“People Leveling The Charge”

U mad, bros? pic.twitter.com/u4YsWg1MvW

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) September 21, 2024

(No slight on the Pitchbot, the tweet is just handy)

So Maggie Haberman made Big Noise in an NPR interview when she discussed critics of political (and seemingly specifically her) coverage. Which is interesting, because if you actually read the interview, it’s quite insightful and very intelligent, and not at all like most of Ms. Haberman’s critics describe her work. Nor is the most interesting thing she says that much ballyhooed criticism of her critics.

I’m not going to go into a deep review/analysis of her interview (which means, of course, I do. I always start out with such good intentions.) You can read it for yourself. I find her very informative on the asymmetrical nature of the fiery rhetoric of this campaign (she blames Trump). But the reaction to this entire interview boiling down to her comments on press criticism proves that just as Hollywood loves to make movies about Hollywood (once you notice that it’s hard to stop noticing), press critics love to write about…the press and press criticism. Usually in the same way Hollywood defends Hollywood, even as it seems to criticize itself (Hollywood loves Hollywood. Press critics love to parade their superiority over journalists.). I’m not saying the press is above criticism.  I am saying they latched onto this Haberman interview looking for reasons to gossip about Haberman.

But then, the news is 99% gossip anyway, isn’t it?

Feel free to criticize Maggie Haberman all you want. I’m not her paid defender. But you ought to read the whole interview. It’s pretty interesting. As she points out, for example, Trump was hit by “something” in the shooting at Pennsylvania, but not even a shot was fired on his golf course. This is frankly more careful attention to detail and accuracy than I’ve seen in almost any discussion of those incidents.

Here’s another example:

But you counter what's happening among Republicans, which is saying immigrants are eating cats, and these are just not equal in terms of what the two sides are saying. So there is an asymmetry here, which is something of a heads Republicans win, tails Democrats lose, as if you're in a casino, because they're - Republicans are just pushing the bounds of what have been historic norms in campaigns to go out and talk about a story that they have been told there's no evidence for and to keep saying they believe it's true is just something different. 

DAVIES: Now, I'm just wondering, do you talk - you must talk to other Republicans, including, I assume some kinds of conversations with Trump campaign officials. Do they seem to believe this is true, or do they not care, or...  

HABERMAN: My sense is they don't care that much. They are very happy to have a conversation about immigration, whatever form that takes, because immigration has been an issue on which the Biden administration has struggled. Although I will say that I don't think it's a top-of-mind issue the way it was, and they're trying to push it out there because of that. So, the fact or lack thereof of whether this story is true doesn't seem to be especially relevant.

Again, I’m not trying to defend her; but this hardly sounds like someone all in for Trump. I mean, this doesn’t sound like the “Trump whisperer:”

And one of the things that gets said about him, Dave, is, there's a lot of talk about how he has really good political instincts. I don't think he has really good political instincts. I think he has good instincts for what might resonate in certain ways. But what he has is impulses for what make him feel good, and sometimes that overlaps with good politics and sometimes it doesn't. And in many cases, lately, it's not overlapping with at least what would be considered good politics. But again, the issue with him is he - because he is such a sui generis figure, he turns on its head what typically counts as bad politics, and then says, see, it's not really bad politics, and sometimes it's just that it just doesn't matter for him.

I think that’s pretty damned accurate. As for that infamous criticism of press critics, it all leaves this part out:

I think that what is frustrating to those people making those claims is that there is not the result they want to see, which is Trump melts or Trump no longer has, you know popularity. I mean, you were saying - I think your question was treat him with credibility. He's the Republican nominee. So there's a substantial voting bloc in this country - almost half - that take seriously what he's saying. And it's not because The New York Times wrote a certain story. And so to not understand that, I think, is problematic for folks leveling the charge.

In other words, if the press just reported Trump the way I wanted Trump to be reported, everyone would agree with me and everything would be coming up roses. Sort of like the way, if Jack Smith publishes his 180 page legal brief, THEN everyone will read it and the scales will fall from their eyes and Trump will be dragged down to hell at last, like Faustus at the end of Marlowe’s play.

Yeah, right. Even the lawyers blathering on cable TeeVee won’t read that 180 page brief. Much less will people actually pay attention to it. And getting the world to read what you think, won’t get the world to think as you think.

One thing is clear from the turnout in Virginia: Trump has already won, or lost, this election. After such a long, long campaign, people are anxious just to put an end to it. Even another six weeks is too long. As for the criticism of Haberman: honestly, how deeply on-line and under the stitches can you get? Most of the belly aching is people tooting their own horns, looking for their 5 minutes of tangential fame. Noble pursuits all, I’m sure.