By John Dineen
If you don’t keep up with the Twitterverse, you might not know of the opprobrium being heaped these days on The New York Times — and not just by the “hate-MSM, fake news” crowd.
First, let’s state the obvious: The Times is a target because it stands at the pinnacle of the American press. It is capable of great and important journalism. But it’s increasingly obvious that the Times likes the view from the pinnacle, and its journalism sometimes reflects that.
Margaret Sullivan, a former Times public editor and now a Washington Post columnist, was succinct:
"With unique access to power, the Times is addicted to it — too often allowing those at the top of government and business to seize its megaphone, sometimes while wearing the invisibility cloak of anonymity.
"Under constant attack from all quarters, the Times often reacts self-protectively, with 'both-sides' reporting and presentation, giving equal weight to unequal claims."
When Bill Clinton was president, we called it triangulation. Now, what the Times would call balance sometimes looks more like journalism with an eye on its sources — not its readers.
Let’s go back to an earlier, already chewed-over suspect: a Nov. 1 story detailing a phone call from Donald Trump to a Times reporter. Trump just called to say everything was fine, that he was enjoying the job. Given that rather thin gruel, the headline — oh yes, the Times ran a story — might as well have read, “Trump call underscores pre-eminent position of Times.”
Then, just before the new year, Times reporter Michael S. Schmidt, lucky fellow, just happened to be sitting at the right place, Mar a Lago, at the right time, when Trump invited him to sit down in the club for an impromptu chat.
The story that followed dutifully recounted Trump’s rambling assertions on a number of topics: special counsel Robert Mueller (the Times gamely led with the “news” that Trump believed Mueller would treat him fairly) and all manner of things related to the Russia investigation, North Korea, his grasp of legislation, the tax bill, Democrats, the Alabama Senate election, the failing media, his golf game.
It reminded me of stories I wrote years ago on congressional hearings at which nothing of note happened, but I still had to file 600 words. The art is not in the story — that’s just practice — but in convincing yourself you’re writing something worthwhile for your readers.
Lest we miss the significance of the exclusive, the Times followed up with a partial transcript of the interview, a sidebar by Schmidt about getting the interview, and a fact check that identified “10 false or misleading claims” by Trump.
Many critics leapt on Schmidt’s decidedly soft touch with Trump and his patently false assertions. I’m more curious about the Times’ journalism choice: a story filled with falsehoods, followed by a story identifying those falsehoods.
Last week was another bonanza for Trump and the Times.
After Trump presided over a public “negotiation” with congressional leaders on immigration legislation, the Times ran a prominent story on his openness to a comprehensive deal — just one of several, sometimes contradictory, positions he took during the meeting.
In fact, Trump also said that he would sign anything, so touting his receptiveness to comprehensive legislation seems, well, silly. It seems sillier still given the Times' accompanying analysis: that the meeting was organized — in a familiar, comfortable reality-show format — to show Donald Trump in charge, a White House riposte to the characterization in the explosive book by Michael Wolff that Trump is not up to the job.
Even some Democratic lawmakers expressed cautious optimism. Of course, by the end of the week, such talk had given way to Trump expletives.
Critics are left to wonder, why does the Times engage in such nonsense alongside its high-quality journalism?
Meanwhile, loyal readers are left to ponder the subtext for the Times decision to run a particular story. That may be a good practice in general for news consumers. But it does not speak well of the most important news organization in the United States.
Comments