Betrayed by The Daily
New Hampshire correspondent "Crankstock" sends a letter to the editor
Introducing… “Crankstock.” A certain historian I know who loves to write bitter Yelps and compose but never send learned and grumpy letters to the editor. Today, Crankstock, a daily listener of The New York Times podcast The Daily, was made so indignant by their favorite radio show that they sent their missive—and granted me permission to publish it here:
I’ve been a faithful listener of The Daily for years. I recommend your episodes to friends and colleagues and have incorporated them into my undergraduate history courses at Dartmouth College. The disorganized Democratic response to Trump’s tsunami of actions has concerned me, so I looked forward to the clarity your episode could bring to the topic. While some of your discussion about Democratic leadership factions was useful, the overall frame was perilously out of touch with the historically unprecedented events of the last three weeks. At no point do you or your guests acknowledge the illegality and unconstitutionality of the measures Trump has taken.
You mentioned the dispute in the Democratic Party between those who favor immediate and consistent objections and those, like Hakeem Jeffries, who argued that Democrats can’t “swing” at every pitch. You then proceeded to question whether or not Americans will really care about the dismantling of USAID. Misled by an exhausted sports cliché’, you again miss an opportunity to affirm that Trump’s actions are unconstitutional. Democrats may decide it's strategic to “give Trump some leeway,” but as reporters you need to spell out the ways this makes the Democratic Party complicit with the erosion of constitutional boundaries. If Democrats prioritize a tenuous electoral strategy over calling out the illegality of Trump’s (not just Musk's) actions, they are communicating to voters that some forms of unconstitutionality are tolerable. We can’t expect a president who followsallthe laws, so let’s just pick the most popular. When this goes unacknowledged by your reporters, it further obfuscates the illegality of Trump’s policies and officials’ failure to enforce (or attempt to enforce) accountability. It contributes to the erosion of our democracy. The rule of law is at stake here and should be spelled out, even if it decenters the Democratic infighting your political reporters may prefer to discuss. You do your listeners a great disservice when you accept the minutiae of party debates as sufficient context for this story.
THIS. This is precisely what has, unfortunately, been keeping me awake at night. Media softballing the whole damn shit show. While sitting in a parking lot waiting on my wife to finish an appointment this morning, I decided (against better judgment) to turn on the radio and listen to NPR, lacking anything else to do at the moment. They had a law professor on, I can’t remember where she was from, who was asked a direct question: “Who enforces it when the president breaks the law?”
No less than 4 wishy-washy answers she gave! gods, I could have choked on my disbelief. Here was some prestigious academic basically saying, “well, we’re all kinda fucked if Trump doesn’t do what he’s supposed to do.”
There are no police, there is no radical outcry from the democrats, there is no enforcement mechanism that *actually* kicks into action. No. We are left to wonder if future bus tours of Washington DC will feature stops like, “This is where the U.S. Treasury once was, but now we just write our checks to Emperor Trump, so NO NEED to WORRY, all is well. Sleep peacefully, children…”
The NYT has likewise downplayed how much white supremacy is driving Trump and his inner circle. He's chosen only one Black cabinet member, just as he did in his first Administration. Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen are both friendly online to racists and anti-Semites for a reason. And the early attacks on DEI are a way to discredit any non-white person who's found success. Why is it difficult for our largest news organization to connect these dots?