In the Wake of President-elect Trump's Surprise Victory, Time for the News Media to Not Just Reflect ... but Act!

There is much I do admire about the 'New York Times', which I argued in a previous post undercut its own credibility by allowing pro-Hillary Clinton bias to infect its coverage of the presidential race. 

One thing I admire is that the Times uses a 'public editor' named Liz Spayd whose job is to review public comments to the 'Times' and analyze the newspaper's coverage of important events.  The fact that the 'Times' is willing to employ what amounts to a public voice willing to be critical of the paper itself says a lot for news organization which values honesty and transparency.

And in her analysis of the 'Times' coverage of this presidential race, Spayd pulled no punches, beginning with the headline, "Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking". 

She used comments to the 'Times' from readers including one from a woman in Houston which read in part, "... you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”  Another reader reportedly referred to their campaign coverage as 'journalistic bigotry'.

Spayd concludes, "But as The Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers."

Does that ring true to you?  And do you think it is just the 'New York Times', or the mainstream national news media as a whole?

In a response of sorts to all the negative feedback the paper received 'at a rapid rate' according to Spayd in the wake of the election, 'New York Times' publisher Arthur Schulzberger Jr. and Executive Editor Dean Baquet wrote an open letter to 'Times' readers (I apologize for the lack of a link ... I am unable to find one at the moment).

According to the rival 'New York Post', it read in part ...

".... we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign."

It's a strong statment, but unfortunately, it is also an inaccurate statement, for had the 'Times' covered both candidates fairly during the election, the newspaper would feel no need to issue a statement like this in the first place.  Even in a moment of self-reflection, the 'Times' just can't get it quite right.

In my previous post titled "The Biggest Loser in This Election Will be American Journalism", I was critical of Baquet for his justification of biased reporting against Trump.  One of their own columnists now reports that the newspaper is hemorrhaging subscribers as a result.

While I applaud any public commitment to fairness by journalists, the fact you feel the need to make that commitment at all shows just how far off the rails you've gone. I mean, isn't that supposed to be the very standard of unbiased journalism? It's sort of like an airline making a commitment that its pilots will fly safely.

Even today, I see evidence of bias in the reporting of the aftermath of the election, with many reporting that Clinton 'won' the popular vote.  Let's be clear, Clinton won nothing, because the popular vote was not a standard for victory.  Had it been, both campaigns would have strategized very differently, and the outcome in the popular vote would have been impacted.  Or to paraphrase an actual Electoral College member on CNN, "it's like saying the Chicago Cubs should hand back the World Series trophy because both teams scored the same number of runs."  They won't because the Cubs won more games ... and Trump won more votes in the only place it counted.

Reporting without context is poor journalism, and further evidence of bias, because Trump would have been an idiot to attempt to win the meaningless popular vote.  Instead, he was very smart and savvy, and achieved something very few (including me) believed he could.

Most alarming to me was this article by a former 'New York Times' reporter which talks about how the newspaper, rather than report in an unbiased manner, now seeks to promote 'narratives'.  If true, it would explain a lot. 

A 'Times' pollster even conceded publicly that they 'fudged' their projection numbers on election night after it became clear what the result would be (I also wonder if that played into the late calling of Wisconsin for Trump, which we locally called far earlier than the networks did).  What more could the newspaper have done to undercut its own credibility?

I don't relish criticizing the 'New York Times', because in my youth, the newspaper was the first inspiration that led to my own career in journalism.  I devoured the 'New York Times', and the paper gave me the eye-opening realization that good, credible, objective information is an important and valuable commodity in a free society.  Watching the newspaper's decline has been painful for me, and I confess to feeling some anger at those who have led it.

But its demise is not inevitable.  While words are nice, people will respond to action.  If Sulzberger is serious about recommitting the 'Times' to serious objective journalism, then he should begin by realizing that his Executive Editor is not ... and demanding his resignation.  That would be a powerful statement in defense of good journalism the 'New York Times' has been known for in the past.

After all, I agree that the 'Times' should report in a manner which holds the Trump Administration accountable, but it can only do so with credibility if the newspaper shows it is willing to hold itself accountable as well.