Showing posts with label pack journalism sucks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pack journalism sucks. Show all posts

Sunday, April 6, 2025

Mad King Watch (Take V): "Hands Off" Protest, Downtown & Main


<One of the signs that I brought 
with me to Saturday's rally.../
The Reckoner>

<i.>
Yesterday, America spoke, loud and clear -- from New York, to Alaska, just as the headline says -- through a series of "Hands Off!" rallies, about 1,200 of them, held to rally around two simple premises. First, hands off unions, following the Trump regime's bid to run those particular rights -- long held by federal workers -- through the shredder, too.

And, second, "Hands off" social programs that have come within the GOP crosshairs, like the essential trinity of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, simply because -- due to their accounting witchcraft, as they twist themselves into a pretzel, plotting another giant giveaway to the rich, one that will make the Trump 1.0 version look like a walk in the park, by comparison.

Barely three months into the second go-round, the nature of Trump's restoration has come into focus. Essentially, he hopes to rule like a Latin American caudillo, with as few impediments to that end as possible. All power will reside with El Patron; those who want his favors must kiss his ring to stand any chance of receiving them, which he may (or may not) grant, depending on his mood.

Those who don't kiss the ring can expect some form of aggrieved payback, whether it's the universities suddenly finding their research funding illegally cut off, or the Arab-American students getting swept off sidewalks by the masked ICE goons, who seem happily compliant with Trump's vision of them as his personal enforcers. (For parallels, see how Queensland's infamous "Hillbilly Dictator," Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and his notorious Police Commissioner, Terry Lewis, made this aspect a featured element of their repressive playbook.)

The "Hands Off!" events were based on an assumption, to which we'll return, that now is the time to speak out, before the Trump regime accelerates its sweeping attacks against civil rights, freedom of expression, and social programs that benefit the rest of us, rather than the cozy plutocratic psychopaths that make up its featured faces.

The continuing emphasis on waiting for the November 2026 midterms as the ultimate political reckoning is misplaced, simply because Trump will do everything in his power to avoid. The more discontent that surfaces now, the more pressure we can apply -- not only against those who continue wielding power like a blunt instrument, but on those who want it both ways, whether it's corporations bending over to stay silent, or the big name law firms that have paid Trump protection money, in hopes of being left alone. 

We'll let the AFL-CIO describe the second goal, as only it can: "It’s clear that their executive order is punishment for unions that are leading the fight against the administration’s illegal actions in court and in the streets—and a blatant attempt to silence us. So now is the time to be even louder. "



<An example of our more pop art-y,
collage-oriented style of signage.../
The Reckoner>

<ii.>
Matters don't get off to a flying start. I'm fifteen minutes after our noon start time, picked out the signs, and parked. I'm heading to what seems like a choice spot, when the organizers start directing us back over to Main Street, which is about three or four blocks away from downtown. Three or four lengthy blocks, as it happens.

I grit my teeth, and head back to the car. It's easier to cut over onto the next street, zip over to a spot near the corner, and park there. I don't worry about the signs, because I assume that Officer Friendly and company will have other tasks to keep them busy today.

I get a laugh out of a couple from fellow demonstrators, when I gesture at the signs that I've brought. "Guess what? These are from the first Trump term." Now take a deep breath, pause, and deliver the punchline. "I didn't have to change a word!"

Ba-boomp! But seriously, folks -- I just flew in from Trump's latest power grab. And boy, are my arms tired.

Today feels definitely on the cold and blustery side, with the temperature hovering around 41 degrees. Thankfully, it's not raining, which the Squawker and I have encountered in previous protests. And the wind isn't whipping powerful blasts in our faces, another problem that we've run into before, as well.

Main Street itself has long been a fixture of Trump-related protests, which became weekly events during the regime's infamous 2017 to unwind the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In that sense, it feels like home, though change has come here, as well. The former Congressman's office building is up for sale; presumably, the potted plant that blocked the entrance door during the first Trump era can now be permanently relieved of duty.

I don't take long to fall into the rhythm, as the spontaneous chants begin to kick up: "1-2-3-4, we don't want a tariff war!", "No Kings! No Kings!", "Hey-hey, ho-ho, Trump and Musk have got to go," and of course, this old standby, that seems more pertinent than ever: 

"Tell me, what democracy looks like? This is what democracy looks like!" 


<Almost a decade on from Trump 1.0,
the metaphor remains the same....
Another sign pulled from the 2016 era pile/The Reckoner>

<iii.>
Any protest attracts its share of residual weirdness, and this occasion proves no different. A car bearing the legend, TRUMP 2024, circles continually around the block, sharing lanes with allies honking in support of our endeavor. A blue and white sign virtually takes up the whole rear window: TRUMP'S YOUR DADDY NOW.

The sight provokes a brief round of irritated responses from a couple older women and their friends standing next to me. I defuse their feelings by shrugging it off. "If you mean, father of all the various kids by all these younger women," I assure them, "then yeah, it's technically true. Otherwise, that's about far as it goes."

That earns me the appropriate laugh, and before long, the sign is totally forgotten. The TRUMP 2024 MAGA-Mobile continues up and down Main Street, making me wonder, for what reason? A show of force? A reminder of their presence? Keeping tabs on the opposition? Or maybe it's just another way to pass a lazy Saturday. Who knows?

It takes a little bit fancier footwork, mentally speaking, to ignore the driver's counterpart, a burly, heavyset man toting what looks like a GoPro camera. Over and over, he keeps posing the same question: "Anybody who's being being paid to protest? Anybody who's here, because they're getting paid?"

I'm tempted to pull out my wallet, which has literally sat empty these last couple of years, slide it over his lens, and shout, "Is that have enough street cred for you?" I think better of it, though, and stare blankly straight ahead, as if I didn't hear him. What can I say?

My urban survival training definitely comes in handy, at the oddest of times. I watch him move down the sidewalk, firing his questions at whoever's willing to listen, though it doesn't look like he has many takers. Eventually, I turn my attention back to the goings on Main Street.

Nearby, a boombox is pumping out anthems that seem more eerily appropriate than ever, whether it's "Get Up, Stand Up" (Bob Marley & The Wailers), or Neil Young's signature '90s anthem, "Keep On Rockin' In The Free World":  "We got a thousand points of light/For the homeless man/And a kinder, gentler machine gun hand..." I feel a twinge, then a shudder, which is just enough to make me clutch that sign a little bit tighter. Because you never know, right? Anything is possible out there, on the streets.


<Another Trump 1.0-era sign,
though we didn't produce the graphic --
we just lifted this one, and stuck it on a sign,
'cause we thought it looked great!/The Reckoner>

<iv.>
Between the various chants, and brief catchups with various friends and acquaintances, I check on Squawker, who's staying in the car this time, citing a general feeling of being rundown, and dog tired, that makes standing for an extended length of time impossible.

Around 1:45 p.m., the crowds start to head for the exits. Fifteen minutes to go. By any measure, though, today's event has proven itself a resounding success. There were no incidents, leaving nothing for the cops to do, which pleased them to no end, I'm sure.

From what I've been told, about 1,000 people turned out, on both sides of Main Street; we could see them, long before we zeroed on in our respective parking spaces. That's a thousand more people to tell off King Donald, and hopefully -- some way, somehow -- send him and his aggrieved mob heading for the exits.

Which brings me back where I started, to the central issue -- at times, the only one, it seems -- on the minds of the legacy media: "What good does any protest do? Who is listening out there? Who's paying attention to this?" Though such questions may sound logical, from a basic strategic viewpoint, they are often the wrong ones to raise.

All autocrats thrive on their ability to manage public perception. At times, they may command genuine popular support, like El Salvador's despot, Nyeb Bukele, or twist it toward their own ends, once events stop cooperating -- as Hungary's longtime strongman, Viktor Orban, is doing, to divert attention from his country's continuing slide into impoverished and isolation.

The "shock and awful" approach of Trump's first months back in office -- the blizzard of executive orders, frenzied power grabs, and rapid, often ham-fisted moves to silence his critics -- follows a similar script. The perception of power is often far more important than the reality. The faster a beleaguered opposition leaves the field, the more rapidly the autocrat can cement the impression of an all-powerful, all-knowing godfather, whose will cannot be countered.

Public protest is the most powerful and immediate means of cracking that invincible facade. In certain situations, like the Ceausescu family's fall in Romania, it may often be the only available option, when access to power is denied. However, the fallout need not always be so dramatic, as New Jersey Senator Cory Booker demonstrated last week, with his record-breaking, 25-hour speech, which took place in the run-up to Hands Off!

What amazed me, most of all, wasn't the response to Booker's speech; his abilities in the arena are well-established. What surprised me was a question that I saw on Facebook: "What will it accomplish? What it will have changed?" That's the obvious question, but the answer is not so simple, as Ruth Ben-Ghiat suggests (see link below): 350 million likes on TikTok, 110,000 live followers on YouTube, and 28,000 voicemail messages left for Booker's office.

But there's a greater value that goes beyond mere numbers and statistics, as Booker himself suggested in 2018 -- by flipping the script, and thus, the attention, away from the authoritarian in charge: "I think if we give all of our energy—psychic, mental—toward Donald Trump, it makes him powerful….If you make Donald Trump your central focus, then it’s going to be much harder to get to a sense of common purpose."

Once people stop paying attention, they also stop obeying. This is the risk that keeps autocrats awake at night, because once their subjects have stopped obeying, it also means they've stopped believing. And that's when  autocracy becomes irrelevant, as Ben-Ghiat concludes: "Authoritarians want us to feel hopeless and helpless. It’s up to us to show them that we will not submit quietly and that we believe in struggle and collective action. Like Sen. Booker, each one of us can do something, using the spaces and means we have, to meet this moment with the same resilient and resolute spirit he showed on the Senate floor."

And that is the most important reason for going out and protesting whatever they may have in mind for us, as we all did this weekend. Now is not the time to drop the baton. -- The Reckoner


Links To Go: Hands Off 
(Our Democracy, & Everything Else That Matters!)


Lucid.com: What Senator Booker's Speech
Teaches Us About Effective Resistance Strategy:

https://lucid.substack.com/p/what-sen-bookers-speech-teaches-us

Yahoo News: Angry Protesters From New York To Australia
Assail Trump And Musk In "Hands Off!" Rallies:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hands-off-protests-against-trump-041432862.html?.tsrc=1340&ncid=crm_-1285232-20250405-192-&bt_user_id=cSKPvmJQUVngg5iwA63hPLBDIqSlEUpW5RdVZ%2BN6QMB7%2FUIOYpw13Ydv2FwuXKLM48bSCJ%2FsDe8mYCmuqq7cGr57JYxQHYYF21eMyGpEBqYEpBhDcHY0oE3blbXH9XpK&bt_ts=1743883185997


*Reckoner's
 Note: unlike the legacy media, we will never use the words "Trump administration," because it's a neutral term that normalizes his behavior, and those of his psychopathic sycophants. It's also inaccurate, unless you count the administration of grievances, and repression. We don't; hence, "Trump regime," which suits its overall conduct far more accurately.

Sunday, April 9, 2023

Why Pack Journalism Sucks: Rethinking Chicago's Mayoral Race

 

<Brandon Johnson, after winning last week's mayoral runoff
https://workingfamilies.org/2023/04/victory-in-chicago-for-brandon-johnson/>


Pack Journalism (noun): 
<Journalism that is practiced by reporters in a group and that is marked by uniformity of news coverage and lack of original thought or initiative.>
(Merriam Webster's Dictionary)


<i.>
If you want a fitting metaphor for, "What's wrong with this picture," the opening paragraphs of this Chicago Sun-Times  article, from January 25, 2021, should suffice. The story focuses on a hotly-debated police training center project that Mayor Lori Lightfoot had opposed, as Police Board President, which now apparently seemed far-reaching enough to win her support: 

"Allocating funds for a police academy 'is viewed by many as further affirmation that needs of the people will never be prioritized over those of the police,' she said on that day.

"A month after taking office, Lightfoot dramatically changed her tune and embraced the project she had condemned, making it bigger and more expensive.

"On Wednesday, Lightfoot completed her about-face on a project that was once the target of nationwide protests, cutting the ribbon on the $170 million complex at 701 N. Kilbourn Ave., along the 4300 and 4400 blocks of West Chicago Avenue."

For progressives who'd supported her 2019 election, the groundbreaking marked one of many maddening 180-degree retreats from the themes she'd promoted during her campaign -- including greater accountability over one of the nation's most dysfunctional police departments.

As the writer notes, despite the protests, Liightfoot doubled down -- figuratively, and literally -- on the project, whose cost had once been estimated at $95 million. For Activist Ja'Mal Green, who became Lightfoot's youngest ,mayoral challenger, at 27, the center served as an especially glaring snapshot of his city's misplaced priorities:

“Making sure that young people have safe spaces, job opportunities, apprenticeships. Schools should be open throughout the day and on weekends. These are priorities. We have done none of those things. We couldn’t even get swimming pools open in the summer.

“The fact that young people are slapped with curfews instead of given safe spaces, but we had all of this money to put toward a police academy to do right now, while young people are literally suffering. It’s just about the timing and the prioritization, about how do we care or not care about people in the neighborhoods.”

Fast forward to February 2023. With Lightfoot looking more and more like a one-term mayor, how did the mainstream media characterize her failure to make last week's runoff?

In a word, with the C-word: crime, crime, and more crime, as verdicts poured in from CNN ("
the latest demonstration of growing concerns about crime in one of the nation's largest cities"), The New York Times ("a resounding defeat that reflected widespread dissatisfaction from voters over her handling of crime and policing in the nation's third largest city"), and Vox.com ("a referendum on her first four years in office and on crime in Chicago").




<"I Feel A Little Chilly In Here..."/
The Reckoner>

<ii.>
Some media outlets proved way less restrained than others in their hysteria, such as Politico.com ("Calling All Police: Lightfoot Needs A Lifeline"), the ever-reactionary New York Post ("Chicago Mayoral Race Is A Warning To Big Cities Everywhere"), or Bloomberg.com ("Chicago Mayor's Loss Has One Cause: Crime"). 

Still, we should expect a lot more from our established media outlets, who continued to treat the runoff between the eventual winner, progressive Brandon Johnson, and former Chicago Public Schools Superintendent Paul Vallas, as a personality-driven clash of wills. Only, one that crime (and its twin sister, COVID) would continue to dominate, as any number of headlines suggested:

"Chicago Mayor Candidate Backed By Police Makes It To Runoff" (Bloomberg, 2/28/23).

"Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's Struggle To Be Reelected" (New York Magazine, 2/21/23).

"Chicago Mayor's Race Shows Impact of Crime In COVID's Wake" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/01/23).

"Chicago Mayor's Race Dominated By Concerns About City Crime" (US News & World Report, 2/25/23).

"In Chicago Mayor's Race, Two Hopefuls Reflect Democrats' Split"
(Associated Press, 3/19/03)

"Progressive And Centrist Democrats Clash In Chicago Mayoral Race" (Financial Times, 4/06/23).

Notice the uniformity in style, and tone? This is what pack journalism does -- boil the prevailing narrative into one convenient, soggy, steam-pocked tea bag. Once the gatekeepers on the ground settle on one, nothing else is allowed to pierce the fog that results.



<"Idle Chatter":
The Reckoner>


<iii.>
Much of the coverage of the resulting Chicago runoff focused on claims that Johnson either planned to "defund the police," or at least, make that idea the centerpiece of his policymaking approach, if he ever made it to City Hall.

That seems like the gist of Politco.com's piece, which characterizes Johnson as "the left-wing challenger who’s threatening to deny her (Lightfoot) even a spot in the runoff." The writer makes a number of credibility-stretching claims, like this one: "What's more striking, and what's at the heart of Lightfoot's offensive, is that some of the same polls indicate that defunding the police is highly unpopular with Black voters."

Which polls, exactly? And which segment of Black voters? We're never told, beyond "some surveys I've seen," and "Polling from the campaigns and outside groups" -- surely, not the most reliable barometers in any race, no matter how heated, right?

Not done with speaking for all Black voters, the writer makes his biases clearer as the story progresses ("
Vallas has resurrected himself as the tough-on-crime favorite of the Fraternal Order of Police [FOP]"). For added punch, he also nods to the election of New York Mayor Eric Adams, another rising star of the stack-'em-like-cordwood crowd.

So 
what did Johnson have to say about all this, exactly? Plenty, if you visit the Issues section of his campaign website, as Politico's writer should have done:

"As mayor, I will chart a new strategy for public safety, rather than relying on the same failed approaches that have brought trauma to communities across the city. I will work with police and first responders to invest in community-based interventions that de-escalate conflict, reduce violence and make our neighborhoods safer. I will create an Office of Community Safety, reopen the city’s mental health clinics, fully fund year-round youth employment, and foster partnerships between communities and law enforcement to make critical investments preventing crime before it happens."

Johnson proceeds to offer a detailed overview of how he plans to attack the situation, "by investing in the basics: good schools, good jobs, housing and mental health." His proposals range from reopening the city's 14 public health mental health clinics, to doubling the number of youth summer jobs to 60,000.

As you'd expect, much of Vallas's website focuses on ideas for revamping the Chicago Police Department. His proposals range from allowing former officers to return with the same rank that they left, to boosting the number of detectives by 10 percent, and hiring more officers to patrol public transit.

The closest he comes to acknowledging different (read: non-stacking) ideas is his call for a summit of city, state and officials to discuss "holistic solutions" to crime, such as "street violence interruption, youth violence reduction, youth diversion, and returning citizen support agencies and programs."

How Vallas planned to pull off such a gathering, after pledging so much political capital to his FOP fanbase, is anybody's guess. Vallas's loss makes the point moot, I suppose, but it's a fair question to ask future stack-'em-like-cordwood advocates. Vallas wasn't the first of that breed, and he won't be the last.



<Joint Rally Poster:
Bernie Sanders' Facebook page>

<iv.>
For all the hoopla projected onto Lightfoot's missteps, and the runoff that followed, what's striking is how many Chicagoans just shrugged off the whole spectacle. Only about 35 percent bothered to cast a ballot, which is roughly half the turnout for presidential elections. 

Judged by that metric, Johnson's seems less impressive than it looks. Yet, in another sense, the game wasn't close as the box score indicated. As the ballot counting continues (through April 18), Johnson's total has grown to 302,619 votes, versus 282,406 for Vallas. Though it's hardly a rout, the resulting margin -- just over 20,000 votes -- is decisive enough.

Among those who did vote, there seemed a clear interest in taking a different approach. Yet, by and large, the mainstream media largely missed the boat, with some exceptions. The American Prospect and The Intercept did a good job of peeking behind the curtains of power broking, as well as public media outlets, like WTTW (see below).

But those were the exceptions. The most damaging effect of pack journalism is that the good questions never get asked, which ensures that good ideas never get a hearing.

Let's start with the obvious ones. Statistics show one in four children, and one in 10 adults, are living in poverty, or incomes of 50% below the federal poverty line. Seventy-six percent of students receive free or subsidized meals, and an additional 16,000 students are homeless.

With so many struggling to survive, how can Chicago call itself a world-class city? Yes, crime has ratcheted to levels not seen since the 1990s, but aren't such glaring disparities a key driver of it? 
How much difference, realistically, would putting a cop on every corner make in such an environment, when crime becomes a more attractive, if high risk, option?

How could someone like Vallas credibly handle those issues, given his longtime involvement with the for-profit (charter) school movement, and a campaign funded largely by the city's wealthy white power structure? How deeply does he support core Democratic priorities, when he once toyed with switching parties?

Voters should also have gotten a deeper dive into city finances, which largely took a back seat to all the feverish chatter about crime. As mayor-elect, Johnson will inherit estimated deficits of $360 million for the city, and $628 million for its schools. How much can he accomplish, especially if the City Council and state lawmakers don't pass all the new taxes he's proposing to fund his programs?

The power structure needed to hear the toughest questions of all. As the Sun-Times noted (see my previous post, "When In Doubt, Stop Digging"), the Black political establishment lined up mostly behind Vallas, almost to a person. So did Illinois's senior Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin. 

Why did so many of them endorse someone whom voters have rejected for governor (2002 primary), lieutenant governor (2014), and yes, mayor of Chicago (2019)?  How can somebody who's struck out so often at the ballot box ever present himself as a serious candidate?

We'll never know, because those questions barely get asked, so nobody had to worry about trying to answer them. The problem is that accountability and transparency are critical ingredients to ensuring a vital democracy, or at least, one that bears some resemblance to what you studied in government class.

Spoon feeding voters a steady diet of "beauty pageant" or "horse race" models of news coverage that reduce issues to mere personality clashes, or mindless handicapping (Who's up? Who's down?), drastically undercuts those ideals.

But this is the final, unhappy result, when journalists hunt in packs. The swells can sleep soundly behind for yet another night, knowing they've copped another hall pass for their sneaky behavior, because the watchdogs are dozing along with them, or too distracted to care much themselves.

More than anything else, I hope that Johnson's victory finally forces some long-overdue discussion of the social costs of enshrining a top-down, pay-to-play political culture, and who really benefits from it. It sure hasn't been the average Chicagoan. --The Reckoner


Links To Go: Hurry. Hurry,
Before The Pack Tosses A Distraction Bomb
:

The American Prospect:
Brandon Johnson's Ground Game
Defeats Obama Machine In Chicago
:
https://prospect.org/politics/2023-04-05-brandon-johnson-defeats-obama-machine-chicago/

Brandon Johnson: The Plan For A Safer Chicago:
https://www.brandonforchicago.com/issues/public-safety

Politico.com: Calling All Police: Lightfoot Needs A Lifeline
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/28/lightfoot-chicago-mayoral-election-on-politics-00084669

Paul Vallas: Paul's Comprehensive Public Safety Plan:
https://www.paulvallas2023.com/publicsafety

The Intercept:
Is Chicago Mayoral Candidate
Paul Vallas A Republican?:

https://theintercept.com/2023/04/04/chicago-mayor-paul-vallas-republican/

WTTW: Brandon Johnson Defeats Paul Vallas:
https://news.wttw.com/2023/04/04/paul-vallas-leads-brandon-johnson-tight-chicago-mayoral-race