Me in a 2010 interview with The Economist:

Suppose the forces that want to convince Americans that Barack Obama is a Muslim or wasn’t born in the United States start winning, and more and more people believe it. This is a defeat for journalism—in fact, for verification itself. Neutrality and objectivity carry no instructions for how to react to something like that. They aren’t “wrong”, they’re just limited. The American press does not know what to do when neutrality, objectivity, balance and “report both sides” reach their natural limits. And so journalists tend to deny that there are such limits. But with this denial they’ve violated the code of the truth-teller because these limits are real. See the problem?

Neutrality has limit cases

For the first time in its existence — almost 50 years — Foreign Policy magazine has endorsed a candidate for President, and decisively rejected Donald Trump. That’s been happening all over. But in explaining why they took this step, the editors made a call that I want to highlight for you. Read this carefully:

We cherish and fiercely protect this publication’s independence and its reputation for objectivity, and we deeply value our relationship with all of our readers, regardless of political orientation.

It is for all these reasons that FP’s editors are now breaking with tradition to endorse Hillary Clinton for the next president of the United States.

Notice what they’re saying: Because we zealously guard our independence and objectivity, we feel compelled to warn you about Trump. That’s not a rejection of our non-partisan principles, but an extension of them through extraordinary times.

We have a strong relationship with readers in both parties. We would be failing in that relationship if we didn’t speak up now.

“We feel that our obligation to our readers thus extends now to making clear the great magnitude of the threat that a Donald Trump presidency would pose to the United States.”

The idea of not taking a side — which has its own integrity — only has that integrity if it has limits built-in. A lot of journalists are discovering those limits this year. This is a good thing.

Up in the Tower with the TV on

Trump huddled with advisers at Trump Tower on Saturday and was cheered by 100 supporters when he emerged, grinning and pumping his fist, shortly after 5 p.m. — New York Post, Oct. 9, 2016

When you see phrases in the press like “huddled with advisers,” or “the Trump war room,” keep this in mind: Most likely, he’s up in The Tower watching himself on cable TV, surrounded by people who are failing to get his attention for the matter at hand.

A reporter who interviewed Trump at one his golf clubs:

“He was seated so that right behind me was the television screen tuned to Fox News. And every time Fox showed Donald Trump on the screen or a statement that Trump had made or they had a reporter doing a live shot in front of Trump Tower in New York, Donald Trump commented on it. He was very excited to see himself on the TV. So he was not fully focused on the interview.”

Maggie Haberman from the New York Times describing a scene of Trump holed up with his advisors:

Mr. Trump called a few reporters but lacked his usual gusto. And he kept returning to watching coverage on CNN, the cable outlet he derides as biased against him but still tunes in to most often, and becoming more upset as he saw Republican officials condemn him one by one.

Trump and the news media is like an abusive relationship: God, I love you/You made me do this to you.

The problems in pressthink that most concern me now.

A live list. Ranked by urgency.

1. Keeping the flame of an idea — a free press that can serve as a check on power — alive as the reality of it dims and forces hostile to it take over. (Link.)

2. The triumph of a political style — Trump’s — that represents “an attack on the very possibility of honest journalism.” (Link.)

3. Finding the means of support — money, staff, lawyers, owners with fortitude, audience with patience — for the investigative journalism that will be necessary in Trump’s America. (Link.)

4. Re-imagining how journalism can operate in a low-trust environment where most information that conflicts with identity is rejected, no matter how solid it is. (Link.)

5. The search for a sustainable business model throughout journalism— from the national press to specialized sites to local newsgathering. (Link.)

6. Rebuilding political journalism from the ground up after its spectacular flameout in 2016. (Link.)

7. Switching the trust model from unsupportable claims about objectivity, voice-of-god and viewlessness to “here’s where we’re coming from” and “don’t believe us? see for yourself.” (Link.)

8. Persuading Facebook to care about its supercharged role in spreading misinformation when there is no sign that the people in charge recognize a problem. (Link.)

9. What does a “listening model” in public service journalism even look like? (Link.)

10. What comes after fact checking, which clearly isn’t sufficient? (Link.)

11. “The majority of Americans prefer to watch the news rather than read it. Will newsrooms deliver stories in forms Americans want to consume?” (Link.)