One of the phrases I read this morning seemed to perfectly encapsulate the man who wore so many hats for his family, community, and country.
That is precisely how I’ll remember him–as a remarkably compassionate, empathetic and forgiving human being. It was his superhuman, superhero strength, and I’m certain, at times, it was his greatest vulnerability.
He was political rarity, especially in today’s gladiator arena that is DC–kind and earnest while also driven and resolved, the stuff of a righteous warrior. The loss is likely still too raw, too soon to fully appreciate how greatly he’ll be missed.
Rest in peace, Statesman.
Photo: The New York Times
I shot this photo in Washington, DC, on the occasion of the first Women’s March, the day after the inauguration of the 45th President, Donald J. Trump. Shortly before this was taken, I found myself in a sea of women flooding a metro station, politely and patiently ascending the escalator and staircase that spit them out closer to the Mall. The mood was upbeat, unified. They sang and cheered. They chanted. They poured into the streets and moved toward the Mall. The streets near the event stage were already packed—women, men, children, arm-in-arm shoulder-to-shoulder.
It was on that walk toward the Capitol that I took this photo. It was one of the few images from the day that I printed and framed. I’ve kept it on one of my desks. People who’ve come through my office may have thought it an endorsement of impeachment. I did not frame it for that reason, though even back then, I had an educated, odds-were-with-me expectation that a Trump Presidency would be disastrous and untoward. Anyone who watched him for 25+ years, as a unethical businessman and epic misogynist, knew it wouldn’t end well for the American people.
It seemed likely that his Presidential fuck-ups and conduct would be so monumental—unsuited to the job that he is—that impeachment might one day mire and divide the nation. And here we are.
Rather, I framed the photo because it felt particularly iconic for the day. It was more about the women marching than the man many were protesting.
The sign the woman crafted is a bubble-style mailing envelope, cut and splayed open. I know this because the night before the March, I’d followed the Maps app to a local office supplies store, where women had overrun the shop in search of poster board and Sharpies. Everyone in the store, it seemed, had traveled to DC with the hopes of locking down those creative supplies once in town. The store ran dry of sign-making stuff, necessitating the creative use of the large mailing envelopes for sign media. They started selling like wildfire. I even bought one. During the March, I wore mine sandwich-board style. It read: “1st Amendment Guardian” in plain black Sharpie.
The woman in my photo wrote IMPEACH on her splayed-open mailing envelope and walked with confidence toward Congress. Maybe she felt prophetic. Maybe it was just wishful thinking. And here we are.
By Gretchen A. Peck
Investigative journalism is often the stuff of drama. Exposing corruption, abuse, inequality and crimes are inherently good, juicy stories—not to mention a core competency and duty for newspapers. It wouldn’t surprise anyone in news to hear that investigative journalism is not just popular among broadcast audiences, but with people who read newspapers in print and online. After all, investigative reporting helps people; it informs communities; it changes things; and thankfully, for the news organization, it brings in revenue.
Read more at Editor & Publisher magazine:
The New York Times published a bad headline.
In the newspaper’s defense, headline writing is sometimes problematic. At the 12th hour, before the presses roll, when you’re tasked with finite space, painfully few characters and a need to quote a President’s national address, this stuff happens.
The headline was misleading as it read, but there was a lack of space to lay out the “backgrounder” context that puritanical media critics wanted. They wanted a headline that called the President a “racist.”
They wanted the headline to scream: He said this stuff, but of course he doesn’t really mean it.
They wanted the headline to tell the full story. Headlines never do.
And, of course, this particular headline was never going to meet that expectation. It was never going to say, “Today, the President spoke insincerely about racism and gun culture.”
It was never going to say that a.) Because that’s a full sentence. b.) It’s editorializing in what is intended to be a straight news piece.
Critics, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “The media is biased!” And then, at the same time, expect us to be biased, to make a qualification or judgment — and blatantly, on the front page, above the fold.
Certain members of the media (looking at you, Joan Walsh) piled on and stoked the embers of a digital subscription revolt against the Times. Never mind that 2,000 newspapers have shuttered in just a few years. Never mind that 95% of the time, The New York Times masthead somehow, incredibly, produces important deep-diving work that smaller papers cannot, because they lack the resources.
Never mind all the other good work by staff not tasked with political coverage. Never mind that many of them are trying to decide tonight whether they should pay their rent or buy groceries this month.
Never mind that every day is a mental, physical and spiritual succubus on journalists trying to cover this Administration.
This anger against The New York Times is misplaced. It’s bubbling up because of a President, who is never held to account for his words, his policies, his opacity and gaslighting, his indecency, and his criminal conduct. Of course, the President was insincere when he read his scripted statement. His uncomfortable body language. The sniffing. The stumbling over the words. The legacy of racist, violent rhetoric, archived and freely searchable on the Internet. The predictable 180-degree spin on Twitter the very next day.
Does The New York Times need to spell it all out for the American people in a pithy 15-character headline?
Are we that daft? ~ G.A. Peck
Here’s what The New York Times had to say about it:
By Gretchen A. Peck
In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, the press received some rather harsh criticism about its national coverage. Type in “press failures of 2016,” and Google will unkindly deliver a long list of critical analysis about the media and how it handled the Trump vs. Clinton battle for the White House.
Disillusioned voters blamed the press for a failure to present Trump as a viable nominee, let alone as their likely future president. Some declared that journalists missed the story of the Trump voter entirely.
That type of criticism—that the press had missed the Trump story—wasn’t entirely fair, according to Peter Wallsten, senior politics editor at the Washington Post.
Read more at:
Caught off guard by this presser today, but here are some of the things we’ll be talking about in newsrooms in the aftermath:
• Right on time. No dramatic delay. All business – true to character.
• Investigation is formally closed. Mueller has resigned as the Special Counsel.
• Wants the report to speak for itself. (How many Americans have actually read it?)
• Stressed conclusions: Russian operatives launched a concerted, multipronged attack on the American election and election systems. They hacked computers, including voter registration systems in several States (see: Florida, where they had notable success) and the DNC’s email system, where they obtained, weaponized and disseminated damaging information on a Presidential candidate.
• Another conclusion: Posing as patriotic Americans on social media channels, Russians created a highly effective disinformation campaign that expressly seeded resentment and pitted Americans against Americans.
• The Special Counsel’s investigation was legally instated, because it was vital to the nation that we understood these attempts to politically destabilize the country, manipulate American voters and exert control over public/foreign policy.
• The investigation did not find the President of the United States “guilty” of criminal conspiracy/obstruction, NOT because there was no evidence to support that allegation but because the Special Counsel and the Department of Justice’s hands were tied in a long-standing rule that allows for the investigation of a sitting President but absolutely prohibits the criminal prosecution of a sitting President (while in Office). The Department of Justice protocol also requires that a President be removed from Office not by way of the Department of Justice alone, but through an Act of Congress. The Special Counsel, therefore, provided the findings of the report and entrusted members of Congress to digest it and make the determination if Impeachment of the President is warranted.
• Mueller credited his new boss, AG Barr, for making the majority of the report public. He stated that he has not been encouraged nor prohibited from providing public or Congressional testimony by anyone, including AG Barr.
• If he is called to testify before Congress, he will stay within the content of the report. “The report is my testimony,” he said.
• He thanked the members of his team – the attorneys, the staff, the FBI – for their work. He said they are “of the highest integrity.”
• Robert Mueller’s last words to the American people as his job comes to an end: Foreign agents attempted to fuck with (paraphrasing) your Nation. They came for you. They came at you. And they’re going to do it again. “[This] deserves the attention of every American,” he concluded.