The View from Briefing Center

There's a theme emerging in some of the news recently. It began just before the election, when owners of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times killed plans to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris to be president. Since Donald Trump was elected, more stories have followed the same theme.

In a better world, there would be a period of quiet, of licking wounds, of taking stock, after the shock suffered by both Democrats and legacy media in the presidential election. But in this world, the world we've created, the demand for content - always fresh, yet always familiar— is unrelenting. Thus we are subjected to opinions without supporting facts, recriminations without self-reflection, certainty where none exists —and simple explanations for the collective decision of more than 153 million people.

Despite my initial ardor cooled, I now see the limits — and misuses — of fact checking as a journalism tool.

Depending on where you look, mainstream media outlets are serving up two entirely different versions of the 2024 presidential race.

The New York Times and Politico in particular, the former authoritative and the latter more smirky and gossipy, provide the conventional horse-race coverage you might expect from those news organizations in any election.

But a growing number of highly regarded journalists and academics are looking at that coverage with dismay, loudly imploring their colleagues to tell their audiences what’s at stake: the nation’s long commitment to democratic values, a commitment shared by only one of the candidates.

One of the most significant public debates in the Harris-Trump race so far has been not between the candidates, but rather among journalists. The divide: Many reporters and editors are faulting Vice President Harris for not spending quality time with, well, reporters and editors. But there are dissenters in the newsroom.

Before Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz became the Democratic candidate for vice president, he already was the author of an important early-days rhetorical theme: These guys believe weird things.

Does Donald Trump say weird things? Does JD Vance?

Is it a mistake to say it?

Does it break the Michelle Obama rule, “When they go low we go high”?

Is the Hilary Clinton “deplorables” adventure the appropriate cautionary tale?

Who owns the future?

In the news business, the adoption of digital technology offered new capabilities and opportunities — and savings, as typesetting and paste-up jobs disappeared. A heady time for newspaper publishers, until creation of the world wide web — which slowly, and then suddenly, altered the information landscape.

Now, some 30 years after the arrival of the first modern web browser, the widespread availability of artificial intelligence services — slowly, and then suddenly — poses the question yet again. The press of a different future, the question of ownership, is being felt keenly in any information business: data, news, entertainment, art. AI will create wealth, but how will that wealth be distributed?

Journalists are making editorial decisions, but those choices are tied to business goals in a way they weren't in an earlier time.

Margaret Sullivan has become one of the leading voices in urging fellow journalists to address head on the degree to which the fate of democracy hinges on the November election. Sullivan: “We all need to do what we can to make sure U.S. democracy survives in 2025 and beyond. For journalism, that means making sure voters know what the likely consequences."

The Times has been accused of false equivalency between the candidates in its past election coverage. Critics say the Times’ coverage of the 2024 election does not reflect the urgency of the moment, when presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump refuses to accept the results in November.