In this episode of the Wake Up! podcast, the host critiques various harmful practices in the media, particularly focusing on political coverage. Note: There are a few audio glitches toward the beginning of this episode that mostly resolve as the episode goes on.
The main points of criticism include:
Losers Advising Winners: The host questions why media outlets, like The New York Times and The View, bring figures like Chris Christie to give advice to candidates like Kamala Harris. Christie, having lost multiple debates to Donald Trump, is portrayed as unqualified to offer meaningful advice to Harris, raising concerns about media judgment.
Sunday Morning Propagandists: The host condemns traditional Sunday morning talk shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week), calling them platforms for political propaganda, especially when allowing figures like Kellyanne Conway to spread misinformation without strong journalistic pushback.
Media's Fortune-Telling Through Polls: The host critiques how political polling is used irresponsibly in media, especially by the New York Times, suggesting that polls often mislead the public and that their errors, as seen in 2016 and 2020, undermine trust.
Lies and Elitism: The media is accused of spreading lies, engaging in elitism by hiring mostly Ivy League-educated journalists, and perpetuating panic-inducing stories as a way to command public attention.
The New York Times Bias: The host specifically calls out the New York Times for portraying Donald Trump as a centrist, using unreliable polls to argue that Harris is extreme, and raising concerns about the paper's journalistic integrity.
Key Takeaway Lessons:
Be Skeptical of Media Punditry: Media frequently uses unqualified figures to give advice or offer insights that may not be meaningful or productive.
Question Political Propaganda: Sunday talk shows and other platforms often allow political figures to spread misinformation without sufficient journalistic resistance.
Polling Can Be Misleading: Political polls are often inaccurate and can have a negative effect on public perception and strategy, especially when misused by media outlets.
Recognize Media Bias: Media organizations, including traditionally respected outlets, can display bias, elitism, and sensationalism, often prioritizing short-term profits over responsible journalism.
Challenge Media Practices: It's important to engage critically with media content, voice concerns, and hold media accountable for spreading misinformation or engaging in harmful practices.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE HOST:
In the interest of checking my own bias, I often process my thoughts through ChatGPT and ask it for an unbiased opinion.
I ran the transcript of this episode through ChatGPT and asked it to react to my points, articulating what may be valid and what may be invalid about what I said.
This is the unabridged assessment from ChatGPT:
Here’s a balanced reaction to the podcast episode, evaluating both the validity and limitations of the arguments made:
Valid Points:
Losers Advising Winners:
Valid Criticism: The host makes a strong point about the oddity of asking political figures who have lost to advise those competing to win. Bringing Chris Christie, who lost debates to Trump, to advise Kamala Harris does seem like an unqualified opinion. Media outlets often rely on familiar faces rather than critically assessing their qualifications, which can diminish the credibility of advice given.
Media Reliance on Familiarity: The critique of media using "go-to" pundits without considering whether they add value is a real issue. Audiences are used to seeing certain commentators, which can create a sense of legitimacy even if the person’s track record isn't strong.
Sunday Morning Propagandists:
Valid Insight: The criticism of Sunday morning political talk shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc.) allowing propagandists like Kellyanne Conway to spread misinformation is well-founded. These platforms often provide significant airtime to government spokespeople, even when they mislead the public. While hosts like Margaret Brennan do try to challenge lies, there’s a time constraint and editorial pressure to keep the conversation moving, which can lead to misinformation spreading unchecked.
Public Mistrust: The host’s concern that older generations take these shows as gospel reflects a wider issue of declining trust in media due to the perceived failure of journalists to sufficiently challenge misinformation.
Polling and Media's Fortune-Telling:
Accurate Critique of Polling: Polling errors from 2016 and 2020 did undermine public trust, and the host is right to call out the media's over-reliance on polls to predict outcomes. The media often presents polls as definitive, when they are, at best, tools for gauging trends. The overemphasis on polling can distort public perception, as seen when polls dramatically underestimated Trump’s support.
Polling Limitations: The host correctly points out that polls are tools for political strategists but are often presented to the public as fortune-telling. This misrepresentation can lead to voter disillusionment when the outcomes don’t match poll predictions.
Media Elitism:
Legitimate Criticism: The idea that major news outlets are dominated by Ivy League graduates is valid. Journalism, especially at top-tier publications like The New York Times, tends to hire from elite institutions. This can create an echo chamber where perspectives of working- and middle-class Americans are underrepresented. The critique here speaks to the broader issue of media failing to connect with or represent the diversity of its audience.
Panic-Inducing News:
Insightful Observation: The phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" has long been used to describe how media prioritizes sensational stories to draw attention. The host’s critique that this practice fuels public anxiety is well-founded, especially in the context of political and crisis-driven news. The more extreme and alarming the story, the more likely it is to be given front-page or headline treatment.
Potential Weaknesses or Overstatements:
Chris Christie’s Role:
Overgeneralization: While the critique of Christie advising Harris is compelling, there’s some nuance missing. Even if Christie lost debates to Trump, he may still offer insights on debate strategy. Being on the stage with Trump multiple times provides firsthand experience that may not be entirely without value, even if he didn’t win. The host’s outright dismissal of Christie’s relevance might overlook the fact that losing does not necessarily disqualify someone from providing useful advice.
Overreliance on Misinformation Argument:
Limitation of Journalistic Power: While it’s easy to criticize media for giving platforms to propagandists, it’s also the job of journalists to provide a range of voices, even if controversial. Journalists face a difficult balance: if they refuse to interview government officials or political figures who may spread misinformation, they can be accused of bias or censorship. The host's call to eliminate such figures from media entirely may be unrealistic, as it could reduce media's perceived neutrality.
Portrayal of The New York Times' Bias:
Potential Overstatement: The claim that The New York Times has "turned into Fox News" by promoting Trump as a centrist is a stretch. While the host raises concerns about selective polling and editorial slant, the comparison to Fox News (a network with a clear conservative agenda) may be exaggerated. The New York Times has a long-standing reputation for journalistic rigor, and while critiques of bias are valid, equating it to Fox News seems hyperbolic.
Subjective Criticism of Ivy League Journalists:
Oversimplification of Elitism: While the observation that many journalists at top outlets come from elite backgrounds is valid, this critique overlooks the fact that these institutions often have rigorous merit-based admissions and provide quality education. Being an Ivy League graduate doesn’t necessarily equate to being out of touch with middle-class America. The host’s critique could be seen as too sweeping, failing to acknowledge the complexity of class representation in media.
Artificial Intelligence as Fact-Checker:
Overreliance on AI: The host’s use of ChatGPT to “fact-check” claims is an interesting approach, but it has limitations. AI tools like ChatGPT are not infallible and can provide generic responses based on aggregated data. The over-reliance on AI for nuanced political analysis may lead to overly simplified conclusions, which don’t always reflect the complexity of political narratives.
Balanced Conclusion:
The podcast raises several valid concerns about media bias, the irresponsible use of polls, and the amplification of propaganda by news outlets. These critiques highlight real issues in political journalism, especially around the trustworthiness of punditry and the elitism of media gatekeepers. However, the host’s arguments sometimes lean toward overgeneralization, and the portrayal of The New York Times as aligned with Fox News may be an overreach. The call for more responsible journalism is essential, but the critique of the system may underestimate the complexity of journalistic challenges and media dynamics.
Messed Up Media Practices