Copy
View this email in your browser

Dead air in Iowa
By Jon Allsop 

Last week, Lyz Lenz, a journalist and writer who lives in Iowa, predicted that the state’s caucuses “are going to be a f*cking nightmare.” In a piece for Gen, Lenz (who also contributes regularly to CJR) wrote that the caucuses are inaccessible at the best of times, and that state Democrats’ efforts to fix problems seen in 2016—which affected vote counts, among other things—would only make “a confusing process even more confusing.” In the past, only one metric—the estimated number of delegates each candidate will send to the Iowa state convention—was used to decide the winner of the caucuses; this year, for the first time, caucus sites were told to also report three other metrics, measuring voters’ first preferences, voters’ final preferences (following the elimination of any candidates below a new, 15-percent “viability threshold”), and pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Math worksheets and an app would help caucus managers with the results. “There has been absolutely no information about the security of the smartphone app,” Lenz wrote. “So that seems safe.”
 
Confused? So was Iowa, apparently. As last night drew on, the results were delayed and delayed some more, and it became ever clearer that Lenz’s nightmare had come true. “If you want to know what the panic and hold up is,” Lenz tweeted in the early hours, re-upping her Gen piece, “pick from the list.” 
 
As confusion deepened and state Democratic officials remained tight-lipped, reports emerged that there had been problems with the app, and that there were long delays in reporting tallies by phone. Late in the evening, the Iowa Democratic Party confirmed in a statement that there had been “inconsistencies” linked to the new metrics; around 1am, Troy Price, the party chair, insisted, on a press call, that the results had only been delayed, not compromised, and would likely be announced later on Tuesday. (Reporters on the call said it lasted little over a minute, and ended abruptly, with no chance for questions.) In the meantime, the narrative was up for grabs, and every major candidate, starting with Amy Klobuchar, moved to grab it. Pete Buttigieg seemed to declare victory outright, despite the lack of results. Then they all left for New Hampshire. This morning, we still don’t know who won.
 
Ahead of the caucuses, Nate Cohn, of the New York Times’s “Upshot” team, wrote that the new caucus metrics risked “creating confusion for readers,” and would be an “additional challenge” for the media. But we didn’t even get a chance to screw them up. (Not yet, at least). Instead, journalists on the ground were left scrambling for something to report. (Some of them resorted to humor on Twitter; Rosie Gray, of BuzzFeed, said Olivia Nuzzi, of New York, asked her for feedback on her caucus piece so far, then showed her a blank phone screen.) At the Times, the Upshot’s predictive election-night “needle”—which has a fraught reputation among mediawatchers, and caught skeptical glances all day yesterday because of that—fell still. This morning, its landing page, otherwise empty, suggested to me that “while you’re waiting for results to come in,” I should “Go beyond Iowa’s state borders: Take a trip around the world in 5 kids’ games.” There were links out to other Times content, too.

Blank space has to be filled with something. Cable news, in particular, abhors a vacuum. As the night wore out, the lack of results forced it to feed off scraps. At one point, CNN interviewed Shawn Sebastian, a precinct official who had been waiting for more than an hour to report results by phone. While he was talking live to Wolf Blitzer, Sebastian finally got through; he told Blitzer he needed to go, but by the time he’d said that, his call had been dropped. “They hung up on me,” Sebastian said, and laughed. “So frustrating indeed,” Blitzer said. Indeed.
 
Occasionally, the unhelpful and repetitive gave way to the nonsensical, with anchors and pundits popping out inane observations. “What you have now is all the donors around the country thinking, ‘Well, what do we do tomorrow?’” CNN’s John King said. “Whoever’s on the bottom got a real break tonight, because they got an extra day of not being called the loser in Iowa,” Chris Cuomo added. Van Jones said, twice, that Joe Biden had avoided an “anvil” in Iowa; one was “about to drop on his head, and he got to scoot away like Wile E. Coyote.” Jones wasn’t the only one thinking about things falling on Biden. “Biden just won the lottery,” Alex Castellanos, a Republican operative and contributor on ABC News, said. “The guillotine didn’t drop on Biden tonight. He gets to say, ‘What caucus?!’” On NBC, Chuck Todd made a similar point: “The Biden campaign couldn’t have asked for a better outcome: no results.” 
 
The weirdest segment (that I saw, at least) was a CNN panel discussion on Buttigieg. David Axelrod, the Obama adviser turned commentator, said the lack of results had “victimized” Buttigieg, in particular, because of his Iowa-reliant strategy. Before Buttigieg spoke to his supporters, Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator (who knows all about mess-ups in Iowa), urged him to go out and declare victory; when Buttigieg did just that, Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic governor of Virginia, said he’d done the right thing. “If Mayor Buttigieg won the Iowa caucuses, then he got really screwed,” Anderson Cooper said. Gloria Borger urged caution due to the lack of facts, but she was shouted over, and discussion soon swung back to which candidate had best exploited the uncertainty. “Buttigieg, I think, left his voters feeling good, feeling excited,” Nia-Malika Henderson, a CNN politics reporter, said. “I think he did a good job.” Jones then said that Buttigieg, the first openly gay presidential candidate, had been denied a historic moment. “He deserved for the numbers to be running below him while he was giving that speech. He got robbed of that. And I think that’s terrible.”
 
Some of the people named above are political hacks, but news channels choose who they put on air, and have a chance to mediate what they say. Just because we didn’t get results last night doesn’t mean that speculation is useful, nor that Iowa is over. Sure, no one got to make a primetime victory speech (not one backed by evidence, at any rate) and this morning’s front pages will be barren, but whoever won still will have won and whoever did poorly still will have done poorly. Not that the results, whenever they finally come, will necessarily bring total clarity. In her Gen piece, Lenz predicted that if results are close, Twitter conspirators and a media “thirsty for controversy” will cast them into doubt. We don’t know, yet, if she’s right about that. But last night’s mess hardly bodes well.
 
Below, more on Iowa:

  • How it played: Front pages in Iowa, which normally would have splashed the caucus winner, instead project uncertainty this morning. The Cedar Rapids Gazette declares “A MUDDLED PICTURE”; the Quad-City Times splashes “DEMS HIT RESULTS SNAG.” (As ever, the Newseum has all today’s front pages here.)
     
  • Both sides: The Democrats weren’t the only ones caucusing in Iowa last night; Republicans were, too. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump won. (David French, a journalist with The Dispatch, a new conservative site, received a write-in vote; “At this moment,” he quipped, “I have more official support in Iowa than any Democratic candidate. This is only the beginning.”) Last night, the Trump campaign kicked Jennifer Jacobs, of Bloomberg News, out of an event in Iowa. Trump has complained that Bloomberg’s rules for covering the election—in which the site’s owner, Michael Bloomberg, is a candidate—are unfair.
     
  • Father and son: The Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison profiles Peter Doocy, the Fox News reporter assigned to cover the Democratic field. Doocy is the son of Steve Doocy, a cohost of Fox & Friends. “In the canon of Political Media Personalities,” Ellison writes, “Doocy and his father can feel like they are Fox’s version of Tim and Luke Russert for the Trump era.”
     
  • Blank slate: Jim Newell elucidates a forgotten corner of Buttigieg’s resume: the time he worked as a blogger for Slate. Buttigieg pitched into the site’s coverage of the Indiana primary in 2016, even though he was mayor of South Bend at the time. Tommy Craggs, who was then Slate’s politics editor, recalls that Buttigieg was “an exceptional blogger.” 

Other notable stories:
  • Just in case there wasn’t enough news already, Trump will give the State of the Union tonight, from 9pm Eastern. Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, and Veronica Escobar, a Congresswoman from Texas, will give the Democratic response. Per Katie Rogers, of the Times, Trump’s speech has been written by Vince Haley and Ross Worthington, “little-known aides” who are comfortable with giving the president all the credit. (Hogan Gidley, a White House official, told the Times that as “a best-selling author and deeply gifted orator,” Trump has a “carefully honed method for writing his speeches.”) As the cliché goes, Trump tries to act “presidential” at SOTU time; as part of that, he’s maintained the tradition of lunching with network anchors ahead of the speech. The lunch will happen again today, but CNN will be excluded. Brian Stelter has more
     
  • Last week, the Post courted widespread criticism when it suspended Felicia Sonmez, a politics reporter, for tweeting, following the death of Kobe Bryant, about rape charges Bryant once faced. Sonmez wasn’t the first journalist to fall foul of the Post’s social-media policy; the Daily Beast’s Maxwell Tani reports that last year, management scolded Wesley Lowery (who now is heading to CBS) for criticizing the Times’s coverage of race, and warned him he’d be fired if he did it again. (Lowery didn’t comment to Tani, but did tweet yesterday: “What's the point of bringing diverse experiences and voices into a room only to muzzle them?”) Elsewhere, Post staffers told HuffPost’s Emily Peck that the paper’s treatment of Sonmez highlights deep-rooted sexism in the newsroom.  
     
  • For CJR’s new package on faith and journalism, Zainab Sultan profiles Aymann Ismail, an Egyptian-American journalist with Slate whose work has aimed to confront fears about Muslims, “one by one.” He “delved into hijabs, the #MeToo movement, blasphemy, extremism, and other contentious subjects in Muslim circles,” Sultan writes. “He also routinely invited right-wing commentators who have stoked fear about Muslims.”
     
  • Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that he has an advanced stage of lung cancer. “I wish I didn't have to tell you this,” he said, but "there are going to be days that I'm not going to be able to be here because I will be undergoing treatment, or I'm reacting to treatment.” Limbaugh will be off today; Mark Steyn will take his slot.
     
  • Tim Knight, the president and CEO of Tribune Publishing, stepped down yesterday; Terry Jimenez, Tribune’s CFO, will replace him. Alden Global Capital, a cost-slashing hedge fund, recently became Tribune’s largest shareholder. Robert Feder calls Knight’s exit “a sign that the Chicago Tribune may be moving closer to the apocalypse.” 
     
  • In the UK, political reporters boycotted a briefing in Downing Street after Lee Cain, the top communications aide to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, tried to bar reporters from some liberal outlets from attending. Security staff reportedly told journalists to physically line up in two groups—included and not—but both groups walked out in protest.
     
  • In recent weeks, a conspiracy theory has circulated claiming that the mainstream media, in cahoots with the European Union, is systematically covering up an intensifying “civil war” in France. For The Observer, Kim Willsher calls such claims “utter nonsense.” France has seen unrest, she says, but it isn’t a civil war, and the press has covered it.
     
  • South Africa’s national lottery is threatening to bring criminal charges against Raymond Joseph, a freelance journalist, and GroundUp, a news agency, over a series of stories detailing possible corruption in the lottery’s grant-award processes. (Disclosure: I worked with Joseph on a global lottery investigation in the past, and have written for GroundUp.)
     
  • And Cards Against Humanity is buying the satirical site ClickHole from G/O Media, and handing majority ownership to ClickHole’s employees. BuzzFeed’s Katie Notopoulos has more.
Questions or comments about what you’d like to read with your coffee? 
Reach today's newsletter editor, Jon Allsop, at jallsop@cjr.org.
 
Our weekly podcast on media news, The Kicker, is available on Apple PodcastsStitcher, and SoundCloud.

Catch up with all of our coverage at CJR.org.
Tweet
Share
Post
You are receiving this because you signed up for CJR’s regular email newsletter. You can unsubscribe from this list.

Columbia Journalism Review
801 Pulitzer Hall
2950 Broadway
New York, NY 10027