis. I’m also so grateful for the kind comments as some of you have signed up or upgraded to become paid subscribers. (One of these is just below.) Thank you. It means a lot.
Please consider spending $50 a year to join us here, despite my no-paywall policy. I want to keep it that way, so if you have the means, you can keep this pro-democracy media-criticism newsletter accessible for all.
My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.
The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.
What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!