THE DEFAULT TONE OF MAINSTREAM NEWS IS THE REASON IT'S FAILING US NOW

Last night I was reading a long New York Times story, written by Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman, and four other reporters, that attempted to make sense of Elon Musk's government takeover. But instead of portraying what's happening as the constitutional crisis it is, the story mostly just enumerates Musk's acts of aggression, describing them with quiet awe.

Here's the headline:

Inside Musk’s Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government

The billionaire is creating major upheaval as his team sweeps through agencies, in what has been an extraordinary flexing of power by a private individual.

There's a common tone to most mainstream media reporting about men in expensive suits acting aggressively. When mainstream journalists write about these men, they adopt the awestruck language that became a default during the Reagan years, when hyperaggressive CEOs were portrayed as America's new "rock stars." There was more of this during the rise of the tech industry, whose CEOs sought to "disrupt," to "move fast and break things."

So Swan, Haberman, and their colleagues aren't inclined to describe what they're seeing as bad, or even potentially bad. It's just a power move. What's important is what the aggressors are doing and how aggressively the aggressors are aggressing, not what might actually result from all the aggression.

So we read a recitation of what's happening -- and we're effectively reassured that it's all happening inside the guardrails.

In Elon Musk’s first two weeks in government, his lieutenants gained access to closely held financial and data systems, casting aside career officials who warned that they were defying protocols. They moved swiftly to shutter specific programs — and even an entire agency that had come into Mr. Musk’s cross hairs. They bombarded federal employees with messages suggesting they were lazy and encouraging them to leave their jobs.

Empowered by President Trump, Mr. Musk is waging a largely unchecked war against the federal bureaucracy — one that has already had far-reaching consequences.

Emphasis added. We're told it's okay for Musk to do what he's doing -- to break laws -- because Trump is president and Trump says it's okay. If the Constitution and the relevant laws were still being enforced, Trump couldn't "empower" Musk this way. But the Times reporters don't tell us that.

The dry recitation of Musk's legally and constitutionally impermissible acts continues:

Mr. Musk’s aggressive incursions into at least half a dozen government agencies have challenged congressional authority and potentially breached civil service protections.

Top officials at the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development who objected to the actions of his representatives were swiftly pushed aside. And Mr. Musk’s efforts to shut down U.S.A.I.D., a key source of foreign assistance, have reverberated around the globe.

Followed by more heavy breathing in response to Musk's aggression:

Mr. Musk, the world’s richest man, is sweeping through the federal government as a singular force, creating major upheaval as he looks to put an ideological stamp on the bureaucracy and rid the system of those who he and the president deride as “the deep state.”

The rapid moves by Mr. Musk, who has a multitude of financial interests before the government, have represented an extraordinary flexing of power by a private individual.

This is a romance novel, not an account of a constitutional crisis.

It's only in paragraph 15 that we're told -- briefly -- that this might be more than just an unusually fierce power battle:

The historian Douglas Brinkley described Mr. Musk as a “lone ranger” with limitless running room. He noted that the billionaire was operating “beyond scrutiny,” saying: “There is not one single entity holding Musk accountable. It’s a harbinger of the destruction of our basic institutions.”

But be reassured that it's all being done through normal channels.

However, the president has given Mr. Musk vast power over the bureaucracy that regulates his companies and awards them contracts.

Trump can't give Musk all this power -- not legally. Congressional Republicans won't step assert to assert their own prerogatives, so Trump can do it illegally. But we're not told that here.

This is the point where you all pull up that meme of the Kool-Aid pitcher that says, "The media likes Trump and wants him to win," or whatever ther post-election version is. But I don't believe that. I think much of the media would prefer a right-centrist deficit hawk as president (Nikki Haley, Chris Sununu), or a corporatist with relatively liberal social views (Mike Bloomberg). I don't believe the mainstream media wants agents of chaos in the White House. Even the right-leaning Murdoch press has denounced Trump's tariff wars and appointment of Robert Kennedy Jr.

But the traditional language of journalism -- a combination of "just the facts" and fan club press releases for aggressors in the C-suites -- is inadequate for the moment we're in.

Readers of that Times story know what they should be reading right now, and know they're not getting it. Here are some of the comments most recommended by readers:

Why aren't you using the word coup?

****

Musk and his teenage minions have no constitutional authority to do any of this.

All of the media reporting on DOGE's actions as if it has any legitimacy is falling into Trump and Elon's false narrative that any of this is lawful.

****

We did not vote for Musk. He was not confirmed as an appointee. Is what he’s doing even legal?

****

Absolutely none of this is legal or constitutional. A private unelected citizen does not have the authority to stop payment on authorized government contracts or shutter a Congressionally-created agency.

Indeed, the President doesn't even have that authority. Those belong strictly to Congress. This is a coup, rubber-stamped by the President, to overthrow the separation of powers in this country.

****

Why is the media just reporting illegal actions as if they’re facts?

Instead of “Elon shakes up Washington” how about some context? “Unelected Billionaire Appointed to Run Non-existent Agency Conducts Illegal Actions Across the Federal Government.”

****

Please stop sane-washing these actions—it’s not an extraordinary flexing of power—it’s an illegal takeover of the government!

This is 9/11. It's Pearl Harbor. It's the attack on Fort Sumter. The press should report it that way. But the media says it's just a power struggle that's a bit fiercer than usual.