You don’t often hear this kind of bluntness on MSNBC. But Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough on Friday lashed out at journalistic coverage of the 2016 race, saying, “If you get it wrong as consistently as the media has gotten it wrong, then at some point Americans just turn off the media. They stop listening to us!”
While discussing President-elect Donald Trump’s “thank you tour,” Scarborough and his panelists became introspective over the media’s failure to predict the state of the race.
Bloomberg Politics managing editor Mark Halperin wondered:
MARK HALPERIN: I think the bigger question now for the republic is ‘what happens when people write big good investigative stories about Donald Trump?’ The Washington Post did many, The New York Times did many, they seem to have no impact, at least on his supporters…That's the question. If you do investigative journalism and it doesn't impact what people think of the person who is the subject…
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein then added that: “Trump has run a very effective year-long campaign demonizing the media too. I think that has an effect.”
Host Joe Scarborough then offered a direct criticism of the media, making this point:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: If the media told Americans that Donald Trump had a 1% chance of winning the Republican nomination and then they told Americans that he only had a 15% ceiling, and then even late into November they were saying he only had a 20% ceiling and even after he started winning primaries they were saying Marco Rubio was going to still win the nomination. This is all historical record, Marco Rubio was out of the race and The New York Times upshot was still saying 'Marco Rubio was going to win the Republican nomination.' I'm not even saying that to be funny but if you get it wrong as consistently as the media has gotten it wrong, then at some point Americans just turn off the media. They stop listening to us!
The Washington Post’s David Ignatius responded:
DAVID IGNATIUS: You know Joe, I think there's no question that what was perceived as the elite media's bias against Trump by a lot of his supporters deepened their support for him. I think that we'll look at this just as Clinton supporters will look at what happened and will assess how we cover politics. All of that introspection doesn't go to the heart of the matter which is can President Trump take this incredibly divided country and pull it together? Watching him on his 'Victory Tour,' there are moments you think he really wants to be liked by everybody. Not just by the people he voted for. If that's true, then he's a smart politician. He'll figure out ways to speak to the country as a whole.
That conversation though was initiated by Stein, concerning press coverage of Trump and Clinton:
SAM STEIN: I think it's an important media question. One of the things they said – the Clinton people said that: ‘because there was such an assumption that she would win, the media scrutinized her and focused on her in a way that they never focused on Trump. I wonder if you feel like that's true?
To which Scarborough had responded:
SCARBOROUGH: That’s not true! That's one of the stupidest things I ever heard in my life. Not from you. That analysis, I've been challenging a media school – maybe Columbia will do this, to actually study and do what they do in every other campaign and let's see how many articles about Donald Trump were positive? How many articles about Donald Trump were positive – how many articles about Donald Trump were negative and then compare those numbers with Hillary Clinton. They will be historically negative against Donald Trump.
There is actually such study conducted by the MRC, "Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing" which found that 91 percent of news stories on Trump were negative.
Co-host Mika Brzezinski had later added to that assessment by saying that:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Meanwhile, you have another ABC correspondent who has actually given to the Clinton foundation who never receives any criticism -- it's just interesting, the bias. I mean, think of all of the correspondents and anchors who have gone to visit the Obamas at Martha's Vineyard or all these little friendships that developed that they don’t call friendships because they’re objective. I'm just saying, people need to keep it real."
Scarborough then concluded by summerizing how the media's disconnect from the people ultimately resulted in the failure not only to predict the election but also to stop Trump:
SCARBOROUGH: If you talk to editor of The New York Times or The Washington Post they will tell you that Donald Trump is the worst creature that ever walked on the face of the Earth and the coverage has to be overwhelmingly negative but if they want to know why they woke up the morning after the election and had no idea about what was happening, it's because they were disconnected from America.
Here is the excerpt from the December 2nd discussion on Morning Joe:
MSNBC’s Morning Joe
12/02/2016
7:14:48 – 7:19:11 AM
SAM STEIN: Can I ask you a question about this panel? I think it's an important media question. One of the things they said – the Clinton people said that: ‘because there was such an assumption that she would win, the media scrutinized her and focused on her in a way that they never focused on Trump. I wonder if you feel like that's true?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: That’s not true! That's one of the stupidest things I ever heard in my life. Not from you. That analysis, I've been challenging a media school – maybe Columbia will do this, to actually study and do what they do in every other campaign and let's see how many articles about Donald Trump were positive? How many articles about Donald Trump were positive – how many articles about Donald Trump were negative and then compare those numbers with Hillary Clinton. They will be historically negative against Donald Trump.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Not that they did not cover her negatively…
SCARBOROUGH: The New York Times did admirable work from the very beginning.
BRZEZINSKI: Sure, they broke stories…
SCARBOROUGH: It was so one-sided as far as -- of course, the media will say ‘there was more bad things right about Donald Trump’ but it was overwhelmingly negative. The media climate was so negative that Mark Halperin was actually called a lap dog by a columnist in The Washington Post because he simply said Donald Trump had a chance to get elected.
BRZEZINSKI: That’s an actual insult…
SCARBOROUGH: If you want to see how badly served the American people were by the media over 2016, just look at how the media responded the last two weeks to the few people that said Trump had a chance to win. They were called unrealistic.
BRZEZINSKI: Part of the inside team…
SCARBOROUGH: Who is the guy -- there's this ABC correspondent on Sunday that used to work for Bush. If you ever suggested -- the Dowd guy. If you ever suggested that Donald Trump had a chance to win, he would fire off ten nasty messages and it was that way around the entire climate.
BRZEZINSKI: Meanwhile, you have another ABC correspondent who has actually given to the Clinton foundation who never receives any criticism -- it's just interesting, the bias. I mean, think of all of the correspondents and anchors who have gone to visit the Obamas at Martha's Vineyard or all these little friendships that developed that they don’t call friendships because they’re objective. I'm just saying, people need to keep it real.
SCARBOROUGH: If you talk to editor of The New York Times or The Washington Post they will tell you that Donald Trump is the worst creature that ever walked on the face of the Earth and the coverage has to be overwhelmingly negative but if they want to know why they woke up the morning after the election and had no idea about what was happening, it's because they were disconnected from America. I said it on the show when I went out to a wedding in Scranton, Pennsylvania. I didn't have to go to Scranton, Pennsylvania, to know Donald Trump had great chance of winning. I had to go to a Target, West of Nyack. I had to go into a Target for a reason. I walked into Target and five minutes after being in the Target, I looked around and I called Mika, and I said I think Donald Trump is going to win. I went to Jacksonville, Florida and listen, I know the state of Florida. I know how conservative it is. I walked through the airport. I got in my rental car. I drove 30 miles to see my mom. I saw Trump yard signs all over the place. I saw people wearing shirts, I saw bumper stickers. I called Mika. I said ‘I know it's all antidotal but everything I'm seeing when I get outside of New York City tells me Donald Trump is going to win.’ So, I say that on the show and Mark Halperin says that and suddenly – it’s blasphemy, we must be lap dogs for Donald Trump. I called him a racist about 20 times during the campaign.
STEIN: I'll give you that. I think –
7:19:49 – 7:23:02 AM
MARK HALPERIN: We can do a lot of retrospectives on the campaign coverage which was as always imperfect. I think the bigger question now for the republic is ‘what happens when people write big good investigative stories about Donald Trump?’
The Washington Post did many, The New York Times did many, they seem to have no impact at least on his supporters.
STEIN: I know and that’s a little worrisome…
HALPERIN: That's the question. If you do investigative journalism and it doesn't impact what people think of the person who is the subject…
SCARBOROUGH: Do you know why? Because it's all white noise. If you call Donald Trump a fascist or a Nazi or let's just take examples of what happened this week, right? So, Donald Trump puts out a tweet, he talks about criminalizing flag burning. Let's take that part of it. Their hair is on fire, they’re going ‘this is the worst thing ever. He's a Nazi, he's a fascist. I told you he’s a fascist.’ Then you walk out of the studio and someone goes you know that Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton in 2006 co-sponsored the bill to criminalize flag burning. I'm not saying it's the same thing, he went beyond that by saying it stripped citizenship which is unconstitutional for 60 years but never context provided. It's ‘Donald Trump is a Nazi.’ If you hear that every day and you're in Scranton, Pennsylvania or if you're in Pensacola, Florida, you're going to go –
STEIN: But also, Trump has run a very effective year-long campaign demonizing the media too. I think that has an effect.
SCARBOROUGH: But, David Ignatius, if the media told Americans that Donald Trump had a 1% chance of winning the Republican nomination and then they told Americans that he only had a 15% ceiling, and then even late into November they were saying he only had a 20% ceiling and even after he started winning primaries they were saying Marco Rubio was going to still win the nomination. This is all historical record, Marco Rubio was out of the race and The New York Times upshot was still saying 'Marco Rubio was going to win the Republican nomination.' I'm not even saying that to be funny but if you get it wrong as consistently as the media has gotten it wrong, then at some point Americans just turn off the media. They stop listening to us.
DAVID IGNATIUS: You know Joe, I think there's no question that what was perceived as the elite media's bias against Trump by a lot of his supporters deepened their support for him. I think that we'll look at this just as Clinton supporters will look at what happened and will assess how we cover politics. All of that introspection doesn't go to the heart of the matter which is can President Trump take this incredibly divided country and pull it together? Watching him on his 'Victory tour,' there are moments you think he really wants to be liked by everybody. Not just by the people he voted for. If that's true, then he's a smart politician. He'll figure out ways to speak to the country as a whole.
