While I don't entirely agree, it is another well written piece that has made me think a little deeper. Thanks.
Two things stick with me after reading this one.
First, while any honest observer can see that Trump is self-centered and often petty towards his critics (a character flaw exacerbated by years of abuse at the hands of the press), I don't see how this makes him an authoritarian. He is surprisingly (I would say at times irritatingly) transparent. He has changed the pecking order in the press pool, but as far as I am aware he has not attempted to silence the media who criticize him (as the Biden administration did openly and covertly). I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it and I want (even while disagreeing) to understand your point of view.
Second, I purchased and have begun reading The Gray Lady Winked on your recommendation. While perfection in anything is a nearly impossible goal, I feel professionalism requires a level of ethical commitment that appears to be missing in many newsrooms today. When a news organization has a history of intentionally misinforming readers/listeners (going back over a century at the Times), how can I trust any of their reporting? I do not know these journalists as you do. As I have watched institutions I once trusted implicitly become mired in wildly partisan politics, place strong emphasis on issues that should be at best peripheral, and fail to focus on areas of real concern, I have lost faith in them completely. That is not Trump's fault. They betrayed my trust and left me adrift on a stormy sea of Confusion, Uncertainty, and Doubt. [Insert gratuitous pun about chewing my CUD here.]
At what point are excessive bias, misrepresentation, journalistic malpractice, and blatant lies forgivable because some other reporting was pretty outstanding?
When are you coming to Southeast Wisconsin or the greater Chicago area? We'll have tea and something nice to eat. (Unfortunately the Georgian bakery closed, so no Хачапури. 😥)
Thanks, Steve. To your first point, I am not claiming he is an authoritarian but that he shares some tendencies with authoritarian leaders, such as his vilification of the press—or view of it only as an instrument for praising him, even when he's wrong, meaning that he doesn't seem to see any use at all in reporting as a means of ... reporting.
But let me be clear, authoritarian characteristics do not an authoritarian make.
And I agree with most of your first point, except one. He has in fact attempted to silence the media, even when they do not criticize him. He has threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses of major networks for their unfavorable coverage. He has also filed frivolous defamation suits against outlets. He even filed one against the pollster J. Ann Selzer for calling Illinois for Harris. This is known as a SLAPP and it works by forcing individuals to choose between a costly fight in court or shutting their mouths.
This week, he also issued a directive telling federal agencies to extract bonds from people seeking injunctions against potentially unconstitutional federal actions.
Second, glad to hear you got the book! I hope you're enjoying it. As for an "ethical commitment that appears to be missing in many newsrooms today," oh man could I tell you stories, and in fact maybe I should write a post on that, because you're right, and maybe you don't even realize all the specifics of how you are right.
Actually, I think I will do that. Thanks for the idea.
"I have lost faith in them completely. That is not Trump's fault. They betrayed my trust and left me adrift on a stormy sea of Confusion, Uncertainty, and Doubt."
Fair. My point is merely that the paper is not all bad. Or all good. If you want to keep up with events in China or East Africa, for example, the Grey Lady is quite good. If you want to keep up with U.S. politics or social issues, the Grey Lady is quite good—at giving you a sense of what the left thinks. And that also has value.
See my response to Reality Seeker for more details on that last point.
As for Chicago, I'm not entirely sure. We just finished moving to Washington DC and are still unpacking boxes.
I think you should also address the piece that was published in the New York Times in 2016 arguing that normal standards of journalism shouldn't apply to covering Trump.
DJ, your article is well written and provokes thought, as any well written, good article should do. However, it appears you may have been blinded by your own biases. You try to asset that Trump’s epithet of “fake news” is unwarranted because the Times hold government to account across the board. Yet even your own examples holding government to account when it’s a perceived conservative issue and letting the reporting slide or go silent when it protects a government program or official on the perceived left.
This is not new to reporting since reporting became a thing. What is new is an attempt to defend it. It’s indefensible and has been indefensible since Guttenberg. The old saw about believing nothing that you hear and half of what you read is actually generous. It’s probably in the Bible, somewhere. :)
I didn't say that Times holds government to account across the board, but rather that they do it, if inconsistently. Because the larger point is that they are neither wholly good nor bad. See my remark to Reality Seeker in the comments here for a lengthier reply. And thanks.
How much hate and willful dishonesty are we to allow an institution to launder with the occasional bit of actual journalism before we dismiss it?
Keep in mind we stand opposite a political Left that eternally dismisses entire publications as “unreliable sources” for writing a single thing that Snopes attacks.
I mean, both those approaches are self-evidently wrong. I would never take something at face value simply because the Times reported it. That kind of perfunctory deference has gone the way of Harvard's reputation, and as with Harvard, they only have themselves to blame. But like my friend said, they still have good journalists. And as I added above, also good bureaus. And they cover certain beats better than anyone else. But it does take a certain amount of homework to sift through the noise, and I rarely have the time these days, hence why I only continue to follow the beats or reporters I actually know to be good.
Don't get me wrong, I like to be aware of what they're saying, however...
1. Even the ostensibly non-ideological content tends to be subtly manipulative, if only in its use of shibboleths.
2. Gell-Mann Amnesia is real, and people should guard against it.
3. The ideological methodology enforced by editors at these publications includes "noble lies", "truth is subjective", et al. You can't rely on such people to tell the truth about ANYTHING, even when they mean to. Being stopped clocks twice a day doesn't make them worth reading.
Totally disagree with you on this one. I am a studious reader of the WSJ, NYT, and WaPo. The WSJ is the least egregious though it still represents the Right on a much more regular basis. And the liberal contributors and articles that WSJ does run are truly liberal, in contrast to the what the NYT and WaPo consider/allow as conservative.
To pull out the few, occasional, and truly not really conservative examples of the NYT and WaPo displaying some kind of balance does not represent the reality of those papers. And please don't tell their readers your opinion of the Times and WaPo as being in a any way representing another view because they will rip you apart for any hint of deviating from their truth. The readers are among the most sanctimonious and intolerant egos out their in spite of/or because of their high intelligence and abilities to express themselves. The paper, including what they cover, how they cover, and their columnists opinions are a reflexion of their readers.
The readers of the NYT and WaPo do not want balance and the papers accommodate them to avoid mass exodus. (Remember recent exodus from WaPo.)
I cannot forgive the NYT for its complicity in so much outright fraud on very significant and humanity damaging "reporting." This continues to today with it's political lies, anti-Israel, antisemitic postures, and anti many other traditional values.
But you seem to be falling into the very trap I outlined, namely thinking of NYT as a monolithic entity that is either all biased or not. And this applies to its readers, as well.
Yes, many of its readers are sanctimonious and uninterested in balanced perspectives, but then again, you have China hands who read its China reports and are interested purely in the data.
For that matter, surely you cannot argue that its reporting on South Korea is just as biased as its reporting on the trans issue. Or that its Nairobi bureau, one of its best, is roughly the same as its Moscow bureau, one of its worst.
Indeed, former Moscow bureau chief Andrew Kramer has long been attacked for his pro-Moscow bias, not to mention allegations that he plagiarized the Russian outlet Meduza. Sadly, he went on to become the paper's Kyiv bureau chief.
Now turn the page and look at the Nairobi bureau chief during the same period, Jeffrey Gettleman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist known for his extensive coverage of East Africa, particularly conflicts and humanitarian crises.
My point being, the NYT is not simply good or simply bad. It depends on the specific beat, or the specific bureau, or the specific journalist is you want to get really granular—and even then, you don't always end up with a simplistic conclusion.
Sure, Kramer is easily dismissed as a hack, but even the likes of Gettleman defies low-resolution thinking. He has an incredible and well-earned reputation. He has honed the craft of vivid storytelling and is deeply engaged with the region.
On the other hand, he has also faced criticism for parachute journalism because he writes about African countries with a Western-centric perspective. He has also been accused of reinforcing stereotypes about Africa as a place of violence and despair, rather than capturing its complexity, especially in his reporting on Somalia and Kenya, and some of that is because, as I noted above, his focus is conflict and humanitarian issues.
But one can make a colorable argument that he perhaps has blind spots as a result.
In other words, while I can mostly agree with your position here, I simply would never apply that analysis to the paper as a whole. Do you not agree?
I am grateful that the NYT spends the money on this reporting despite Americans' general disinterest in world affairs.
Not sure that some good makes up for the bias and damage that the NYT does, let alone how it has been a major force in the direction of the field of Journalism towards advocacy versus facts, evenhandedness, and independent thinking.
While I don't entirely agree, it is another well written piece that has made me think a little deeper. Thanks.
Two things stick with me after reading this one.
First, while any honest observer can see that Trump is self-centered and often petty towards his critics (a character flaw exacerbated by years of abuse at the hands of the press), I don't see how this makes him an authoritarian. He is surprisingly (I would say at times irritatingly) transparent. He has changed the pecking order in the press pool, but as far as I am aware he has not attempted to silence the media who criticize him (as the Biden administration did openly and covertly). I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it and I want (even while disagreeing) to understand your point of view.
Second, I purchased and have begun reading The Gray Lady Winked on your recommendation. While perfection in anything is a nearly impossible goal, I feel professionalism requires a level of ethical commitment that appears to be missing in many newsrooms today. When a news organization has a history of intentionally misinforming readers/listeners (going back over a century at the Times), how can I trust any of their reporting? I do not know these journalists as you do. As I have watched institutions I once trusted implicitly become mired in wildly partisan politics, place strong emphasis on issues that should be at best peripheral, and fail to focus on areas of real concern, I have lost faith in them completely. That is not Trump's fault. They betrayed my trust and left me adrift on a stormy sea of Confusion, Uncertainty, and Doubt. [Insert gratuitous pun about chewing my CUD here.]
At what point are excessive bias, misrepresentation, journalistic malpractice, and blatant lies forgivable because some other reporting was pretty outstanding?
When are you coming to Southeast Wisconsin or the greater Chicago area? We'll have tea and something nice to eat. (Unfortunately the Georgian bakery closed, so no Хачапури. 😥)
Thanks, Steve. To your first point, I am not claiming he is an authoritarian but that he shares some tendencies with authoritarian leaders, such as his vilification of the press—or view of it only as an instrument for praising him, even when he's wrong, meaning that he doesn't seem to see any use at all in reporting as a means of ... reporting.
But let me be clear, authoritarian characteristics do not an authoritarian make.
And I agree with most of your first point, except one. He has in fact attempted to silence the media, even when they do not criticize him. He has threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses of major networks for their unfavorable coverage. He has also filed frivolous defamation suits against outlets. He even filed one against the pollster J. Ann Selzer for calling Illinois for Harris. This is known as a SLAPP and it works by forcing individuals to choose between a costly fight in court or shutting their mouths.
This week, he also issued a directive telling federal agencies to extract bonds from people seeking injunctions against potentially unconstitutional federal actions.
Second, glad to hear you got the book! I hope you're enjoying it. As for an "ethical commitment that appears to be missing in many newsrooms today," oh man could I tell you stories, and in fact maybe I should write a post on that, because you're right, and maybe you don't even realize all the specifics of how you are right.
Actually, I think I will do that. Thanks for the idea.
"I have lost faith in them completely. That is not Trump's fault. They betrayed my trust and left me adrift on a stormy sea of Confusion, Uncertainty, and Doubt."
Fair. My point is merely that the paper is not all bad. Or all good. If you want to keep up with events in China or East Africa, for example, the Grey Lady is quite good. If you want to keep up with U.S. politics or social issues, the Grey Lady is quite good—at giving you a sense of what the left thinks. And that also has value.
See my response to Reality Seeker for more details on that last point.
As for Chicago, I'm not entirely sure. We just finished moving to Washington DC and are still unpacking boxes.
Thank you. Your response was spot on and much appreciated. Good luck with getting settled in.
I think you should also address the piece that was published in the New York Times in 2016 arguing that normal standards of journalism shouldn't apply to covering Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26454551/donald-trump-interview-new-york-times-media-objectivity/
DJ, your article is well written and provokes thought, as any well written, good article should do. However, it appears you may have been blinded by your own biases. You try to asset that Trump’s epithet of “fake news” is unwarranted because the Times hold government to account across the board. Yet even your own examples holding government to account when it’s a perceived conservative issue and letting the reporting slide or go silent when it protects a government program or official on the perceived left.
This is not new to reporting since reporting became a thing. What is new is an attempt to defend it. It’s indefensible and has been indefensible since Guttenberg. The old saw about believing nothing that you hear and half of what you read is actually generous. It’s probably in the Bible, somewhere. :)
I didn't say that Times holds government to account across the board, but rather that they do it, if inconsistently. Because the larger point is that they are neither wholly good nor bad. See my remark to Reality Seeker in the comments here for a lengthier reply. And thanks.
The New York Times is Exhibit A of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
How much hate and willful dishonesty are we to allow an institution to launder with the occasional bit of actual journalism before we dismiss it?
Keep in mind we stand opposite a political Left that eternally dismisses entire publications as “unreliable sources” for writing a single thing that Snopes attacks.
I mean, both those approaches are self-evidently wrong. I would never take something at face value simply because the Times reported it. That kind of perfunctory deference has gone the way of Harvard's reputation, and as with Harvard, they only have themselves to blame. But like my friend said, they still have good journalists. And as I added above, also good bureaus. And they cover certain beats better than anyone else. But it does take a certain amount of homework to sift through the noise, and I rarely have the time these days, hence why I only continue to follow the beats or reporters I actually know to be good.
Don't get me wrong, I like to be aware of what they're saying, however...
1. Even the ostensibly non-ideological content tends to be subtly manipulative, if only in its use of shibboleths.
2. Gell-Mann Amnesia is real, and people should guard against it.
3. The ideological methodology enforced by editors at these publications includes "noble lies", "truth is subjective", et al. You can't rely on such people to tell the truth about ANYTHING, even when they mean to. Being stopped clocks twice a day doesn't make them worth reading.
David, the volume us too low. Sounds like a whisper. I can’t hear what you are saying. Can you fix the audio?
Apologies, I was editing with my headphones on. I just made it 10% louder, see if that works for you.
It is still very quiet
Try now. I just boosted it 30% more.
Totally disagree with you on this one. I am a studious reader of the WSJ, NYT, and WaPo. The WSJ is the least egregious though it still represents the Right on a much more regular basis. And the liberal contributors and articles that WSJ does run are truly liberal, in contrast to the what the NYT and WaPo consider/allow as conservative.
To pull out the few, occasional, and truly not really conservative examples of the NYT and WaPo displaying some kind of balance does not represent the reality of those papers. And please don't tell their readers your opinion of the Times and WaPo as being in a any way representing another view because they will rip you apart for any hint of deviating from their truth. The readers are among the most sanctimonious and intolerant egos out their in spite of/or because of their high intelligence and abilities to express themselves. The paper, including what they cover, how they cover, and their columnists opinions are a reflexion of their readers.
The readers of the NYT and WaPo do not want balance and the papers accommodate them to avoid mass exodus. (Remember recent exodus from WaPo.)
I cannot forgive the NYT for its complicity in so much outright fraud on very significant and humanity damaging "reporting." This continues to today with it's political lies, anti-Israel, antisemitic postures, and anti many other traditional values.
Just how biased is the NYT? This is a joke.
But you seem to be falling into the very trap I outlined, namely thinking of NYT as a monolithic entity that is either all biased or not. And this applies to its readers, as well.
Yes, many of its readers are sanctimonious and uninterested in balanced perspectives, but then again, you have China hands who read its China reports and are interested purely in the data.
For that matter, surely you cannot argue that its reporting on South Korea is just as biased as its reporting on the trans issue. Or that its Nairobi bureau, one of its best, is roughly the same as its Moscow bureau, one of its worst.
Indeed, former Moscow bureau chief Andrew Kramer has long been attacked for his pro-Moscow bias, not to mention allegations that he plagiarized the Russian outlet Meduza. Sadly, he went on to become the paper's Kyiv bureau chief.
Now turn the page and look at the Nairobi bureau chief during the same period, Jeffrey Gettleman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist known for his extensive coverage of East Africa, particularly conflicts and humanitarian crises.
My point being, the NYT is not simply good or simply bad. It depends on the specific beat, or the specific bureau, or the specific journalist is you want to get really granular—and even then, you don't always end up with a simplistic conclusion.
Sure, Kramer is easily dismissed as a hack, but even the likes of Gettleman defies low-resolution thinking. He has an incredible and well-earned reputation. He has honed the craft of vivid storytelling and is deeply engaged with the region.
On the other hand, he has also faced criticism for parachute journalism because he writes about African countries with a Western-centric perspective. He has also been accused of reinforcing stereotypes about Africa as a place of violence and despair, rather than capturing its complexity, especially in his reporting on Somalia and Kenya, and some of that is because, as I noted above, his focus is conflict and humanitarian issues.
But one can make a colorable argument that he perhaps has blind spots as a result.
In other words, while I can mostly agree with your position here, I simply would never apply that analysis to the paper as a whole. Do you not agree?
I am grateful that the NYT spends the money on this reporting despite Americans' general disinterest in world affairs.
Not sure that some good makes up for the bias and damage that the NYT does, let alone how it has been a major force in the direction of the field of Journalism towards advocacy versus facts, evenhandedness, and independent thinking.