An old journalism axiom says, "We don’t report the planes that land safely."

More recently, however, it seems that major newsrooms have moved beyond reporting the crashes. It seems they've moved on to inventing crashes. Anything to attract those eyeballs and clicks. This is dangerous stuff, especially insofar as public comity is concerned. Inventing bogeymen, and painting entire swaths of this country as villains, may be profitable in the short term, but it's a recipe for long-term disaster.

Consider, for example, the following headline published this week by the Associated Press: "As conservatives target schools, LGBTQ+ kids and students of color feel less safe."

If you think the headline is bad, just wait until you dig into the body of the story.

The report focuses on a group of anxious teenagers who believe minority representation is being erased from school curricula across the country, including in Tennessee. This is not true, but one such teenager, Harmony Kennedy, 16, believes it anyway. The fact that the Associated Press, with all its investigative resources and institutional knowledge, never once attempts to introduce the reader to the facts of the matter is both an insult and a disservice to the craft. That the newsgroup never once attempts to disabuse the anxious teens of their misperceptions, working instead to promote them, is an outright scandal.

"As protests for racial justice broke out in 2020," the story reads, "white students at [Harmony’s] Tennessee high school kneeled in the hallways and chanted, 'Black lives matter!' in mocking tones. As she saw the students receive light punishments, she grew increasingly frustrated."

The story then adds [emphasis my own], "So when Tennessee began passing legislation that could limit the discussion and teaching of Black history, gender identity and race in the classroom, to Harmony, it felt like a gut punch — as if the adults were signaling this kind of ignorant behavior was acceptable."

It’s true that Tennessee law prohibits schools from receiving public funding if their curricula promote "divisive concepts," including that "one race or sex is inherently superior or inferior to another race or sex" or that Tennessee "or the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist," etc. It’s true the state’s definition of "divisive concepts" includes materials that promote "division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class, or class of people" as well as materials that promote race or sex "stereotyping" or "scapegoating."

It’s also true that the term "African American" appears 54 times in Tennessee’s current social studies standards, as noted this week by NewsNation’s Zaid Jilani. In the most recent edition of the Tennessee Academic Standards for Social Studies, under the heading "AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY," is the following passage, which reads:

Course Description: Students will examine the life and contributions of African Americans from the early 1600s through the contemporary United States. Students will explore the influence of geography on slavery and the growth of slavery in the U.S. Students will consider urban and rural African American communities and institutions in the North and South leading up to and during the Civil War. Students will investigate the rise of Jim Crow and the subsequent effects of the laws and trace the impact of African American migration through the early 20th century. Students will explore the impact of the Harlem Renaissance as well as the contributions of African Americans during the Great Depression and World War II. Students will examine the successes and failures of the Civil Rights Movement and consider the contemporary issues confronting African Americans.

The state's standards also include carveouts specifically for discussions of the Civil Rights Movement, “the Civil Rights Movement in Tennessee, including: the integration of Clinton High School, sit-ins in Nashville, and the activities of Diane Nash and Jim Lawson,” Brown v. Board of Education, the “various methods employed by African Americans to obtain civil rights,” explorations of “various organizations and their roles in the Civil Rights Movement (e.g., Black Panthers, Highlander Folk School),” legal victories of the Civil Rights Movement, and much more.

"Tennessee also has state standards for current events," Jilani notes. "It’s not only black history they’re teaching." Compare this crucial context to how the Associated Press frames its report, bearing in mind the above details regarding Tennessee’s social studies standards are not mentioned anywhere in the story. Compare what you know now about the state’s educational standards to how the Associated Press presents the matter.

"When I heard they were removing African American history,” Harmony told Associated Press reporters, “I almost started crying. We’re not doing anything to anybody. Why do they care what we personally prefer, or what we look like?"

You may be shocked to learn the newswire does absolutely nothing to disabuse Harmony of her delusions. In fact, the Associated Press all but stamps its seal of approval on her ignorance.

"As conservative politicians and activists push for limits on discussions of race, gender and sexuality, some students say the measures targeting aspects of their identity have made them less welcome in American schools," the group reports, concluding with this head-scratcher of a line, "the one place all kids are supposed to feel safe."

As if this passage wasn’t bad enough, there’s this additional line, which suggests the people at the Associated Press know Harmony is gravely mistaken, but they believe her feelings are more important than the facts. The passage reads: "The law was broad, but to her, the potential impact was crushing."

The Associated Press could have educated Harmony on what the law says and does, going a long way toward alleviating her anxiety. But then where would the story be? Where’s the drama and tension?

Here’s another fun example of a newsroom inventing a crisis. It comes from an Associated Press news blurb published Thursday morning. It reads [my emphasis added]: "In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Black voters in a redistricting case and says Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The justices ordered the creation of a new, mostly Black congressional district in Alabama."

"Surprise" to whom, exactly?

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the court’s liberal justices, ruling 5-4 in the majority. Yet we’re told the decision this week is a "surprise." Why? Roberts signaled his opinion on the matter when it was argued before the court in October 2022. Further, neither Roberts nor Kavanaugh nor Justice Neil Gorsuch nor Justice Amy Coney Barrett are known to vote uniformly with the ostensibly "conservative" position. Quite the opposite, in fact. Why should it be a "surprise" that justices who have joined in the past with their liberal counterparts would join with their liberal counterparts?

It's a “surprise” only to those who subscribe to the “legitimacy crisis” narrative that posits the court is “illegitimate” not least of all because the conservative justices are incapable of separating jurisprudence from political ideology.

And speaking of newsrooms inventing problems for the sake of drawing attention, the Nation published a deranged bit of commentary this week titled, "America’s Suburbs Are Breeding Grounds for Fascism."

Here’s a fun insider fact: Newsrooms don’t have to publish every submitted article. They do, in fact, have the power to say, "No thank you."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

But quality doesn't appear to be the chief focus these days. The focus appears to be maximizing traffic. The more of it, the better. At any cost. Even if it comes at the expense of good public order and neighborly goodwill. Sure, the traffic-at-any-cost approach encourages more rancor and even outright hate between fellow citizens. But think about all those clicks and views! More seriously, for an industry that is obsessed with the dangers of misinformation and disinformation, one would think reporters and editors would be more careful not to spread political agitprop and falsehoods. But one would be wrong!

It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world, but for a bit of online traffic?

Becket Adams is a columnist for the Washington Examiner, National Review, and the Hill. He is also the program director of the National Journalism Center.