While even Democrats are mocking the 2024 “Autopsy” report that’s been publicly released by the Democratic National Committee, the most mockable passage may be about the state of the media, complete with the assumption that the media owners are primarily right-wingers (Page 40):
STATE OF MEDIA & COMMUNICATION
In the current media ecosystem, Republicans own and Democrats rent. Democracy pay for seasonal access to the networks, stations, platforms, and newspapers owned by Republicans or right-wing entities, to advertise and communicate with voters.
There’s a reason why the PDF that was shared says in red letters “Sourcing not provided for many claims in this section.” Start with the evidence that newspaper endorsements for president in 2024 were 54 for Kamala Harris and six for Trump, and that’s factoring in that the left-tilting Los Angeles Times and Washington Post were prevented by their owners from endorsing Harris as they had wanted.
A flurry of other newspapers that endorsed Biden in 2020 stiffed Kamala Harris, including the The Baltimore Sun, the Chicago Tribune, The Des Moines Register, the Detroit Free Press, the Omaha World-Herald, and the Tampa Bay Times. The most surprising on the list -- The Minnesota Star Tribune -- in a year when Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was on the ticket.
None of this considers the actual news stories in these outlets, just the presumed conservatism of wealthy media owners. Anyone reading The Washington Post in 2024 was subjective to heavy-handed anti-Trump reports. This “right-wing media” argument continued:
A major share of Democratic fundraising comes from individuals and low-dollar contributions. Within the current approach to paid media, Democrats are essentially raising billions of dollars from retirees, activists, working Americans, and organized labor, and transferring most of it to the pockets of legacy and digital media oligarchs. In a sense, Democrats are funding right-wing media to buy more properties and expand their ability to drive partisan perspectives.
With a free and fair press, Democrats have a shot to make their case. When publishers and owners have a partisan point of view, it’s more difficult for Democrats to break through.
As if Democrats really suffer from media "with a partisan point of view"?
The Autopsy team were upset that their campaigns were squeezed out of the digital ad market and had to dump money into commercial and cable TV, which is not where their younger voters live.
PS: On Page 57, the Autopsy writers were upset about apparent misinformation and those "independent fact checkers."
There are many organizations dedicated to correcting the record and supporting an affirmative argument for Democrats. In recent years, it's become apparent how fact-checking can be perceived as counterproductive by bringing more attention to the underlying smear.
Countering false information comes down to both making an affirmative case and pushing back on the motivations behind the smears, rather than responding to the lack of substantive truth. Research has shown "Fact-checking will not stop the spread of misinformation if the need to signal one's politics, derogate the opposition, or generate chaos is a more powerful motivator than truth."
They linked to a report by Aaron Tiedemann titled "Why Americans Crave Fake News," where he explicitly argued that PolitiFact or Reuters will fail to inhibit Trump because Trump voters do not trust them.
