When the New York Times lost its way

[JohnSJ]

"Are we truly so precious?” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, asked me one Wednesday evening in June 2020. I was the editorial-page editor of the Times, and we had just published an op-ed by Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas, that was outraging many members of the Times staff. America’s conscience had been shocked days before by images of a white police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man, George Floyd, until he died. It was a frenzied time in America, assaulted by covid-19, scalded by police barbarism. Throughout the country protesters were on the march. Substantive reform of the police, so long delayed, suddenly seemed like a real possibility, but so did violence and political backlash. In some cities rioting and looting had broken out.

..........

"The Times had endured many cycles of Twitter outrage for one story or opinion piece or another. It was never fun; it felt like sticking your head in a metal bucket while people were banging it with hammers. The publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, who was about two years into the job, understood why we’d published the op-ed. He had some criticisms about packaging; he said the editors should add links to other op-eds we’d published with a different view. But he’d emailed me that afternoon, saying: “I get and support the reason for including the piece,” because, he thought, Cotton’s view had the support of the White House as well as a majority of the Senate. As the clamour grew, he asked me to call Baquet, the paper’s most senior editor."

...........

"Like me, Baquet seemed taken aback by the criticism that Times readers shouldn’t hear what Cotton had to say. Cotton had a lot of influence with the White House, Baquet noted, and he could well be making his argument directly to the president, Donald Trump. Readers should know about it. Cotton was also a possible future contender for the White House himself, Baquet added. And, besides, Cotton was far from alone: lots of Americans agreed with him—most of them, according to some polls. “Are we truly so precious?” Baquet asked again, with a note of wonder and frustration."

..........

"But Sulzberger seems to underestimate the struggle he is in, that all journalism and indeed America itself is in. In describing the essential qualities of independent journalism in his essay, he unspooled a list of admirable traits – empathy, humility, curiosity and so forth. These qualities have for generations been helpful in contending with the Times’s familiar problem, which is liberal bias. I have no doubt Sulzberger believes in them. Years ago he demonstrated them himself as a reporter, covering the American Midwest as a real place full of three-dimensional people, and it would be nice if they were enough to deal with the challenge of this era, too. But, on their own, these qualities have no chance against the Times’s new, more dangerous problem, which is in crucial respects the opposite of the old one.

The Times’s problem has metastasised from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether. All the empathy and humility in the world will not mean much against the pressures of intolerance and tribalism without an invaluable quality that Sulzberger did not emphasise: courage."

......

"One of the glories of embracing illiberalism is that, like Trump, you are always right about everything, and so you are justified in shouting disagreement down. In the face of this, leaders of many workplaces and boardrooms across America find that it is so much easier to compromise than to confront – to give a little ground today in the belief you can ultimately bring people around. This is how reasonable Republican leaders lost control of their party to Trump and how liberal-minded college presidents lost control of their campuses. And it is why the leadership of the New York Times is losing control of its principles."


https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way

[Lonestarblue]

1. The NYT lost its way long before 2020 and its decision to publish Tom Cotton's urging illegal actions.

The Times clearly supported Trump in 2016 by harping on Hillary’s emails with daily articles and opinion pieces, just as it has spent the past year with articles and opinions that Biden is too old to be president. Biden’s age has not been news for a long time, yet the Times chose to write news articles about it almost every day. That is propaganda, not news.

As for Tom Cotton’s piece, the Times got a lot of blowback from readers. This writer and others at the Times justified their decision to publish because Cotton was close to Trump and could be a presidential nominee at some point. With such logic, the Times would have agreed to publish an opinion by Goebbels that Hitler had a right to murder all Jews and Romany.

What Cotton was promoting was for Trump to send the US military to Democratic cities to prevent the protests against George Floyd’s murder. The excuse was that there had been some violence and looting even though most of the protests were peaceful and it was later learned that right-wing actors were instigating some of the violence. Cotton advocated breaking the Posse Comitatus Act, passed 1878 over concerns about using the federal military to enforce domestic laws. No news outlet should be giving a national platform to a politician to push the opinion that the President has a right to break the law, yet that is what the Times did.

Of course, now that the SC has said that presidents can violate most of our laws with impunity, all bets are off.

[JohnSJ]

2. Without a doubt, and that is exactly what trump wanted Milley to do.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics/bender-book-trump-milley-protests/index.html

Of course when trump's thugs who invaded the capital to try to overturn an election, trump was no where to be found when requests were made to call in the National Guard.