This was a really interesting read about the growing polarisation in media and the US.
Like me, Baquet seemed taken aback by the criticism that Times readers shouldnāt 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 himāmost of them, according to some polls. āAre we truly so precious?ā Baquet asked again, with a note of wonder and frustration.
The answer, it turned out, was yes. Less than three days later, on Saturday morning, Sulzberger called me at home and, with an icy anger that still puzzles and saddens me, demanded my resignation. I got mad, too, and said heād have to fire me. I thought better of that later. I called him back and agreed to resign, flattering myself that I was being noble.
Whether or not American democracy endures, a central question historians are sure to ask about this era is why America came to elect Donald Trump, promoting him from a symptom of the countryās institutional, political and social degradation to its agent-in-chief. There are many reasons for Trumpās ascent, but changes in the American news media played a critical role. Trumpās manipulation and every one of his political lies became more powerful because journalists had forfeited what had always been most valuable about their work: their credibility as arbiters of truth and brokers of ideas, which for more than a century, despite all of journalismās flaws and failures, had been a bulwark of how Americans govern themselves.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/JxGro
How could you walk up SO close to the point and then manage to get 1,000% backwards
Dude print it on a fuckin flyer that gets stapled to the shirt of every NYT reporter and editor so they can always pick it up and read again and itās never out of sight. Have someone stop them when they walk in the building, and then read it to them like a Miranda warning, and ask for a verbal yes or no whether they have understood, before anything can continue. Fuckin do it every day. I cannot stress enough how well this gets to the heart of the point of what is wrong with US journalism and the Times in particular.
And then:
Where was this careful avoidance of favoring one side or another as to Bidenās age and its importance in the campaign
Or in whether Israel is justified in the war
Or whether criticism of them is anti Semitic
The exact problem with the Times is that they are favoring one side of the national debate, and specifically somehow unerringly the wrong side. I actually agree that they should either avoid taking sides, or, even better, favour the side that is backed up by objective reality. But neither of those is what they are doing.
What old standards are those, AG
I remember the paper favouring killing Palestinians for as long as I remember. I remember it telling my parents what a good idea the Iraq War was and them believing it. I donāt remember it ever having it lost its way into some postmodernist fog where it was careful to say that maybe Palestine has a point
SO WHAT OLD STANDARDS ARE YOU MEANING
WHAT YEAR DO YOU MEAN, AND WHAT STORIES
Because I kind of have a feeling I know exactly, precisely, what version of truth AG is talking about how very important it is for the paper to enforce, and publish exclusively, not committing the disservice that it would be for them to waver from that version of the truth.
Let me say it again:
Butā¦ you keep quoting AG and the NYT as examples of why the article is wrong, AG is clearly one of those at fault in the article and the entire article is making the same points as you are? Theyāre not praising the NYT.
AG is clearly one of those at fault in the article, but Iām not convinced that that is the voice the author is coming at it from.
Itās so long that Iām not going to read it all in depth. Maybe that means I am going to miss something but I just now made a pretty lengthy concerted effort to skim and try to see if your reading makes sense, and Iām still having trouble. So like, check this out:
The whole framing of the article is that the āuntruthā AG needs to be setting straight is overly sensitive political correctness from progressives, and analyzing everything heās doing through that lens. Whether we have to be neutral and present progressives and āconservativesā on the same footing, or whether we should take a side and say the progressives are wrong. Right? Have I read that part right in your opinion?
I think once youāve framed AGās dilemma in those terms, you already fucked up. That is not AGās dilemma. His dilemma is that part of the US political spectrum is explicitly fascist now, and his decision as far as I can tell is that we need to go further than the Timesās editorial voice being on the side of the neoliberals as it always was, and now needs to be the fascists or at least give them the benefit of the doubt, whether or not thatās the reality.
Hereās an extremely instructive example:
Right? I still wonāt say Iām 100% sure on 100% of the thesis of the article, but is that not Bennet arguing that AG needs to enforce better the pro-fascist standard of truth?
I kinda read it differently. Iām not saying youāre wrong, since this is of course all pretty subjective. But at least the way I read it, Bennet is saying that the NYT has a duty to help both sides understand each other, and the way to do that would be by giving a voice to the right and centrists without necessarily endorsing any faction. I agree with it to some extent - as both sides have polarised and pulled away from each other, itās gotten hard to be a neutral viewpoint in any number of topics without being roundly condemned by both sides.
Thatās a tough one. Dogwhistles, weasel words, doublespeak are all things to watch out for. Heās condemning the NYT for changing the language Cotton used, but Iām not familiar enough with US politics to have an opinion if they changed the meaning or just polished the turd.
Regardless, I appreciate the different viewpoint you presented. As usual, thereās no black and white in these scenarios.
I think that this is a superficially pleasing argument but actually quite dangerous. It ignores that the NYT is itself quite powerful. Anything printed in the NYT is instantly given credibility, so itās actually impossible for them to stay objective and not take sides. Taking an army out to quash protestors gets normalized when it appears in the NYT, which is a point for that side of the argument, but the NYT canāt publish every side of every issue. Thereās not enough space on the whole internet for that. This is why we have that saying that I mentioned in the other comment, that journalists should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, or that journalists ought to speak truth to power. Since itās simply impractical to be truly neural, in the sense of publishing every side of every issue, a responsible journalist considers the power dynamics to decide which sides need airing.
The author of the OP argues that, because Cotton is already a very influential person, he ought to be published in the NYT, but I think that the exact opposite is true. Because Cotton is already an influential person, he has plenty of places that he can speak, and when the NYT platforms his view that powerful people like him should oppress those beneath them, they do a disservice to their society by implicitly endorsing that as something more worthy of publishing than the infinite other things that they could publish. For literally all of history, itās been easy to hear the opinions of those who wield violence to suppress dissent. Journalism is special only when it goes against power.
I get what youāre saying. The flip side, is that at the other extreme you get echo chambers, which is arguably where weāve landed today in a lot of media. Itās a pretty tough question, and I donāt claim to have the answer, but I think itās a good thing to be having this discussion instead of sweeping it under the rug.
Yeah, I agree with all of this ā both that it is what Bennet is saying, and that itās true and important.
I just donāt think it applies to the Timesās or AGās behavior, in the real world, although Bennet is saying that it does. We need quadrants, I think:
Yes I am editorializing a little bit. Itās okay, Iām not a journalist. Also, itās still a quadrant; #5 just exists way, way off the bottom right-hand side of the square.
I think Bennet is saying that the Times was doing too much of #3 and is now getting back to its roots of #1, or should be. What I think is happening is that the times was doing #4 and is now starting to do #5, with a little disingenuous sprinkling of #1 to disguise the taste.
Youāll notice that they donāt feel any kind of need to present āboth sidesā of peopleās feelings on Bidenās debate performance, or the war in Gaza (although I think the sheer humanitarian atrocity is so massive by now that theyāve been forced into admitting on some level that yes, a whole bunch of Palestinians many of them families and innocent children do seem to be starving and getting buried under rubble and maybe itās not an ideal outcome, although, of course, thereās a lot of blame to go around on many different sides for why that is happening.)
Personally, I wish the NYT would do stuff like this within the context of an interview. If you know someone is redefining words with new sinister meaning to try to justify their killing, I think you should call them out on it. Donāt just let them pretend on the editorial page that they mean killing looters, certainly. But also, donāt change their words and just kind of sneakily not address it (which I suspect is the result of splitting the difference between the reporterās desire to report the truth and AGās desire for the reporter to report the fascist newspeak version of it).
In a perfect world, I think you could do an interview where you say, I want to ask about about this ālooters.ā Youāre clearly talking about shooting protestors, and pretending you are talking about shooting looters. Whatās up with that? And then in that context you give them a chance to speak and say their side. And if youāre wrong, fair play, but in this case I think it is absurd to pretend that Trump and Cotton were telling the truth when they were talking about shooting looters and getting upset when people pointed out that they mean they want to shoot protestors.
Think youāve put it pretty well there! I do think Bennet wants #2 though. He draws a clear line between op-eds and factual news, and was pretty clear that the latter should be evidence-based.
Yeah, agreed. I oversimplified a little, in that in the supposed ideal, you have a news section which is āobjectiveā and an editorial section which is āboth sidesā and they work in very different ways, and to me thatās a pretty good system when itās working well. I think AG is distorting both sides of it to serve his agenda, in somewhat different ways of course.
The fairness doctrine? Eta: Iām aware it was for broadcast, but it used to be fairly standard, anyway, in print.