Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski depicted in the Washington Post, which reported that his hiring by CNN “could be very valuable” to the network. (photo: John Minchillo/AP)
Faced with the destruction of journalistic values by the corrupting effects of the profit motive, journalists can either stand up for the principles that brought many of them into the career in the first place—or else identify with the corruption, telling themselves that they’re siding with the smart money even as it destroys the institutions that form the basis for their profession.
Both reactions were on display in the wake of CNN‘s decision to hire recently fired Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. The conservative New York Post (6/24/16) quoted an anonymous “TV insider” saying that “CNN is facing a near internal revolt over the Corey hiring,”with another unnamed source saying, “Everyone at CNN — and even people who used to work there — are pissed about Trump’s former campaign manager being hired on salary.”
“Female reporters and producers especially…are organizing and considering publicly demanding” that Lewandowski be dropped, while “Latinos and others in the newsroom…may do a public letter” protesting the hire, sources told the New York Post‘s Emily Smith and Ian Mohr.
Not so fast, said Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi (6/27/16). “I get the argument that he was a bully,” he says a “prominent staffer” at CNN told him. “But I also get why we hired him. There aren’t many people who know more than him about how [Trump’s] campaign thinks and works. That could be very valuable to us over the next few months.”
(The staffer, “like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to alienate their employer.” The Washington Post‘s Eric Wemple pointed out the irony of protecting the identity of workers sticking up for company policy: “These sources requested anonymity to make glowing comments about their employer.”)
Farhi also cited CNN‘s in-house media reporter, Brian Stelter, who said on CNN‘s media show Reliable Sources (6/26/16): “There are some people that are uncomfortable with the hiring, and there might be some awkward moments in the makeup room. But everyone also said they understood the hiring, understood the logic of it.”
Farhi gives an account of “the knocks on Lewandowski,” which makes it clear that the objections go far beyond his being “a bully”:
He enforced Trump’s ever-growing blacklist on media organizations whose coverage has displeased the presumptive Republican nominee (including the Washington Post); he confined reporters to a media “pen” during Trump’s campaign events (and once pushed and threatened to blackball a CNN reporter who defied the edict); he physically restrained a reporter, Michelle Fields, who was asking Trump questions after an event in March (he was criminally charged in that incident, although the charges were later dropped); and he reportedly made inappropriate comments to female reporters on the Trump beat.
But Farhi also explained “the logic” of the hiring, spelling out what makes adding Lewandowski to the staff “very valuable”:
Given that the cable networks analyze and discuss the news far more than they actually report it, Lewandowski will be pressed into service over many hours, a senior correspondent said.
The network already has two Trump partisans in its pundit lineup: former Reagan political operative Jeffrey Lord and conservative columnist Kayleigh McEnany. But it needed another to meet the constant demand for Trump surrogates, he added. “There are many baby birds that need feeding”—that is, many programs that want a guest or a panelist to spout Trump’s views, he said.
Note that Trump’s views, which Lewandowski has been hired to spout, include a startling range of smears against Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, women and others. Note, too, that the phrase “spout Trump’s views” is particularly appropriate because, as Farhi points out, CNN is unlikely to get much in the way of actual information about the Trump campaign out of Lewandowski, who
has acknowledged that he signed a nondisclosure agreement with Trump that prevents him from disparaging the candidate or revealing proprietary information about the campaign. That agreement presumably puts some limits on what he might actually reveal to CNN’s viewers about the campaign’s inner workings over the next four months.
But Lewandowski’s value goes beyond having another in-house spouter:
A further potential benefit to having Lewandowski on the payroll may be in improving CNN’s access to Trump, said a CNN reporter. Although Trump hasn’t been shy about doing interviews on CNN—and CNN hasn’t been stingy in covering his rallies and news conferences—having a former Trump lieutenant can’t hurt when it comes to seeking access to the candidate or resolving issues with his campaign, he said.
So hiring someone as a commentator for your news channel who is so opposed to journalism that he’s actually had charges filed against him for assaulting a reporter is a smart move because it will ensure you can continue to give his former boss a platform—a boss whose attitude toward the press can be summed up in his remark: “I would never kill them, but I do hate them. And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.”
CNN‘s Jake Tapper interviewing his new colleague, Corey Lewandowski (6/27/16)
The conflicting responses of journalists to the Lewandowski acquisition were on display in one edition of USA Today. On the op-ed page was former NPR ombud Alicia Shepard (6/27/16), who praised the hire as “a smart move for CNN, which is, after all, a business dependent on increasing viewership”:
While they might lose some viewers, they may also bring in some who loitered at Fox and now might tune in to CNN just to hear Lewandowski.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s political theater, and you have to have big names to fill the seats. Lewandowski will do just that.
Dismissing Lewandowski’s record of attacking journalists as “a long history of being controversial,” Shepard scoffs that “he wasn’t hired for his personality.” Asserting that journalists “seem offended at CNN hiring Lewandowski because they don’t like or respect him after working with him or reading about him,” Shepard bizarrely compares him to a hypothetical hire of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, “who also happens to be the wife of disgraced former New York congressman Anthony Weiner“—as if not wanting to work with someone who assaults your colleagues is the same thing as having a personal distaste for someone’s spouse.
Shepard also brushes aside the fact that Lewandowski “signed a non-disclosure agreement where he’s promised to not disparage the campaign,” equating that to Donna Brazile as a commentator: “She may have no non-disclosure agreement because as a Democratic strategist and an official with the Democratic National Committee, she doesn’t need one.” That’s a non sequitur, since the point of bringing up the non-disclosure agreement is that Lewandowski is not only a partisan, but is legally obligated to be an uninformative one.
Meanwhile, on page 2B of the Money section, USA Today media columnist Rem Rieder (6/27/16) cites the Lewandowski hire as something that “encapsulates the utter bankruptcy of a practice that is awful but nevertheless has become a widely accepted part of the scene.” While noting that “why CNN thinks it’s a good idea to have such designated defenders, for any candidate of any political stripe, is completely lost on me,” he explains why hiring this particular spinmeister is particularly outrageous:
At least some of the talking heads have deep political resumes and have witnessed many aspects of the campaign process. But that’s hardly the case with Lewandowski. His background is largely as a Trump guy. And not so much as a strategist — Trump is his own strategist — or deep thinker, but as a right-hand man, a body man and an enforcer. So there is little reason to suspect Lewandowski will add much insight and perspective to the political dialogue.
And Riemer doesn’t think the legal restriction on Lewandowski talking about the one major campaign that he’s been involved with is irrelevant:
Even if Lewandowski wanted to say something critical of his old boss — and there is zero indication he would — he would be legally prohibited from doing so. So CNN has essentially placed a Trump propaganda minister — at a hefty salary, according to published reports — on its payroll.
Then there’s the matter of Lewandowski’s deep-seated antagonism toward the enterprise of journalism that he’s been hired to be a part of:
He has blacklisted news outlets that filed stories the Trump campaign didn’t like, among them Politico, BuzzFeed and the Washington Post. He manhandled then-Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields and was criminally charged, although the charges were dropped. He has consigned reporters to a press “pen” during Trump rallies, and dealt vigorously with those who tried, as they should, to roam the premises and interview people — cover news. Last year, Lewandowski had a confrontation with one of his new colleagues, CNN reporter Noah Gray, who was trying to interview a group of protesters. Lewandowski told the journalist, who was simply trying to do his job, “Inside the pen, or I will pull your credentials,” the Washington Post reported.
Media outlets could stand up to the Trump campaign’s attempts to delegitimize and scapegoat journalists. Or they can do the “smart move” of rewarding people who thus abuse them with a lucrative spotlight. It’s hard to do both.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @JNaureckas.
It’s a dangerous slide for a nation and journalism when a big network like CNN decides to be more FOX-like.
“And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.”
Of course, he should know from lying and disgusting
And, of course, this move proves his point, if not his perspective.
I will never watch CNN again. Actually, I’m petty tired of most cable supposedly “news organizations”. The only place anyone seems to tell what is really going on here and around the world is “Free Speech Radio & TV”.
Maybe one motive was to assure “access” in case of a Trump presidency.
A casual scroll through internet search engines reveals that, far from there being a “Trump campaign attempt to delegitimize and scapegoat journalists”, it is quite the opposite. The corporate media bias is OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Killery Klinton.
Such as this–http://www.thewrap.com/trump-supporter-upset-after-being-mocked-on-snl-tears-have-been-shed-video/;
And this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article84281032.html;
And this: http://lapostexaminer.com/trump-racist-medias-fault/2016/06/06;
And this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/analysis-trump-uniquely-obsessed-with-media-portrayal-of-campaign/.
In fact, Howard Kurtz has been doing you job for your you, FAIR: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/16/how-media-are-portraying-trumps-campaign-apocalypse-now.html.
Nowhere in this hit piece, is there any numbers presented to prove your claim. It does not exist just because you say it does. Provide proof of your allegations.
And, as far as Michelle Fields is concerned, her antics have been discredited. You can see no one assaulted her in this video: http://linkis.com/Y342N.
So to paraphrase Renae Ward’s post:
How dare FAIR not provide rigorous, numerical support for its allegations!
By the way, here’s 4 disconnected and context-free links that prove that the corporate media is OVERWHELMINGLY biased towards Clinton.
Hmmm… Pot calling the kettle black?
Care to point out any inaccuracies, John? Otherwise, your mockery of facts are duly noted.
OK. It’s wildly inaccurate to claim that 4 pieces indicate that the entire media is OVERWHELMINGLY biased towards Clinton.
Really? Tell that to the female Trump supporter in San Jose who got egged by anti-Trump protesters, yet the headline underneath the photo said something to the tune of “Trump supporters attack protesters”. Until Facebook posters called them on it. Only then did that FOX affiliate apologize.
That photo was a lot more credible than that woman who claimed somebody grabbed her and roughed her up at a Trump rally!
Also, take note, John, of a very well-researched article by a FAIR reporter using–*gasp*–NUMBERS: https://fair.org/home/buzzfeeds-obama-coverage-is-99-percent-uncritical-and-borderline-creepy/
Really? Tell that to the female Trump supporter in San Jose who got egged by anti-Trump protesters, yet the headline underneath the photo said something to the tune of “Trump supporters attack protesters”.
________________________________________________
OK. If you think she reads here, I’ll have a go:
Hey lady who got egged: Sorry that happened, and I don’t know what you and your assault have to do with the argument I’m having, but for some reason Renae here thinks that pointing out 4 pieces of allegedly biased media demonstrates that the entire media is OVERWHELMINGLY– her ALL CAPS, not mine… I know, I know…– biased towards Clinton. What Renae doesn’t seem to get is that 4 things– which she put forth completely devoid of context, by the way– outta the bazillion things that the media produces doesn’t really demonstrate anything; it’s kind of a numbers game: even if those 4 things she cites to are blatantly biased, it’s like .001% of the things the media put out. So it can’t really demonstrate anything, let alone demonstrate this OVERWHELMING bias she insists exists. And what’s particularly odd is that she accuses FAIR of not providing sufficient evidence for its assertions while she’s doing the exact same thing.
Well, anyway… I’m not sure why Renae dragged you into this, but, again: Sorry you got egged. Hope everything’s OK now.
Yeah, your stale apology does nothing to prove your point. Congrats.
“Killery” lol are you getting paid by the meme, kiddo?
Nah. Just telling it like it is.
The media have changed drastically over the last decade or so. The print media of yore took your money and provided a product. The electric media, however, get payed by the hit. You don’t get many hits with honest journalism. You get hits with flat out lies.
CNN is awful. Fire all of them and keep Jeffrey Lords.
Once again CNN outfoxes Fox:-(
Typically stellar reporting FAIR. It once was that the political elite attempted to hide their corruption. Now it’s so ubiquitous they don’t even bother. Alicia Shepard of PBS, a wholly owned subsidiary of BNSF Railroad says, “It’s political theater.” Precisely the problem. CNN: the Corporate News Network. Who knew it was merely a nest of rebels and radicals? Aside, one day I went into Chicago’s flagship library, Harold Washing downtown, and it, as if toilet paper had what probably would have shocked Naomi Klein right out of her intellect: streams on the floor, an unspooling roll of ribbons advertising Target sweatshop stores. Literally, although not in those terms exactly. No doubt it was to generate desperately needed revenue. But why can’t the legal authorities not tax Target, rather than allow themselves to be space for corporate branding to provide said revenue. I even saw it several years ago, at one of Chicago’s most important parks. It was sponsored by Nike sweatshop shoes. Is there to be no space safe from corporate branding? True that Renae Ward. Or, you might refer to her by the sobriquet Jennifer Matsui bestowed on her at Counterpunch: Lady Klynton Kissinger Sachs. There’s no question in my mind that Trump’s preferable to Clinton, only because the latter is so odious. A Clinton presidency likely means a nuclear war because what makes her even more dangerous than her likely 2 predecessors, is she’ll have to prove more adamantly her military swagger, just by virtue of her gender. I believe in considering wealthy people, like Bertrand Russel’s saints, guilty until proven innocent. John Mellencamp? Exonerated. Trump has done nothing similar to disabuse me of the notion he’s nothing but a dollar-bill changer and one who scrubs the pimples off his face with $15 bills. Still progressive journalists are making a very valid case for choosing Trump over Kissinger-Sachs. For example here and here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44953.htm http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/to-my-haters-a-rejoinder-to-halle-and-chomsky/ Trump has had the temerity to announce the truth on the campaign trail 7 or 8 times. Not Killery. She says whatever the political expediency of the moment requires. Remember only 18 months ago she was moaning poverty? Poor Killery. Every one should be cursed with the poverty that sees you collecting a quarter mil for bloviating to the Wall Street bankers who are going to buy you the Whitey House. Right John Q. Look at Rush Blowhard. I don’t know his salary now, but it was reported in 2003, as Bush was gearing up for his illegal invasion of aggression of Iraq, almost contemporaneous with Clear Channel banning of all things Cat Stevens song Peace Train, a whopping $256 million over 6 years. That’s more money than Alex Rodriguez makes, with the difference that at least the latter provides a service. Limbaugh just lies loud. Do the math on that. That’s $43 million annually, $800,000 weekly. That’s like winning the lottery every week for a generation. Nice work if you can lie loud.
Not Killery. She says whatever the political expediency of the moment requires.
___________________________________________________________
If that’s your gripe against Clinton, that’s fine.
But I think you should realize that Trump is even worse in that regard: he will say anything to anyone, the underlying motivation being whatever he thinks will get him the most exposure or accolades from his beloved poorly-educated supporters.
Perhaps I should’ve guessed by your irrational and blind comments to my post, that you were predisposed to Killery Klinton . You’re just as bad as those you accuse of being “poorly-educated”.
Didn’t work in the UK, won’t work here in the USA. It was just arrogant and dumb of Obama to go preaching to the UK about being sent to “the back of the queue.” Sounds like being sent “the back of t he bus”, or “sent to the corner”!
My comments to your posts were neither irrational nor blind. You took FAIR to task for not supporting its assertions while simultaneously levying your own unsupported assertions that the media is biased towards Clinton. Then when I called you out on it, you changed the argument into being about a lady who got egged,
I got that “poorly-educated” line direct from Trump. You know that, right? Trump’s exact words were “We won with the poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.” If that doesn’t speak volumes about what an absolute con man he is, I don’t know what does.
I’ll admit that I’m predisposed to Clinton, but only because I absolutely hate Trump. If there was someone else running against her, I’d actually have a choice. But instead, her opponent is an lecherous lying oompa loompa in a flashy suit and bad hair, a complete bully, and a whiny crybaby who was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple. Next to that, I’ll take Clinton any day and twice on Sunday. At least she’s not a reality show farce.
I could’ve done more articles, but you would say 10 articles aren’t enough because they contradict your faith and opinion (by the way, the Howard Kurtz article contained more citations, but you didn’t bother, did you?). I know Trump says dumb things but he wasn’t Secretary of State and urged an overthrow of a legit government and cackled “we came, we saw, he died” upon learning of Khaddafi’s lynching by the same terrorists who would go on to kill an American diplomat in Benghazi.
I don’t call her “Killery” for nothing, you know.