Jay Rosen looks at what happened to journalism norms during the Trump years

It’s somewhat interesting that Eric keeps drifting back to the same defunct observations repeatedly. This isn’t the first attempt attempt to salvage the previous regime and return to previous comfort levels, and it’s these attempts are widespread.

“The big norm for about a century has been the objectivity norm, under which the vast majority of working reporters were expected to keep their opinions to themselves, stick to verifiable facts and, if writing about issues or controversies, talk to responsible people on all sides and assemble a story reflecting multiple views, endorsing none of them.”

The problem is that this “objectivity” was always an illusion, it was a marketing strategy not an existential principle. For decades this “normal journalism” pretended to be equally skeptical of both Parties but in reality this was always a regime that marginalized speech, news, and ideas, under the pretense of “balancing” coverage. Substantial media critiques that describes journalisms complicity on behalf of power, rather than challenging power, have been around for decades, but the audience for those critiques was limited. Nevertheless, on some level the public has always suspected that the “normal” journalists were excluding important voices and information, that’s why the media has been losing credibility for decades, despite their “branding” efforts.

The dilemma “normal” journalism has been grappling with since Trump got elected is how they can continue to support a status quo that assumed there are only two sides to any discussion, and that “normal” journalists and their editors decide who’s legitimate. The problem is this bipolar absurdity finally exploded under Trump. The “normal” practice of granting Republicans equal credibility out of habit and/or fealty to their own comfort zones and elite power centers became untenable; It became obvious that the illusion of “balance” could not be sustained in the face so much toxic hostility to reality.

It’s important to note that these commenters essentially claim the crises in “journalism” emerges when they try to bundle Fascists into their model of “objectivity” and balance. In reality, the fact their impulse was to try solve THAT problem in the first place reveals their participation in an oppressive regime of failed “bipartisan” complicity. By limiting coverage and credibility to “both” Parties, “normal” journalism became a willing participant in a bipartisan regime that was an incubator for every major crisis we face today. This was never a practice of inclusivity, it’s always been a regime of elite exclusivity. There was never anything “objective” about normal journalism, it was simply a practice of providing a speech platform for those in power and pretending that including “both” parties made it that an “objective” platform. The practice of pretending that Democrats and Republicans comprised the entire political spectrum, two “poles” between which all reality exists… was always a facile pretense.

We saw this in a recent Minnpost article about a conservative call for American renewal. A set of recycled and mundane conservative “principles” that have plagued our body politic for decades is described as an intriguing new development. Such is the nature of “normal” journalism that pretends recycled political banality is legitimate and “intriguing” simply because the guys who cut and pasted it onto a letter are “notable” people from the old regime. This is simply an attempt to lend credibility to the old regime under the pretense of “normal” or objective journalism. “Look… we still cover Republicans! That proves we’re objective!”

The reason our erstwhile champions of information are so enthralled with the “polarization” narrative is that it creates a dilemma for “objectivity”, of course this a manufactured dilemma. The fact is the sheer weight of unresolved crises has smashed the illusion of bipartisan governance. Americans are realizing that compromise with failure just yields more failure and they want solutions, not more compromised failures. This is a crises for the old elite and the media that supported it because most of the actual solutions will shift wealth, privilege, and power, into different hands. The problem isn’t that we’re polarized, the problem is we’re coalescing around new ideas, policies, and personalities that “normal” journalists have spend decades ignoring and marginalizing. The problem revolves around the dilemma of excluding Fascist while finding a way to INCLUDE Sanders, Omar, and BLM, etc. etc. This isn’t struggle with objectivity, it’s a shift in power and loyalty. Truly objective journalists would never have excluded so many voices in the first place. The “normal” model was dysfunctional model that limited information and attention to elite preferences that manifested multiple crises that have damaged millions of lives. Yet these guys seem to want to return to it.