Gosh I wonder whether the Post has a reporter whose beat is “Blue states.” More accurately, I wonder whether they’ve ever asked themselves why they don’t.
Thank you for breaking this down so beautifully. I read this article the day it was published and, after the first sentence, I was, like, "Is this parody?"
Many in the media are giving him a pass. Just like Trump's admiration of leaders in Poland, Hungary, and Turkey, we do need to ask ourselves whether we are okay with a Speaker who is a combination of Orban and Akhundzada, the current supreme leader of the Taliban. I would hope the media will be self-interested enough in freedom of the press to pursue Johnson on his support of the first amendment. His smile, no answer to being questioned on his role on Jan. 6, sends a shiver to a free society. Your readers know well that too many governors already are shutting out the media from govt affairs.
Dan Froomkin has written extensively about the way big national news media have made the stereotype of the rural or small town white guy, in a John Deere cap sitting in a diner with his buddies somewhere in flyover country, into the myth of the "real American," as they largely ignore the rest of us. Do these people represent America, or are they merely a handy go-to for journalists who are too damn lazy, or cowardly, to talk to the kind of people who are not the white, churchgoing Trump MAGAs? Nostalgia sells. There are always plenty of people who long for the good ol' days when anyone who didn't fit the stereotype was made invisible. It's lazy journalism at best, unacceptably bad journalism a worst.
What's so frustrating is not the folks in the "liberal elite coastal enclaves" like NYC or San Francisco or Seattle or whatever are being ignored, as bad as that is. It's that they're ignoring liberal/left voices in so-called "flyover" country as well. As Prof Zimmer points out here, the only ostensibly oppositional voices mentioned in the piece are people aren't really that oppositional. Like what is the point of not only going to the same places all the time, but also only talking to the same kinds of people in those areas? Specifically, the people that seem to confirm the reporters' biases of what people live there.
Talking to the same people is easy, and that's why journalists do it. And they go to these places carrying their biases with them. It results in their asking leading questions and not challenging the responses they get. They do it all the time with politicians, too. Look at the abysmal feature story on 60 Minutes when Lesley Stahl interviewed Marjorie Taylor Greene as a good example.
Ugh. I mean I think being a journalist is one of those jobs that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. But even still, this sort of nonsense is just so plainly unhelpful. Doesn't tell us anything about these people that we need to know, just that kind of nonsense that comes across as a neighbor being interviewed about a serial killer or mass shooter.
Readers also need to understand that with the simple choice of one word versus another, writers inject their world views. The English language has an incredible inventory of adjectives, adverbs and verbs and the writer gets to choose which ones to use. If I write that Susan went to the store versus Susan rushed to the store you get different images and pictures of what happened even though Susan ends up at the store in either case. Critical reading is essential to understanding and every writer knows this. Not only do I hate the type of article that Thomas described but I also hate to see the writers defend this type of writing. If they can't be honest about their writing then they can't be honest about what they're writing about.
And beware of the passive voice. "It was suggested that..." as opposed to "He said..." It drives me crazy, that perpetual misuse of the word "suggest."
“Faith and family”, those words are powerful and in Speaker Johnson’s case must include the Uber wealthy. The same people he wants the IRS to stop auditing through budget cuts.
“Faith and Family” must also include the failed “ Judge Paul Pressler School of Law” that Mr. Johnson was “dean”. After 10years of trying it was never accredited. “ Pressler, the school’s namesake, was sued in a civil case that has since grown to include allegations of abuse by multiple men who say he sexually assaulted them, some when they were children.” ah yes, “faith and family”, indeed.
Horribly true. Somehow no one left of center is ever interviewed for these pieces. Surely there are young or gay or non-Christian people in Shreveport who aren’t on board with the Christo fascist agenda. I couldn’t help noticing that everyone cited is quite old. I’m sick of this normalization of extremism. Also I guess his mom was a teen mother based on their ages.
Finding out that Mike Johnson is in a covenant marriage reminded me of the Sharia Law scandal all those years ago. It's always worth noting which religious views are considered "extreme" and which are considered mainstream.
The Sharia is based on both Christian and Jewish traditions, which are just as misogynistic. All 3 Abrahamic faiths are in many ways very similar. At least in Islam, you can get a divorce. And there is no law in Sharia prohibiting abortion.
“Home story” and “puff piece” are fair descriptions of the article. It appears to show the local support for a now national figure. Presumably, any elected official enjoys such local support. But why should the views of this particular locale represent the whole Republican caucus in the US House? That is the disturbance part, because white Shreveport, Louisiana is actually pretty “niche” and the idea that America is a church is actually pretty un-American. Imposing a narrow religious orthodoxy on the entire nation was not at all the vision of our founders or the foundational documents they crafted. That’s the perspective that’s missing from this WaPo “reporting.” These are not actually the American ideals of freedom, equality and justice for all.
There's so much in this piece that is of interest to me: the role of the media in an increasingly polarized and undemocratic world, the ugly underbelly of Christian Nationalism, and the almost Orwellian descent of one political party in a two party system. Johnson is almost comically symbolic of all of that. And I say 'almost comic' because of what all of this portends. IMO, America, more than any other western nation, is at risk here of falling into an utterly undemocratic Christo-fascist polity. Euro nations may have La Pen, Meloni, Orban, or the AfD, but none of these nations enjoy such strong structural extensions as one finds in America: the extensive history of voter suppression, a captured supreme court, an out of control military industrial complex & militarized police state, a two tiered justice system, sanitized Christian nationalism, robust systemic white supremacy, a definitively undemocratic electoral college, unlimited dark money influence, tentacled well funded think tanks and astroturf organizations, reactionary crusaders working tirelessly against women, LGBTQ, the poor, the vulnerable, and a billionaire dominated mass media that help normalize all of the above. Johnson is all of this. He is the common denominator among Republicans and why their choice speaks volumes.
Thank you for this much-needed takedown. It's not as if the WashPost actually doing its job and reporting for real to the standard that it used to uphold would change much, politically, given how illiterate our voting public has become and how devoid of real journalism "the discourse" has become. But, at least the few people out there still willing to hold political leaders to objective standards might at least have a little ammunition. Instead, we get horse races and puffery.
There's even a salacious story that reporters have been too lazy to explore: I still haven't seen a satisfying explanation for why Johnson, at the age of 25 (and maybe unmarried?) did and was able to adopt a 14-year-old boy. Or maybe "adopt." That part is also unclear, and somehow makes it even more sketchy. This is, at the very least, weird, and begs many questions. And almost certainly the answers would hold the attention of more people than all that "boring" stuff about policy.
Also, would this or any reporter care to offer an explanation for why this oft-described-as "obscure" (and definitely politically inexperienced) political neophyte rose to become the Speaker of the House? This is, itself, an extraordinary event. Why him? Why now? Certainly it wasn't just random happenstance? Maybe there was a deeper story behind his rise that just another "Real America" town full of "faith and family?" The naiveté of this retelling of a story at face-value is stunning.
That is what I want to know - why Johnson? And, if his involvement in J6 was "pivotal," what did he do and what did it pivot on? This guy went overnight from obscurity to being 2nd in line for the presidency, yet no one is concerned?
Gosh I wonder whether the Post has a reporter whose beat is “Blue states.” More accurately, I wonder whether they’ve ever asked themselves why they don’t.
Thank you for breaking this down so beautifully. I read this article the day it was published and, after the first sentence, I was, like, "Is this parody?"
Many in the media are giving him a pass. Just like Trump's admiration of leaders in Poland, Hungary, and Turkey, we do need to ask ourselves whether we are okay with a Speaker who is a combination of Orban and Akhundzada, the current supreme leader of the Taliban. I would hope the media will be self-interested enough in freedom of the press to pursue Johnson on his support of the first amendment. His smile, no answer to being questioned on his role on Jan. 6, sends a shiver to a free society. Your readers know well that too many governors already are shutting out the media from govt affairs.
This is a brilliant analysis and summary of the normalization of extremists to the detriment of our democracy. Thank you!!
Excellent work. Thank you.
Hey, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” right? That piece in the Post was really dark. And so, I fear is the future.
Dan Froomkin has written extensively about the way big national news media have made the stereotype of the rural or small town white guy, in a John Deere cap sitting in a diner with his buddies somewhere in flyover country, into the myth of the "real American," as they largely ignore the rest of us. Do these people represent America, or are they merely a handy go-to for journalists who are too damn lazy, or cowardly, to talk to the kind of people who are not the white, churchgoing Trump MAGAs? Nostalgia sells. There are always plenty of people who long for the good ol' days when anyone who didn't fit the stereotype was made invisible. It's lazy journalism at best, unacceptably bad journalism a worst.
What's so frustrating is not the folks in the "liberal elite coastal enclaves" like NYC or San Francisco or Seattle or whatever are being ignored, as bad as that is. It's that they're ignoring liberal/left voices in so-called "flyover" country as well. As Prof Zimmer points out here, the only ostensibly oppositional voices mentioned in the piece are people aren't really that oppositional. Like what is the point of not only going to the same places all the time, but also only talking to the same kinds of people in those areas? Specifically, the people that seem to confirm the reporters' biases of what people live there.
Talking to the same people is easy, and that's why journalists do it. And they go to these places carrying their biases with them. It results in their asking leading questions and not challenging the responses they get. They do it all the time with politicians, too. Look at the abysmal feature story on 60 Minutes when Lesley Stahl interviewed Marjorie Taylor Greene as a good example.
Ugh. I mean I think being a journalist is one of those jobs that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. But even still, this sort of nonsense is just so plainly unhelpful. Doesn't tell us anything about these people that we need to know, just that kind of nonsense that comes across as a neighbor being interviewed about a serial killer or mass shooter.
Readers also need to understand that with the simple choice of one word versus another, writers inject their world views. The English language has an incredible inventory of adjectives, adverbs and verbs and the writer gets to choose which ones to use. If I write that Susan went to the store versus Susan rushed to the store you get different images and pictures of what happened even though Susan ends up at the store in either case. Critical reading is essential to understanding and every writer knows this. Not only do I hate the type of article that Thomas described but I also hate to see the writers defend this type of writing. If they can't be honest about their writing then they can't be honest about what they're writing about.
And beware of the passive voice. "It was suggested that..." as opposed to "He said..." It drives me crazy, that perpetual misuse of the word "suggest."
“Faith and family”, those words are powerful and in Speaker Johnson’s case must include the Uber wealthy. The same people he wants the IRS to stop auditing through budget cuts.
“Faith and Family” must also include the failed “ Judge Paul Pressler School of Law” that Mr. Johnson was “dean”. After 10years of trying it was never accredited. “ Pressler, the school’s namesake, was sued in a civil case that has since grown to include allegations of abuse by multiple men who say he sexually assaulted them, some when they were children.” ah yes, “faith and family”, indeed.
For Johnson and his ilk, there is only one faith, and one type of family.
His wife also shut down her right wing Christ-fascist websites and failed to show up for hubby's swearing-in as Speaker.
Johnson is second in the line of succession to be president.
Horribly true. Somehow no one left of center is ever interviewed for these pieces. Surely there are young or gay or non-Christian people in Shreveport who aren’t on board with the Christo fascist agenda. I couldn’t help noticing that everyone cited is quite old. I’m sick of this normalization of extremism. Also I guess his mom was a teen mother based on their ages.
Yes, as an old, white person, I say we've been heard from more than enough. Time to sit down and listen to someone else for a change.
Finding out that Mike Johnson is in a covenant marriage reminded me of the Sharia Law scandal all those years ago. It's always worth noting which religious views are considered "extreme" and which are considered mainstream.
The Sharia is based on both Christian and Jewish traditions, which are just as misogynistic. All 3 Abrahamic faiths are in many ways very similar. At least in Islam, you can get a divorce. And there is no law in Sharia prohibiting abortion.
“Home story” and “puff piece” are fair descriptions of the article. It appears to show the local support for a now national figure. Presumably, any elected official enjoys such local support. But why should the views of this particular locale represent the whole Republican caucus in the US House? That is the disturbance part, because white Shreveport, Louisiana is actually pretty “niche” and the idea that America is a church is actually pretty un-American. Imposing a narrow religious orthodoxy on the entire nation was not at all the vision of our founders or the foundational documents they crafted. That’s the perspective that’s missing from this WaPo “reporting.” These are not actually the American ideals of freedom, equality and justice for all.
There's so much in this piece that is of interest to me: the role of the media in an increasingly polarized and undemocratic world, the ugly underbelly of Christian Nationalism, and the almost Orwellian descent of one political party in a two party system. Johnson is almost comically symbolic of all of that. And I say 'almost comic' because of what all of this portends. IMO, America, more than any other western nation, is at risk here of falling into an utterly undemocratic Christo-fascist polity. Euro nations may have La Pen, Meloni, Orban, or the AfD, but none of these nations enjoy such strong structural extensions as one finds in America: the extensive history of voter suppression, a captured supreme court, an out of control military industrial complex & militarized police state, a two tiered justice system, sanitized Christian nationalism, robust systemic white supremacy, a definitively undemocratic electoral college, unlimited dark money influence, tentacled well funded think tanks and astroturf organizations, reactionary crusaders working tirelessly against women, LGBTQ, the poor, the vulnerable, and a billionaire dominated mass media that help normalize all of the above. Johnson is all of this. He is the common denominator among Republicans and why their choice speaks volumes.
If we require alliteration, I would suggest: Taliban values and economic terrorist
Thank you for this much-needed takedown. It's not as if the WashPost actually doing its job and reporting for real to the standard that it used to uphold would change much, politically, given how illiterate our voting public has become and how devoid of real journalism "the discourse" has become. But, at least the few people out there still willing to hold political leaders to objective standards might at least have a little ammunition. Instead, we get horse races and puffery.
There's even a salacious story that reporters have been too lazy to explore: I still haven't seen a satisfying explanation for why Johnson, at the age of 25 (and maybe unmarried?) did and was able to adopt a 14-year-old boy. Or maybe "adopt." That part is also unclear, and somehow makes it even more sketchy. This is, at the very least, weird, and begs many questions. And almost certainly the answers would hold the attention of more people than all that "boring" stuff about policy.
Also, would this or any reporter care to offer an explanation for why this oft-described-as "obscure" (and definitely politically inexperienced) political neophyte rose to become the Speaker of the House? This is, itself, an extraordinary event. Why him? Why now? Certainly it wasn't just random happenstance? Maybe there was a deeper story behind his rise that just another "Real America" town full of "faith and family?" The naiveté of this retelling of a story at face-value is stunning.
Yes, I thought it happened so neatly and quickly after all of the other votes that it had the feeling of "meant to be."
That is what I want to know - why Johnson? And, if his involvement in J6 was "pivotal," what did he do and what did it pivot on? This guy went overnight from obscurity to being 2nd in line for the presidency, yet no one is concerned?