CNN continued to escalate its dangerous rhetoric against Republicans on Sunday, as so-called “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter and LA Times columnist Jackie Calmes urged the press to ditch objectivity when reporting about Republicans and just portray them as threats to the country. She even claimed that’s not what she wanted to do while she actively called for it.
This demand came, unironically, following multiple segments decrying Facebook for driving us apart and making us hate each other. Perhaps CNN and Stelter were afraid of the competition.
“I want to dive right into your argument about what both-siderism is and why it’s failing the public. Who’s – who’s – Is it that we're treating Democrats and Republicans equally and ignoring GOP radicalism, is that the heart of the problem?” Stelter prefaced, noting Calmes recent column titled: “Why journalists are failing the public with ‘both-siderism’ in political coverage”
She seemed immediately optimistic that “there's no question that journalists are recognizing the radicalization of the Republican Party.” Speaking more on that purported radicalization, Calmes suggested “this is not a new problem or a new, you know, dynamic.”
According to her, the radicalization was over 25 years in the making:
And I tried to always – I think I'm a very fair reporter and give both sides of the story. But what started to happen back in the mid-'90s with the takeover of the House by House Republicans – and in particular Newt Gingrich – was a new, nasty – I mean, his byword was 'be nasty' and norm-busting and obstructionist sort of governance. Well, you couldn't really call it governance that sort of was a precursor for Trump.
Explaining the “simplistic” understanding of “both-siderism,” Calmes suggested it was out of date to treat both parties the same and admit they do similar things and act in similar ways. “And for years, that was sort of simplistically, that was -- I was able to do that and everyone else was able to do that. But by increasingly from 1995 on, no, it was asymmetric as the political scientists call it and it was more descriptive of Republicans than Democrats,” she asserted.
Stelter then invoked her book Dissent to talk about “the descent of the GOP” and wondered if what the two of them were calling for “causes more alienation, right, and causes Republican readers to just dismiss all of the coverage.”
Calmes defended herself by suggesting that she wasn’t calling the end of objective reporting. “And I have to say, that some of the response I got that was critical to that column suggested that I was saying we shouldn't be objective anymore, we shouldn't be fair and balanced. Of course, we should,” she claimed.
But back in reality, abandoning objectivity was exactly what she and Stelter were demanding. And she doubled down on it:
I just think an objective and fact-based treatment of the news often means you can't report something that Republicans are doing without – and suggest that this is indicative of a broad or more general problem in our politics without being clearer somehow that it is, no, this is peculiar to Republicans, this is the nature of the Republican Party.
“And I think it's rooted in a dynamic in which the Republican Party, which at the beginning of my career proudly was a small government party – styled itself that way – is now an anti-government party. And which means it doesn't really care if government works well,” she lied.
That was a lie because much of the GOP still wanted the government to work well within the limited enumerated powers as written in the Constitution. And that’s not to mention the ongoing debate within the party where some wanted a bigger government but for what they thought was important.
Calmes concluded by admitting that this all stemmed from her fear of former President Trump, and Stelter agreed it was an important factor.
Last week, Stelter concluded his show with a segment about how his family was threatened with violence last year after the election. What happened to him and his family was wrong, but he doesn’t seem to care about how the rhetoric spewed on his show can result in similar actions being taken against people on the right.
This blatant call to abandon objectively and smear Republicans was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Amazon and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Their contact information is linked so you can tell them about the biased news they fund.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
CNN’s Reliable Sources
October 24, 2021
11:31:22 a.m. EasternBRIAN STELTER: I want to dive right into your argument about what both-siderism is and why it’s failing the public. Who’s – who’s – Is it that we're treating Democrats and Republicans equally and ignoring GOP radicalism, is that the heart of the problem?
JACKIE CALMES: In a sense. I mean, there's no question that journalists are recognizing the radicalization of the Republican Party. I think what's changed a little bit since Trump left office, there's more of a sense that maybe we're back to normal. But it is, you know, this is not a new problem or a new, you know, dynamic.
I first started to chafe -- you mentioned I was at The New York Times. Well, for 18 years before that I was at The Wall Street Journal.
STELTER: Yeah.
CALMES: I’ve never done my job – you know, it’s more than a quarter century – I’ve never done my job or did when I was a reporter any differently at both papers, even though the Journal is known as a conservative paper, The New York Times is a liberal paper. They both gave news the same way, which was fact-based.
And I tried to always – I think I'm a very fair reporter and give both sides of the story. But what started to happen back in the mid-'90s with the takeover of the House by House Republicans – and in particular Newt Gingrich – was a new, nasty – I mean, his byword was be nasty and norm-busting and obstructionist sort of governance. Well, you couldn't really call it governance that sort of was a precursor for Trump.
And it was, you know – When both-sidesism is sort of like, you know – to be simplistic about it – you say well, you reported something that's somewhat critical of Republicans, then you sort of have to say something along the lines of, “but, both sides do it. Democrats are guilty as well.”
And for years, that was sort of simplistically, that was -- I was able to do that and everyone else was able to do that. But by increasingly from 1995 on, no, it was asymmetric as the political scientists call it and it was more descriptive of Republicans than Democrats.
STELTER: And you cover this in your book Dissent showing, it's called Dissent but it's also the descent of the GOP.
CALMES: It is.
STELTER: With that in mind, you say reporters are starting to get it, you get more to this. You think reporters are getting it right more often but that causes more alienation, right, and causes Republican readers to just dismiss all of the coverage. So, is it – Is this is a vicious cycle. How do you – where do you see us going, Jackie?
CALMES: It is difficult. And I have to say, that some of the response I got that was critical to that column suggested that I was saying we shouldn't be objective anymore, we shouldn't be fair and balanced. Of course, we should.
I just think an objective and fact-based treatment of the news often means you can't report something that Republicans are doing without – and suggest that this is indicative of a broad or more general problem in our politics without being clearer somehow that it is, no, this is peculiar to Republicans, this is the nature of the Republican Party.
And I think it's rooted in a dynamic in which the Republican Party, which at the beginning of my career proudly was a small government party – styled itself that way – is now an anti-government party. And which means it doesn't really care if government works well, and, in fact, when there's a Democrat as president, they do their darndest to make sure government doesn't work well, because they that I that resounds to them politically.
So, I just think the one thing that made me write that column is a sense that there has been – like I said at the outset – people feeling like, “well, without Trump in the picture, we're sort of back to normal.” And, in fact, we're not. Trump still runs the party. The Republicans in Congress still march to his beat. And he, himself, is very much still in the picture and could conceivably be president again someday.
STELTER: It's a present-tense story, it's not a past-tense story, I totally agree.
