The period we’re in warrants better education coverage than it’s received the past two times around.
By Alexander Russo
Four years ago, the media treatment of the Trump transition and the early performance of the eventual appointee for Education Secretary was overly harsh and pervasively critical, as was coverage of the administration’s early initiatives.
Pretty much everything the Trump team did was scrutinized in the most negative possible light, reflecting critics’ perspectives and petty concerns rather than depicting the administration’s unfamiliar set of education priorities as if they were un-American rather than merely unfamiliar to (and unwanted by) the education establishment.
“I don’t recall anything but hostile coverage from the day she was nominated,” recalled a former Trump education department official who did not wish to be named, referring to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
The source may be conflicted but the assessment is fair. Overall, the DeVos coverage was too frequently “superficial and over the top, stretching the limits of fairness and impartiality>,” I wrote in January 2018.
“I don’t recall anything but hostile coverage from the day she was nominated.” – Former DeVos official
Eight years before that, the media treatment of the Obama transition, the performance of the eventual appointee, and early Obama education initiatives was insufficiently critical and overly credulous.
The Obama team’s decisions and proposals were generally portrayed with only the most nominal skepticism or scrutiny. Mischaracterizations of Obama transition team member Linda Darling-Hammond’s work were amplified rather than scrutinized. The qualifications and accomplishments of the eventual nominee, Arne Duncan, were under-examined. The questionable elements of Race to the Top were downplayed or left under-examined.
“No one’s really scrutinizing the various claims made against Linda Darling-Hammond, or her record on charters and accountability,” I wrote way back in December 2008 at This Week In Education.
“Even more troubling is that there’s been no in-depth examination of what Arne Duncan has and hasn’t accomplished with Chicago’s school system.”
It’s an impression that even some Obama alumni share.
“I don’t remember any negative coverage,” recalled former Duncan communications guru Peter Cunningham about the nomination period. “All the hostile reporters seemed to have gone on vacation.”
The kid glove treatment continued for several months afterward, according to Cunningham, who founded Education Post, one of the first sponsors of The Grade.
“It just didn’t seem like we were getting hit a lot that first year.”
“It just didn’t seem like we were getting hit a lot that first year.” – Former Obama official Peter Cunningham
There’s a long, somewhat lamentable history of flawed education coverage during transitions and the early months of a new administration. Don’t even get me started about the coverage of the early Bush administration initiative that became No Child Left Behind.
But neither the hostile coverage of Trump and DeVos nor the soft coverage of Obama and Duncan served readers well or the public very well. Nor did they build long-term audiences for newsrooms.
I’m hopeful that this time around, education reporters and editors will provide careful, cautious coverage of the Biden transition, his eventual Education Secretary nominee, and early school-related initiatives.
Related coverage:
A year full of terrible, horrible, no good, VERY bad media coverage of Betsy DeVos
What Education Journalists Should Be Doing (This Week In Education)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alexander Russo
Alexander Russo is founder and editor of The Grade, an award-winning effort to help improve media coverage of education issues. He’s also a Spencer Education Journalism Fellowship winner and a book author. You can reach him at @alexanderrusso.
Visit their website at: https://the-grade.org/
