Note: The views and opinions expressed in blog/editorial posts are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the views or opinions of Misbar.
The second that any aspect of American life takes a baby step to the left, people start screaming about how socialism is threatening the country, or that the USA is heading to full blown communism. For someone like me, who was babysat by a grandmother who fled communist Poland and a grandfather who never returned to The Ukraine after World War Two, it’s incredibly amusing to read. Because no matter how far America is shifting to the left, a Stalinist famine is definitely not on the horizon.
Yet recently, a journalist that I respect, Matt Taibbi, published an article titled “The Sovietization of the American Press.” Usually, articles that warn Americans that their country is facing the threat of communism come from right-wing sources who use fear mongering to swell up opposition to left-wing ideas. But Taibbi writes for Rolling Stone, has won awards for his writing, and has actually lived in the Soviet Union – giving his statements much more credibility.
Taibbi is no doubt a talented writer. But I happen to completely disagree with the argument in his piece. As the title “The Sovietization of the American Press” states, Taibbi argues that the American press is undergoing a communistic style shift over the Biden administration. But does this really hold up?
Undoubtedly, there have been many favorable news headlines when it comes to President Biden. But these titles hardly resemble something from a communist dictatorship, and as time passes, harsher headlines will become the norm. Here’s why:
Firstly, there is often a “honeymoon” period when it comes to new American presidents. This is when the public and the press both treat the newly inaugurated president favorably. Yes, that wasn’t the case with President Trump, but that’s hardly surprising, as Trump defied most presidential norms and regularly attacked the media. We’re currently experiencing a presidential honeymoon period. It will fade.
Secondly, the coverage only seems so positive because of what came before. On January 6th, 2021, following a series of controversies, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol Building. Of course the coverage of a president who isn't accused by some of trying to stage a military coup is going to seem more positive in comparison.
Thirdly, some positive changes have happened. One of the headlines that Taibbi highlights as being “Soviet” is the following: “Biden stimulus showers money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty.” Sure, the term “showering money” is excessive. But stating that poverty has been sharply cut is not. Reliable studies back this claim up. For instance, Columbia University’s Center on Poverty & Social Policy states that the American Rescue Plan Act could cut child poverty by more than one half. And just for context, Columbia University is hardly a communist organization, not when it charges $58,920 a year in tuition.
Fourthly, many current headlines are critical of the Biden administration. Here’s some proof. Currently, according to YouGov, Yahoo is the most popular news site in America. The top headline at the time of writing on Yahoo News is this: “Biden’s multi trillion-dollar infrastructure jam.” The article states that the current president’s next plan could lead to a dead end. That hardly sounds like a state-run communistic headline. But maybe that’s a one-off exception. In that case, the second most popular news site in America, according to YouGov, is NBC. The current headline at the time of writing is, “In wake of shootings, Senate renews efforts to overhaul U.S. gun laws.” Ok, that title is not exactly negative toward the government, but it’s hardly Soviet style praise.
Of course, Taibbi has a point in his article. It’s important for the press to hold the government to account. And there is a legitimate risk of this falling by the wayside. He highlights how The New York Times reacted differently over President Trump and President Biden’s similar decisions over the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Specifically, he notes how when President Trump stated that he wouldn’t punish the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince, the paper ran the headline: “In Extraordinary Statement, Trump Stands With Saudis Despite Khashoggi Killing,” But when Biden made the same decision, the paper covered the news in the following way: “Biden Won’t Penalize Saudi Crown Prince Over Khashoggi’s Killing, Fearing Relations Breach."
But this is hardly evidence of a significant “Sovietization” of the news. Instead, it highlights media bias. The New York Times has a left wing bias. It’s unsurprising that a biased newspaper would act in a biased way.
You can claim the exact same thing with Fox News, but vice versa. When President Trump side stepped taking action on the Saudi Crown Prince, the site ran this headline: ‘Trump Contradicts CIA assessment on Khashoggi killing.” But when President Biden side stepped, Fox News ran this headline: “Biden administration facing criticism for giving Saudi prince a ‘pass’ for Khashoggi killing.” You don't need to be an expert in media to realize that different news sites have different biases. This is just evidence of a fact. It is not “Sovietization.”
In the Soviet Union, the government heavily controlled the press. In the United States, the First Amendment strictly forbids the government from prohibiting the press. Yes, Taibbi can claim that, on the whole, the US press is treating President Biden much more preferably than it treated President Trump. But to say that a “Sovietization” is taking place is just factually wrong. There are plenty of sources criticizing President Biden, just as there were plenty of sources that praised President Trump. And unless the First Amendment is repealed, then there is little chance of a “Sovietization” actually taking place.
