Notes

Rosen
"If journalists are to rise to the occasion in the final six weeks of this campaign, they will have to find a style of coverage as irregular as Trump’s political style. There are powerful forces working against this. But if they don’t try, they are likely to regret it for the rest of their careers

Jarvis
has been a vocal critic of how the press has covered this presidential election, as well as an enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton. On his blog, he’s asserted that political journalism currently fails to “inform and cultivate an educated, empathetic, [and] engaged society.”
His proposed alternative? "...A journalism that mirrors the many and diverse communities and concerns in societies and convenes these communities in dialog so they can foster empathy and understanding."
That ideal journalism may not be possible between now and Nov. 8, but there are changes news organizations could make. Here are some of his suggestions.
News organizations often plan out their election coverage well in advance. I suspect there will be debriefs and retrospectives on how news outlets have covered this election — but I'm curious if it's possible for them to change their coverage plans midstream, and, if it is, how they should do so given this election is so radically different.

[Atlantic contributing editor] Norm Ornstein,
who has been performing good press criticism on Twitter
Example: "Treat Trump as possible president, examine in detail and not once his business dealings, his foundation, relationships."

Melody Kramer : News organizations should ask how every report and every minute of a journalist's time helps voters make more informed decisions. The rest — predictions of who will win, advice on what candidates must do to win, scoring debates and speeches, commenting on performance, following fake scandals into the ground, interviewing surrogates — is just, as [New York University professor] Jay Rosen says, their attempt to look savvy. It's not helpful. It doesn't inform. It's not journalism.