For some news organizations, it’s always the same old story

You may have thought we’ve entered a new, fraught political era, what with an actual attack by U.S. citizens on the Capitol aimed at overturning the presidential election. But recently received wisdom from the heights of journalism suggests otherwise, reminding us that the new normal is a lot like the old normal, and every story has two equally worthy sides.

Case in point:

Axios, that bastion of journalistic self-regard, last week regaled us with a piece on “mischief makers” in the two political parties. Topping the list of Democrats were Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of “The Squad,” who famously advocate Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. On the Republican side, Axios named, among others, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has endorsed claims that the Parkland, Fla., school shooting was staged and “liked” a social media post that said “a bullet to the head would be quicker” to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Oh, those zany mischief makers.

Personally, I see irritating the Speaker of the House now and then as different from advocating her assassination, but maybe I’m just old-school.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is offering President Biden a little civics advice: “Ease up on the executive actions, Joe.” (I wonder how often the Times editorial board called the previous holder of the office “Don,” but let’s let that go for the moment.)

The Times tells us:

“Already, he has committed to rejoining the Paris climate change agreement, ended the Muslim travel ban, canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, rescinded funding for and halted construction on the wall at the southern border, reaffirmed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, mandated mask-wearing on federal grounds, moved to end the federal government’s reliance on private prisons, reversed the ban on transgender military service and called for agency assessments aimed at advancing racial equity — just to name a few. The coming days will bring more such action.”

This flurry of activity has raised a Timesian eyebrow: “These directives, however, are a flawed substitute for legislation.”

I hate to be overly wonkish, but let’s take a look at a few of those …

• The Paris accord is an international agreement entered into by the United States and more than 190 other nations. The United States joined under the Obama administration and withdrew under the Trump administration; there is no legislative component to joining or withdrawing. The accord was crafted as an agreement, not a treaty; there was general recognition at the time that the U.S. Senate would not have ratified it. In fact, Congress has taken no comprehensive action to address climate change since the problem was recognized in the 1992 Rio agreement as a problem of global proportions. That pact, by the way, was a treaty, signed by President George H.W. Bush and ratified by the Senate.
• The Keystone XL pipeline was approved Trump after being rejected by President Obama. President Biden is reversing the reversal. Regardless, presidential approval or non-approval — not legislation — is what the law requires.
• Most funding for the wall at the southern border was provided, not by Congress, but by Trump declaring an emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border and repurposing money appropriated for other purposes. The courts acquiesced, and Congress did not overturn the action
• In truth, the DACA program may be a poor substitute for a comprehensive immigration policy overhaul, but Congress — and notably Republicans among themselves — has been unable to agree on such an overhaul. The Trump administration stepped into that void with a series of executive actions intended to remake U.S. immigration policy.

Given their executive pedigrees, then, these may not be the best examples of flawed substitutes for legislation. And it’s not clear what the Times would have Biden do instead.

The Times’ lamentation may differ sharply from Axios’ racetrack tip-sheet tone, but they share an adherence to journalism’s traditional “two sides” framework — and its implicit view of politics as an end in itself.

But the nation is facing a pandemic accompanied by an economic meltdown, a climate crisis, and a racial reckoning, all while balanced on the edge of a political precipice. In that context — with the ability of the United States to govern itself possibly unraveling — perhaps a focus on mischief-makers and executive niceties is small-bore skepticism at a time of great moment and a distraction from the task before us as citizens.