Washington Post (and other news organizations) all too often seem to fall back to ‘both sides’ discussions that foster misunderstandings and implicitly undermines truthful discussion. And, far too often this ‘bothsiderism’ combines with, it seems, fear of angering Trump (or, at least #Cult45 devotees) to create misrepresentations.
A story discussing political implications of Trump’s ignorant rantings and actions against a variety of efficiency and renewable energy systems, most recently about wind, provides (too) many examples.
To start with, to follow core debunking principles, some truth re renewables, efficiency, and …
- Wind (solar and, yes, even nuclear) power has dramatically lower life-cycle pollution impacts than any fossil fuel generation — the pollutants from steel constructing it is de minimis compared to pollution from a coal-fired power plant for the same lifecycle electricity production. To comment on pollution from wind turbine construction without the larger (fossil-foolish) context is to deceive.
- The United States is a hotbed of wind turbine industry construction, with General Electric being one of the world’s top providers. Having more wind projects in the United States leads to more jobs and industrial players in the wind industry.
- LED lighting, efficient toilets, high-efficiency washing machines/dishwashers/etc all save users significant amounts of money (even if they are more expensive to buy, they are (FAR) less expensive to own — higher cost to buy (ctb) but much lower cost to own (cto)).
- Donald Trump (as indicated by per the over 15,000 documented Trump lies (just since he occupied the Oval Office) simply is not truthful writ large and certainly not so (and incredibly ignorant) when it comes to energy, climate, and so many other issues.
- Pollution is worsening under the Trump regime, APollution is worsening under Trump. This is leading to increased illnesses and worsened mortality rates. It is truthful, literally, to say that Trump policies are killing Americans.
The Post‘s article, at best, glosses over these facts as per:
Often operating from his [Trump’s] own feelings rather than scientific evidence …
Trump regularly cites his personal experience rather than science.
Read and consider that sentence(‘s construction). By using the terms “often operating”, the Post implies that there are times (actually, likely most times) where Trump is actually “operating from … scientific evidence”. Considering that Trump is perhaps the most ‘anti-science’ person to ever occupy the Oval Office, to provide an inference that some of Trump’s rantings against renewable energy and efficiency derives, ever, from any form of “scientific evidence” is to mislead, is to be untruthful in reporting.
To state that “Trump regularly cites his personal experience” is to take at face value when Trump says things like “people have told me”. Documenters of Trump deceit have made clear that that sort of lead-in is a screaming indicator that Trump is about to lie and/or make a baseless assertion.
focusing on convenience issues like cheaper lightbulbs
Here is where a journalist could be truthful, could educate. Yes, incandescent lightbulbs are “cheaper” to buy but they are far, far, far more expensive to own (see a decade old calculation — case is much stronger today+). With plunging LED prices, dependent on usage, that difference might be counted in a few weeks of ownership.+
Trump’s defenders … say the president’s … reducing regulations has helped … without harming the quality of the nation’s air or water.
… White House spokesman said “… the President has … continued to safeguard the water supply and improve air quality.”
While any with any awareness would understand the absurdity of these assertions and perhaps the article’s authors relied on such awareness, these blatantly false assertions go without context for making clear the deceit. Recent studies have documented (provided the hard data to show) that America’s air quality (for example) is deteriorating under Trump due, in no small part, to failure to enforce and the weakening of regulations designed to protect Americans’ health and well-being. The Intelligencer’s headline summarizes this well: Air Pollution Increases Under Trump, Despite His Claim of World’s ‘Cleanest Air’. For truthful reporting, the Post’s article should have read something like “Trump and his supporters falsely claim …” but, well, this would — it seems — have been ‘taking sides’ while ‘both-siderism’ is so much easier.
And, and, and …
There is so much more to raise, such as the absence of any direct comment about the incoherence of Trump’s statements nor any highlighting of how Trump’s actions to undermine clean energy options are hurting U.S. competitiveness and leading to more illness and deaths due to increased fossil-foolish pollution. We could continue for days dissecting the article and multiple doctoral dissertations taking on Trump’s deceit mentioned in it. This article was, is important in laying out how Trump’s rambling diatribes play into the GOP strategy for the 2020 election. Regretfully, following ‘both sides’ journalism and failing to label truthfully Trump’s deceit plays right into that strategy by giving more credulity to that deceit than justified in any manner.
Far from just one piece.
To be clear, such bothsiderism and a seeming unwillingness isn’t isolated to just one article. Post reporting on the evangelical Christianity Today‘s editorial calling for Trump’s removal and calling out the hypocrisy of evangelical support for Trump provides (too) many additional examples.
Today’s (dead-tree version of the continuing) story opens:
Christianity Today has seen a rush of canceled subscriptions since publishing an editorial that criticized President Trump as “immoral”. But the magazine’s president said the evangelical magazine has logged an even greater wave of new subscribers.
Do you notice what I see? “Canceled subscriptions” is reported as fact while “new subscribers” is reported with “said” which inherently suggests it is an opinion and potentially not truthful.
Later in the article, based on that editors comments, readers learn that there were 2,000 canceled and 5,000 new subscribers. Both numbers come from the same source — the magazine’s president.
Reading through the dead-tree edition of an earlier article shows similar skewing. In every case, quotations and comments about the editorial that support Trump appear first with criticism coming (often far) later in the article. And, there is commentary about the magazine losing subscribers without the truthful comment, already known at that time, that there were more new subscribers than cancellations.
Honest journalism required
“Bothsiderism” leads, especially when there are dishonest and extremist actors in play, leads to misleading (and untruthful) reporting. This, what appears to be, tip-toeing around the emotions of Trump and Cult 45 enables Republican gaslighting. At least some major media players are (finally) waking up to this. For example, Jake Tapper’s one-hour special on All the President’s lies:
“Facts are facts. The earth is not flat,” Tapper added. And the news media, he said, is supposed “to provide accurate information” and “sort through the spin — what really happened, and what is the truth, regardless of who’s asserting it.”
As The Post‘s coverage commented,
recitals, however, miss the most elemental plank of Trump’s years in power: lying. Falsehoods — usually intentional, occasionally accidental — undergird the formulation, promotion and defense of all presidential policy positions. They are essential to any discussion about this White House, though they’re so frequent, so relentless, that they threaten to inure the public to their ills.
“All the President’s Lies,” a one-hour special report from CNN’s Jake Tapper, seeks to refocus attention on the mendacious foundation of Trumpism.
While The Post hosts one of the best accountings of Trump’s ceaseless lying, with a seemingly exponentially growing count well above 15,000, it is well past time for The Post to maintain a focus on Trumpism’s “mendacious foundation” throughout its journalism rather than (purposefully or inadvertently enabling Trump’s gaslighting of America.
======
UPDATE: A painful front-page example in the days after this post was an article re Trumpism and deficit spending. As per Paul Krugman,
======
NOTES:
- * This post works from the ‘dead tree’, printed edition of 24 December 2019. There are differences between the online and print edition. For example:
- Print: “often operating from his own feelings rather than scientific evidence”
- Online: “Trump regularly cites his personal experience rather than science.”
- + A quick calculation between incandescent + LED lightbulb assuming a 100 watt equivalent light used 40 hours per week for one month with electricity at 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
- Incandescent: 75 cent purchase + electricity (.1 (kilowatt usage) x 40 (hours) x 4 (weeks) x 12.5 (cents per KwH)) = $2.75 in cost
- LED: $2 purchase + electricity (0.013 x 40 x 4 x 12.5) = $2.26
- E.g., per month, the LED would use about 25 cents of electricity and the incandescent about $2. And, the LED will last decades and the incandescent will need to replace more than once per year on average. After a decade, choosing the “cheaper” at purchase light bulb will be over $100 more expensive. Which is “cheaper” now?