When News Broke

I'm Aisha Roscoe and this is The Sunday Story, where we go beyond the news of the day to bring you one big story. So, I've been going on some dates now, not a lot, but a little bit. And dating is a fascinating activity. You know, you meet people, you win an otherwise met, and they say something you might not expect. One guy believe vaccines cause autism, you know, that's been debunked multiple times, but you know, I didn't press it, and then he also said that Kamala Harris isn't black. Well, she didn't go to Howard and, you know, her dad is black, but I let that go. Another one had some some interesting theories about the shape of the earth. This was after a nice time, I really enjoyed this person. And so when they mentioned this, I said, oh, no, oh, no. But I wasn't ultimately deterred, you know, look, people think different things. People think different things. And of course, this isn't just about, you know, conversations over glass of wine or margarita with somebody who you just talking to, we're trying to have some fun with. Some of these ideas have also reached the highest levels of the White House and are reshaping our country and our world. So how did we get here like to this moment where so much quote unquote news isn't based in the truth? That's what we're going to explore today in a segment from engines of outrage, a new mini series from the landslide podcast distributed by the NPR network and hosted by reporter Ben Bradford. Here's Ben. It used to be even just a few decades ago that Americans largely used and trusted the same news sources. Now the way we get basic facts about the world is polarized. We are increasingly split into separate bubbles absorbing different information that paints conflicting pictures of the same events. And the introduction to the series, he goes on to explain that our information ecosystem devised into two distinct sides, conservative and progressive. And these bubbles follow different rules. Only in one of these media bubbles do a huge portion of voters consistently believe a presidential election was stolen. Only one of them has led Americans to reject basic health interventions. COVID vaccines need to be withdrawn from the market now. Only one has left its audience with the impression that climate change is not real. Crime is spiking, and a host of outlandish conspiracy theories. Migrants are grilling pets in America. That is true. After the break, engines of outrage takes us back to the moment where our shared media ecosystem split to find out if we can sew it back together. Stay with us. This message comes from Aliens Travel Insurance. You wanted to take your travel adventures to new heights, so you decided to take on a hiking tour of the Dolomites. You were ready for the climb. Your knee? Not so much. Now you've had to swap out your hiking boots for a leg brace. Emergency medical benefits can help when injuries or illness knock you off your feet. For more at allionstravelinsurance.com This week on the NPR Politics Podcast. For months, the president's immigration strategy has been on full display. Now some Republicans are having a hard time defending it. Yeah, I think that's a good weather vein for where the politics are headed in all of this. Cracks in the MAGA Coalition. This week on the NPR Politics Podcast. Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. For back with the Sunday story, here's an excerpt of the first episode of Engines of Outrage, hosted by Ben Bradford. He starts by taking us back to a moment when it seemed like the nation did have a shared fact-based collective reality. It was something like three quarters of everybody who had a television on at 630 was watching one of the three networks and there were only three. So they were watching ABC, CBS or NBC. Anti-tucker is a media historian at the Columbia Journalism School. They were very establishment. They were white guys in jackets with silver hair. Good evening. Prince Juan Carlos de Bourbon, Yborbon is the new chief of state in Spain. But it was, you know, people watched it, people tended to trust it, people tended to find them familiar because they came into your house while you were eating your meatloaf. That's the way it is. Wednesday, July 31, 1968. There is no publication, no organization, no news source now that would have the same kind of reaches, those three put together. In one 1969 survey, nine out of ten Americans said they regularly watched the television news. It was not the vast variety of sources that we now have. It was, there was a sense, probably exaggerated, but a sense that people were kind of reading and knowing the same things. What changed that? Or who? Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew had transformed almost overnight in 1968 from near unknown to Richard Nixon's vice presidential pick, and his attack on it. As VP, Agnew was the man Nixon sent to play administration critics in colorful, alliterative style. If you've ever heard the nattering nebabs of negativism, that was him. And about a year after he and Nixon were elected, Agnew appeared for a speech in Des Moines that is office-built as a major address. I have a subject I think is a great interest to the American people. Tonight, I want to discuss the importance of the television medium to the American people. Agnew focused this night's iron on a surprise subject, the producers of television news. This little group of men, who not only enjoy a right of instant reputtle to every presidential address, but more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. He essentially said they were enacting their own liberal partisan agenda. A narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. The speech was cynical, the famously touchy Nixon and his advisors were furious at recent critical coverage of the Vietnam War. Agnew and Nixon's speech writer Pat Buchanan had worked up this address to fire back. It touched a nerve. While polls showed most Americans trusted the news, the accusation of bias had circulated on the right and left. Black newspapers sprang up in the 40s and 50s in response to a media establishment that was overwhelmingly white. In the battle for civil rights, segregationists, such as George Wallace routinely complained they were being treated unfairly by the media, Agnew knew this, and in his speech he was echoing complaints of Wallace and others, but now it was coming from the vice president of the United States. Are you saying that the Nixon administration is sort of the first time, at least in modern history, that we see the president, the White House accusing the media of having a liberal bias? In the modern era, yeah, I think so, I think so. Media historians, including Andy Tucker, point two Agnew's speech as a turning point, it gained wider play, reporters picked up the story, it was their job. And Agnew and other Nixon allies continued over the next days and months to hammer this accusation of slant. The Nixon administration was well setting up the press as an enemy, it was a very vigorous spin operation that had the line of the day that worked very closely with journalists, but also used the power of the White House to smear the press. And it coincided with polls showing trust and mainstream news in our shared reality beginning to fall. Before we go further, it's worth discussing Agnew's charge, was the news biased. The answer is, of course, right? Humans are subjective creatures, and choosing what stories to cover, who to talk to, requires subjective judgment, even describing what things look like was a crowd large or small, rowdy or muted, is subjective. And Agnew was clearly right that a tiny fraction of men living in the same large cities decided what of all the world's events most people would see. Andy Tucker says it led to blind spots. It did seem to confirm and valorize the idea of a dominant culture. The visible faces of that culture were middle-aged white men. There were certain advantages to the sense that we all know the same stuff, but it also confirmed the establishment as the important institution, cultural institution. It is funny, I spent a lot of time just hundreds of, I don't know, thousands of hours digging through archives of old evening news broadcasts, and you look at the rundowns of their programs on any given day. They are 90% identical. Yeah, the herd instinct is very, very strong in that kind of coverage. So there were biases, but Tucker says that's different from saying these journalists were enacting an agenda. Yeah, I went first from acknowledge, of course, that serious, responsible newsrooms do make mistakes. They get things wrong. They don't see what they're supposed to see. But there is a process that is rooted in fact finding, doing your best to challenge your own assumption so that you report against yourself. In the wake of Agnew's speech and increasing distrust in media, other sources with a very different intent would gain influence. We'll be right back with engines of outrage. President Trump says he wants Greenland for national security, but at least one Trump official has said it's also about critical minerals. Geologist Greg Barnes knows these minerals well. I just couldn't believe it's something of this size and quality we're seeing out there. On the indicator from planet money, is this really a land of untouched natural riches? Valentine's Day is coming up and the perfect gift for the NPR lover in your life is waiting at the NPR shop. From cozy sweaters and mugs made for slow mornings to our tiny desk hoodie, there's something for every NPR fan. Each purchase supports public media and the journalism you love. This week, on Consider this, ICE agents in Minnesota now reporting to Tom Holman, the architect of the president's family separation policy, who does Holman report to? Up until now, it's been Steven Miller, but I think the administration is seeing how much trouble listening to Miller has gotten them in when it comes to public opinion. This week, on Consider this, listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Outside Washington, D.C., in a non-descript office building behind a locked door guarded by multiple security measures, printers buzzed, you heard about this in detail in landslides first season. They spat out millions and millions of letters to households around the nation. The direct mail operation of the political activist Richard Vigory. Richard Vigory, conservative ideologue, direct mail genius. You heard how Vigory has allies in the new right, identified voters upset about a variety of separate cultural issues, textbooks, gun rights, abortion, and linked those causes together in fiery letters to an ever-expanding list. And you heard from a Reagan strategist just briefly how this was a new form of media. You know, now conservatives have talked radio, they have cable news, things and all that. There wasn't anything like that back then. The only communications channel that you had directly to conservatives was mail. Vigory's direct mail operation bloomed in the years immediately following Vice President Spiro Agnews' accusation of network news bias. The idea that the mainstream media is biased against you and that you need to trust alternative media sources. That was something that Vigory didn't create, but he certainly, like, really enhances in the 1970s. AJ Bauer is a professor at the University of Alabama who studies the rise of right wing media. By creating a kind of alternative ecosystem of conservative newsletters, there was not just claims that the media was biased, but also an alternative source that you could get to see exactly where the news media wasn't covering specific issues or was covering them in a flawed way of some sort. Here's what they're not telling you. Exactly. It's one thing to say they're biased. It's another thing to say they're biased and here's the thing that they're missing. This medium told you the mainstream news was lying and the truth was here, but that truth was apocalyptic, laden with conspiracy theories. The newsletters of the new right from Vigory's printers warned that textbooks were teaching cannibalism, gay people were recruiting children. The Secretary of State was perhaps sacrificing anti-communists in Vietnam. Vigory wrote, later on, a strategy that political inertia is the normal state for most people. It takes a sledgehammer of an issue to distract them from their ball games, shopping sprees, and daily work preoccupations. The tactics of reporting, how that information hits the page and the intent of it, is fundamentally different. Yeah, from the beginning, it's always been an ideological project. It hasn't been kind of like, let's create a conservative counter news product. It was, how do we create media that disrupts the kind of mainstream hegemony of the traditional press? The newsletters provided information. That information could be true, but it wasn't a point of it. Vigory wasn't doing journalism. The intent was not to inform it was to inspire political action, to outrage. That's really important, because that intent and that style set the template for voices that would soon grow much louder. At the same time as Vigory's letters were proliferating, a right-wing movement made other gains in American political life. In 1976, it won control of the Republican Party platform. The issue of court-ordered plastic, the subject was the Panama Canal, which was in favor of school prayer. Amnesty, gun control, national health. And conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, nearly knocked off the sitting president Gerald Ford for the nomination. Four years later, he won it all. It all ended legitimacy and visibility to a movement that a few years earlier had been easy to dismiss, a strange, and movement premised on the idea that the mainstream media was corrupt. Did news organizations internalize some of this criticism? Yeah, absolutely. AJ Bauer, the historian of right-wing media, says reporters began giving more weight to views that had long been dismissable. Conservative movement figures increasingly get interviewed, right, by the New York Times and by other traditional mainstream news outlets, as though they're representing a kind of responsible opposition. Now, this is what news is supposed to do, right? Seek and report major sides of a debate. You could also argue that reporters became more credulous, less willing to challenge provably false information, which had bubbled up from, say, fever swamps of new right newsletters, because it came from plically legitimized voices. But Bauer says pressure by conservatives led to even more inroads in traditional media. With in mainstream journalism, there's concern that they were losing the trust of the public and they needed to regain it, you see conservatives wedging into that vulnerability. The New York Times in the early 1970s hired its first voice from the conservative movement to its opinion pages. But not just any voice, a PR man, a spin doctor, the writer of some of ag news most blisteringly partisan speeches, including his "nattering nabobs" line. William Sapphire came straight from that White House job to become a consistent critic of the Times from within its own pages. After Watergate, it was Sapphire who stuck the suffix gate to other more routine controversies, an effort to suggest that presidents such as Jimmy Carter engaged in a corruption akin to Nixon's. Mainstream outlets made these adjustments, concessions, to quell criticism, to prove they were fair, and to restore public trust. Bauer says it had the opposite effect. There's an increasing perception that television news is biased and that local news is biased as well. Instead of relieving criticisms of bias, it lended more credibility to the people making them. This is exactly the moment where conservative news, those Richard Vigory newsletters, are starting to flourish. Trust in traditional news was falling. Newsletters offering a slanted perspective for proliferating, a perspective reinforced by a new crop of right-wing politicians and think tanks, and in this climate Bauer says Americans suddenly got a new option, they could turn the TV dial somewhere else. This is it exactly the moment where people are starting to tune out of watching news because they're having more choices. So let's say you're eating dinner at like five o'clock, six o'clock. You want to watch TV? Your choice is news, news or news, basically. By the early 80s, but 1980s where cable starts to proliferate, if you've got cable, you don't have to watch one of those big three news channels anymore for dinner, right? You could watch sports or you could watch a movie or something like that. Suddenly, there was ESPN, MTV. You could watch hockey while they're good luck seeing the puck or put Nickelodeon on for your kids. So people start consuming less news, actually. A lot of times people think about it as like they people switched from mainstream news to some ideological news, but really what ends up happening is most people kind of opt out and they're getting less news than they used to. The network news that just a few years earlier reached almost every American showing them the same reality was now easy to tune out. You could unplug from traditional news entirely and just absorb the angry, alternate, parsed worldview of those pamphlets or their ilk. You're consuming less news, but all of a sudden you're getting all these newsletters, saying, "Oh, did you hear about the equal rights of women and how bad it is?" The drop in audience for mainstream news left an information void, a void that alternative media could fill, but it didn't, not immediately. For most of the 1980s, right wing media remained relatively niche, mostly those same products, newsletters, magazines, local radio. You had to already be somewhat politically engaged to want to tune in. That was about to change, with a new, polarizing voice that would become the rights' first media superstar. And the bubble would expand exponentially. The brash, boisterous radio host Rush Limbong, had not set out to become a right wing media force. But in the late 1980s, the one-time failed DJ struck on a formula for success and it sounded eerily like a live action, "Vigory newsletter." We have been told a polar ice capsule melt, and that when this happens, sea levels will rise. There are so many of these environmental myths, and the reason they exist is because the environmental movement is the new home of the socialist communist movement of the world. And there was culture war and racial resentment. I thought white men were the new pigs of society, unless of course you want a successful and happy marriage and by all means get a white boy. That's right. If you want a successful and happy marriage, then by all means get a white boy. For three hours a day, Limbaugh blasted and lamp-hooned, Democrats, feminists, scape bull, liberals, journalists, and Republicans he didn't feel were sufficiently conservative. The fact that he could do this so freely was new, a result of the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan scrapping its long-held fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine had required news programs to seek "balance." A year after the end of the doctrine, Limbaugh's program debuted nationally, and unlike the new rights, newsletters, and magazines, with Rush, you didn't have to take the time to pick up and pour through material sent to your home. You could switch him on in your car or your office, and just immerse yourself. All right, listen up folks, the political twisters kicking up across the fruited plane, and you need a conservative compass to point you to the truth. Limbaugh added one more ingredient to the formula that would define the most powerful right-wing media. He, again, was not a journalist, he wasn't fact-checking or looking to provide multiple viewpoints, but he also wasn't an activist, at least at first. From a young age, he just wanted to be on the radio, but he washed out as a DJ at four different stations. So when he finally got this last shot, he wasn't seeking to drive voters, he wanted advertisers. He's got more of an entertainer's demeanor, right? He had worked in radio as kind of a morning zoo crew kind of guy. He understood that in order to captivate broadcast audiences, you couldn't just disseminate information. You had to make them feel as though they were getting something out of it, and that something was entertainment. AJ Bauer at the University of Alabama, who studies the history of right-wing media, says Limbaugh to his target audience was fun. They could listen for hours. Primarily kind of a comedy program, not necessarily that I would laugh at all those jokes today, right? But when you're listening to it, as somebody who is sympathetic, you're laughing. Rush Limbaugh, for most admired man in America, drew the animal I railed against the long-haired maggot-infested dope-smoking protesters. Rush Limbaugh, inventor of the term Feminazi, Rush Limbaugh, your only choice, for most admired man in America. There's levity. You feel a sense of superiority. Limbaugh promised, however tongue in cheek, that he was offering you facts, reliable information. "Fought you to the truth." You could live in sconce in the reality he presented, and a lot of people did. The Rush Limbaugh shows audience expanded rapidly, from just a few hundred thousand listeners at a given time to millions, within five years, seventeen million a week. And as politics became more and more central to the radio host brand, as his influence grew, he tied himself closer or closer to the Republican Party. And vice versa, a top GOP Congressman, Tom DeLay, boasted about the relationship. We facts Rush Limbaugh was twenty-four hours a day, where do you think he gets after the stuff that he puts on the radio program? In 1992, Limbaugh openly called for listeners to side with President George Bush. What I really wanted to call that was that I'm really having a hard time with the presidential election. Bush invited Limbaugh to the White House, even carried his bags in for him. And while I still lost, two years later, Congressional Republicans led by their new right leader, Newt Gingrich, one controlled the House for the first time since the 1950s. The new class Republicans celebrated Limbaugh as their guest of honor. "We'd like to nominate and make Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of our freshman class because surely he helped us become the majority." It was an intertwining of a media figure with political figures that would be unthinkable, disqualifying, instantly fireable for a journalist at any mainstream institution. But Limbaugh wasn't a journalist. Even as he was at the heart of a rapidly expanding media ecosystem, radio broadcasters searching for profits sought out their own Limbaugh's. Other popular hosts included Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck. Many stations switched to all conservative talk all the time. And the radio hosts, competing for audience, found the most salacious stories in extreme conspiracies brought the highest ratings. He leaned in further. It turned out that what the new right had done for political gain could be good entertainment, focusing on outreach, waiting into conspiracy theory, villainizing opponents, eroding trust in other media, all the building, a sense of us, verse them. And it was a self-reinforcing cycle because politicians and media figures echoed the same messages. Limbaugh could insinuate that the Clintons covered up a corrupt land deal by murdering a White House aide. And you could read William Sapphire, New York Times, dubbed it "White Watergate." And the speaker of the house, New Cambridge, would stoke the theory. You can understand why for a lot of Americans and evidence lists why seemed true, and for people spreading it, there was profit and political gain. So the bubble expanded. New websites on the early internet, like the Drudge Report and Newsmax adopted similar characteristics. It was an alternate information ecosystem. With one flaw, almost all of it was clearly offering opinion, not news. No matter how much you might absorb from it, Limbaugh joked about it. Now, I don't take sides in political races, as you well know. That wouldn't be fair. It would compromise my objectivity as a journalist. And so the final big innovation that Fox News would bring along cementing the bubble was really that word, news. You can hear the rest of this episode by searching engines of outrage wherever you get your podcasts. All four episodes of the miniseries are in the feed for the landslide podcast. This episode of the Sunday Story was produced by Kim Naderfane Peterson, and edited by Liana Simström. It was engineered by Jim and Keely. The Sunday Story team also includes Justin Yan, Andrew Lambo, and Jennifer Schmidt. Our executive producer is Irene Negucci. I'm Aisha Roscoe, and up first is back tomorrow with all the news you need to start your week until then have a great rest of your weekend. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to up first sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get up first plus at plus dot NPR dot org. That's plus dot NPR dot org. On planet money, we have covered a lot of topics. Like just try searching something on the internet and adding planet money to the end of it. Price is planet money that's an episode stop sign war planet money that too Alaska halibut Derby planet money. If you can ask it, we have probably answered it. Planet money. It is hard to get a house getting that down payment together brutal. You shipped off to Djibouti to afford a down payment for a house. Yes sir, 100% on planet money, the high price of housing. What the Trump administration is trying to do about it and will it work. Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.