The New York Times' long descent from credibility
By: By Michael Goodwin
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This is part two of excerpts from Michael Goodwin’s Pulliam Lecture at Hillsdale College.
The separation of news from opinion was an ingrained part of the culture at The New York Times when I started there in the 1970s.
As a young reporter, I knew the rule without understanding its significance. I only knew I was not permitted to express my opinions in my stories.
Those were the days when copy was edited by hand and if you veered into editorializing, editors simply crossed out the offending words. You learned of your mistake when you read the paper the next day and realized your opinion was on the cutting-room floor.
This was a painful way to learn, but learn we did.
The top editor then was the late Abe Rosenthal. He said he knew reporters tended to lean left politically, so he steered the editing process to the right. That way, he said, the paper would end up in the middle.
He often declared that his epitaph would be, “he kept the paper straight.”
I was surprised when his widow informed me that those words appear on the footstone of his grave. She sent me a photograph to prove it.
Now that is commitment!
Another key standard involved sources, which are a flashpoint these days. The Times “Manual on Style and Usage,” which has set the paper’s rules for more than a century, says the best source for readers is one who can be identified by name, but also describes when anonymous sources can be used.
The decision must be justified by a reporter and editor who agree that “not only is there no other way to obtain the information, but also that the information is both factual and important.”
In effect, reporters and editors are required to vouch for the sources’ claims.
To add another layer of fairness, an anonymous source had to be identified as much as possible. The manual says, “United States diplomat is better than Western diplomat, which is better than diplomat. And better still is a United States diplomat who took part in the meeting.”
Again, the aim was to give the reader sufficient information to make a judgment about the source’s credibility.
In addition, anonymous sources were not permitted to make derogatory statements about someone. Because the target would have no way to respond when the source was shielded, reporters were not permitted to use derogatory quotations from anonymous sources.
Over time, these rules instilled trust among readers. Many New Yorkers grew up believing that, if The New York Times said it, it is probably true.
So what happened? How is that we are witnessing the collapse of the paper’s credibility?
The answer begins with Ernest Hemingway’s line in “The Sun Also Rises” about how a character went bankrupt: “Gradually and then suddenly.”
The collapse of the Times’ standards was a gradual process that culminated in a sudden decision by current editor Dean Baquet to abandon them.
After Abe Rosenthal left the newsroom in 1986, a succession of editors relaxed his rules. Accuracy declined but the most glaring change was that coverage began to reflect the bias of editors and reporters.
And then came Baquet. A former reporter in his native New Orleans as well as in Chicago and New York, Baquet was managing editor at The New York Times in 2014 when his boss, Jill Abramson, was fired, and he was named her successor.
Nothing in his rise suggests the radicalism he now displays. The defining moment came in August of 2016 with an article by the Times’ media columnist. It began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”
Under standards I grew up with at the Times, the answer is easy: Because you hold blatantly partisan views, you probably can’t provide impartial coverage. You should be writing about sports or food or fashion — anything but politics.
Baquet’s reaction was exactly the opposite. That column, he said, “nailed” his thinking that Trump had “challenged our language” and he claimed Trump “will have changed journalism.”
He declared an end to the quest for fairness, saying: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle,” adding: “We now say stuff. We fact-check him. We write it more powerfully that it’s false.”
Baquet turned that view into policy. Suddenly, standards of fairness and impartiality that Adolph Ochs established and that every publisher and editor since had tried to uphold were abandoned.
Instead of just who, what, when, where and why, a Times story would have another element: the reporter’s opinion.
Since then, virtually every so-called news article has reflected a bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement — all the tools editors have are summoned to the battle.
Moreover, this license has infected the entire paper. Even stories on the sports and business pages are overtly opinionated.
Nothing about the Times these days is impartial. Nothing.
On politics, the implications of Baquet’s decision are enormous. One is that readers who subscribe to the Times because of its anti-Trump agenda feel entitled to have it their way. After a spate of mass shootings last summer, the Times put a balanced headline on a story about the president’s consoling remarks. “ Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism ,” the paper said in its first edition of August 6th.
But a Twitter storm of angry leftists demanded it be changed and Baquet agreed, with the next edition reading, “Assailing Hate, But Not Guns.”
Days later, Baquet convened a staff meeting where he apologized profusely for the first headline after numerous reporters and editors wondered how such a terrible thing could happen. Many reporters lobbied for even more critical coverage of Trump and wanted stories highlighting what they said is the racism that pervades American society.
I tried in vain to imagine Abe Rosenthal facing such an opinionated, entitled newsroom. He would have invited them all to find the door.
Baquet, unfortunately, is in no position to resist, even if he wanted to. He is captive to a monster he created. If he doesn’t serve his readers and staff a daily dose of hate-Trump coverage, he’ll have a revolt — and lose his job.
He’s already lost something larger. By ending the commitment to fairness and impartiality, Baquet is destroying the credibility of The New York Times. Standards made it the most trusted news organization in America and by trashing those standards, Baquet has turned the Times into a purely partisan outlet.
It would be tragic enough if his actions had destroyed only the Times. But there is a national crisis of confidence in all media, and the Times no longer offers a solution. It is a major part of the problem.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
It's a sad state of affairs when so much of the main stream media is openly biased that facts and truth are distorted. The once great "Paper of record" is little more than leftist propaganda.
In my school days, we had weekly current events assignments and classes. From 4th through 7th grades, we used our regional newspaper. From 8th through 12th, we used the NYT. The papers were available in school and at our public library if we didn't have a home subscription. We were expected to choose an article from the "A" section each week, write a brief essay summary, and read our report out loud.
"Opinion" articles were only in the "Opinion" section, and not in the "A" section and we weren't allowed to use them. Today, the "news" articles are filled with the writers' opinions.
Yup and the man in the picture gets most of the blame!
Actually, that should go to Reagan.
Funny how reporting facts is now "leftist propaganda".
The far right wing spin machine has been very busy.
Trump denies saying things he has been filmed saying. Fake news he says.
The only fake news these days comes out of Trump's mouth.
And the final insult is, is that they want you to pay to read the lies.
I've had a NYT subscription for decades so I have unlimited access. My friends who don't have told me that until a few years ago, they could read 10 "free" articles a month. I guess that's no longer true and the NYT has gone the way of WaPo and other left-wing media ... subscription only.
Last I heard it was expensive to publish a newspaper.
The article , written by a right wing columnist, is of course, an opinion piece itself.
It's fatal flaw is the assumption that people who report the news should give Trump's side of every story. His "side" is almost always a combination of lies , bs, and self-aggrandizement.
The New York Times is doing fine.
Your astute observation was already noted in the seed's tags, John. Your point?
I'm sure there were even those who defended Caligula's debauchery and vile behavior and wanted all the media of the time to report just the rosy picture of his disastrous rule. I'm sure those who reported the facts were called "fake news" by all those around and loyal to the Emperor or those in fear of losing their positions and wealth by incurring his wrath.
So it's no wonder that Trump and his sycophants will condemn any negative reporting even when the media is simply repeating Trumps own words which condemn him and thus has to be viewed by his supporters as "fake news" because the "way" the Presidents own words are being presented doesn't include all the standard Republican caveats and talking points to explain "Trump speak" to their poorly educated masses. Besides Russia, Trump really owes Fox News for "explaining" everything to their viewers. Otherwise, just based on what Trump has actually done, without all the ducking and dodging, twists of logic and contortions of reason created by either RT or Fox News, I have no doubt the Republicans of just a decade ago would have kicked this joke of a President to the curb. I guess I underestimated the power of a populist tickling ears, telling them what they want to hear and scratching their backs by stacking the courts with conservative judges. How they can stomach a demonstrably more adulterous and sleazier scum bag than Bill Clinton after their decades of self righteous grandstanding using Clinton as the low bar, is truly astonishing.
I'm glad you still have confidence in a newspaper that hasn't had an unbiased editor in at least 10 years and hasn't had an astute proofreader in over 20 years. I've maintained a NYT subscription for 40+ years, and I've watched its decline.
Perhaps you just became more right wing.
How about not giving sides and reporting the news? Like we all don't know what these newspapers have become.
Says the guy that seeded an opinion piece from the NY Post.
Ya, says me
Wow Vic, I thought that the reply tab to my comments was broken for you since you've failed to reply to so many of my challenges on your seeds.
Are you sure your didn't hit reply instead of lock?
The author is a RW hack and the NY Post is Trump's 'paper of gaslighters'.
The seed is pablum.
They aren't really challenges. More like a denial of obvious facts.
Most people are well aware of msm bias:
I'm more interested in the people who read NT and see comments like yours. Nothing really needs to be added.
The seed is pablum.
You read it?
Do you want to go on record again and deny the headline change, which many still remember from August?
"After a spate of mass shootings last summer, the Times put a balanced headline on a story about the president’s consoling remarks. “ Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism ,” the paper said in its first edition of August 6th.
But a Twitter storm of angry leftists demanded it be changed and Baquet agreed, with the next edition reading, “Assailing Hate, But Not Guns.”
I really dont take advice about the news from people who pay attention to right wing media and believe in right wing conspiracy theories.
You really don't have to take any advice, John, just admit the hard left slant of the msm! If you can't the reader will get it.
Vic, you post right wing conspiracy theories on this site. You get your information from unreliable "conservative" news sources. You constantly promote discredited ideas, such as your long held belief that Comey, Brennan etc are going to prison.
I am anti- gaslighting and anti-bamboozling, so no, I don't put a lot of credence into your opinions.
Obviously, John I don't agree with your characterization, nor do I think personal attacks are a good way to win an argument. Declaring everything you find uncomfortable as "a conspiracy theory" is a little rich after 3 years of the left claiming that the President conspired with Russia to win an election.
So John, tell us all about this anti-gaslighting & anti-bamboozling crusade your'e on.
Bla bla bla
Join Trump's communications team if you insist on trying to obfuscate and confuse.
That's it? That looks like a flag of surrender.
Join Trump's communications team if you insist on trying to obfuscate and confuse.
Obfuscate and confuse? Since you refuse to address the article, I'll ask the objective observer - Did the New York Times change a headline this past August to one which was negative of the President to appease it's leftist readers?
Really? Would you like to review the 'obvious facts' that you've fabricated in your seeds? Lt. Col. Vindman testimony comes to mind.
The author AND the NY Post are part of the MSM Vic.
Ditto. Which is why when your comments are obvious attempts to gaslight NT members, I challenge them and you bail.
Yes.
IMHO, the irony of your critique is that media sources like that NYT and others make CORRECTIONS and/or RETRACTIONS and take ACTIONS, like firing a writer, when there are issues. While other media sources, many of them conservative, merely ignore the issue or even worse, double down on the bullshit.
One of your favorites, John Solomon is a perfect example of doubling down on bullshit. Solomon wrote opinion pieces, smeared multiple people with unfounded allegations, including Ambassador Yovanovitch and now he's whining about his opinions being scrutinized and found false. Poor pitiful Solomon is now hypocritically claiming that he's a victim of 'McCarthy like smear tactics'. Seems that Solomon can dish it out but can't take it.
The NYT and WaPo have never been on Trump's side. They report rumors from "unnamed sources" and "those close to the situation" as facts.
The point being made that opinions are offered as facts in these rags is well known and cannot be refuted. CNN and MSNBC are just as bad.
Why the hell would anyone, much less a major newspaper be "on Trump's side"? They KNOW that he is not remotely fit to be president of the United States. That's like saying why weren't they nicer to Rod Blagojevich or Bernie Madoff.
The NYT proved, in a very long investigative report, that Trump took part in tax fraud.
There is no reason whatsoever for them to be "on his side".
Their opinions should be confined to the editorial page. It's not hard to be a journalist. One needs only to try.
The hypocrisy of Trump's fans is beyond belief. And apparently the ignorance - anyone who has a clue about investigative journalism understands how unnamed sources work, and they are NOT unknown to the journalist and most likely his/her editor. Unlike Trump's "many people say" and "I hear that people say" which his base laps up, despite them actually BEING bullshit.
His base thinks any article that isn't flattering to him, no matter how accurate, is fake news because they buy into the bullshit he sells. He tells them to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - and they don't.
The New York Times is supposed to be a news organization. Donald Trump is not. It is the New York Times that needs to live up to journalistic standards. The Times clearly hasn't done that. Instead the Times has become an advocate for progressive poison.
Just how in the hell is Trump's sources (unnamed) any different than some "journalist" who'll jump on anything for his/her 15 minutes of fame? Asking for a friend.
You hold an independent news organization to a higher standard than the President of the United States????
Just .... wow. Have some more of the Koolaid.
I already explained that. Go look up how investigative journalism works. I realize that Fox fans don't understand the concept of investigative journalism, but it's never too late to learn.
Absolutely! It is the job of a free press to deliver the news honestly and free of bias.
Just .... wow. Have some more of the Koolaid.
Ya, "wow".....The media is supposed to inform. The President's role is to act on behalf of the nation.
Tell that to Fox News.
Kind of hard to do that when you're bullshitting the nation constantly and unethically helping people who flatter you, while going after those who don't. He acts on behalf of himself and nobody, and nothing, else.
I think the President should be held to the highest standard; and I find it astonishing that you don't. It explains a lot about why Trump supporters give him a pass on everything illegal and unethical that he does, however.
That's not a defense of the Times. I expected more from you.
Kind of hard to do that
The President's performance in office is another matter for another day. I'm sure we could spend a lot of time on that. Delivering the news is not part of what he does.
I think the President should be held to the highest standard; and I find it astonishing that you don't.
But not when it comes to Journalism, which is what this discussion is about.
We can do an article on that. Right now we are focused on the decline and fall of the "gray lady."
For the last 100 years or so, the Times has been pretty openly left wing. But until this century, they at least made the attempt to separate editorial from reporting. Sure, their inherent biases would always creep in, but at least they tried.
That distinction has long since been disregarded, and everything they put out is agenda driven advocacy.
Current definition of "left wing media" is any media outlet that openly acknowledges Trump's bullshit AS bullshit. Hell, even FoxNews has been called "left wing" when even they cannot support some of Trump's most outlandish claims.
You mean you don't see the bias? Interesting!
You seed was written by a bias author publishing on a bias source to whine about bias.
You can't contest the premise of the article?
Has the New York Times become a rag for angry progressives?
Sure has. The evidence is in the content.
Unfortunately, in Trumpworld, truth has a liberal bias. The right wing media simply won't report any facts that aren't flattering to him, and they post outright lies about things which would otherwise make him look bad.
Not "Trumpworld", but to the American people - the media has not only a bias, but has lied to us for 3 years!
True, but many people only read the headline and don't bother to read the article itself.
The topic is the New York Times. You can't defend the Times?
The comment I made that you replied to does that. Your seed is an opinion piece published by a RW source. It's pretty ironic that Goodwin, who no longer works for the NYT, who now writes for a rag like the NY Post, is whining about the decline of journalism. It must sting to go from a Pulitzer Prize winning organization to a sensationalist RW tabloid owned by Murdoch.
Judging based on it's 5 Pulitzer Prizes in 2019 alone, NO.
Of course I suppose you can try to make an argument that the Pulitzer board are a bunch of 'angry progressives' too.
Please proceed.
Then there is the FACT that the NYT has seen record subscription growth.
Again, you could argue that corresponds with a record growth of 'angry progressives'.
Please proceed.
This was - and remains - worthy of strong criticism. Objective reporting on what happened does not need to include writing a headline on what the reporting staff personally thinks should have happened.
Even if you thought the story warranted a mention of guns, there was nothing wrong with the initial headline, and certainly not to the point of needing to apologize for it. That act alone shows how much virtue signaling has infected journalism.
Furthermore, the fact that this was driven by Twitter shows how the news media has lost its perspective. A handful of vocal people on Twitter are 1) not journalism experts and 2) don’t speak for the rest of America.
As we speak Newsweek has just fired Jessica Kwong for her article that the President would be spending Thanksgiving "Tweeting, golfing and more" as the President was spending his Thanksgiving with the troops in Afghanistan. The msm BS is endless!
Wow; talk about having an agenda!
Notwithstanding Jewish ownership, it is also one of the most biased against Israel newspapers in the USA. The owners are either overcompensating in some way to establish that they have no religious bias, or else they're trying to emulate Noam Chomsky.
You work Israel, China, or Canada into just about everything, don't you?
If it's relevant, and at least I know something about them. It sort of echoes the fact that so many NT members work Trump into just about everything.
WELL DONE!
The vast majority of people on this site are Americans. They have a built in interest in "Trump".
I think articles about Canada , China and Israel are fine, but they are tangential to most of the discussions on NT. It is a little strained to inject Israel into a discussion of the NYT regarding American politics.
Some are obsessed with Trump
It is a little strained to inject Israel into a discussion of the NYT regarding American politics.
I happen to disagree. The topic here is the New York Times.
Anti-Semitism has had a resurgence in the US and this time it comes from the left. The New York Times has played a part in it:
"On the eve of the shooting at a San Diego synagogue , the New York Times published a despicable anti-Semitic cartoon that could have come from the pages of Der Sturmer . The cartoon used the same tropes and images that the Nazis used to stoke anti-Semitism in Europe.
The Times’ subsequent apology was as disingenuous as it was meaningless. Indeed, days later, even as the emotional shock waves from the San Diego synagogue attack were still being felt, the Times published another vile cartoon recapturing the same characterizations.
Before the second cartoon hit the wires, Times opinion writer Bret Stephens called out the paper for its anti-Semitic cartoon while describing the accusation that the Times was purposefully anti-Semitic as a “calumny,” a false and despicable accusation."
"Really, a calumny? This is the newspaper that in 1922 glossed over Hitler’s anti-Semitism . This is the newspaper that buried the Holocaust and took decades to apologize for it. This is the newspaper that on Easter Sunday published an opinion piece that stated that Jesus, a Jew from Judea, was a Palestinian ."
americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_new_york_emtimesem_and_the_climate_of_antisemitism.html
No it's not. The NYT having a bias against Israel is very relevant to American citizens and politics.
The irony of you using an opinion piece from American Thinker, a "news" source that is banned from being used to create a seed on this forum, in order to denigrate a legitimate news organization is bigly.
Opinions can be set aside. The facts are beyond dispute - The Times did change it's headline, the Times did post an Anti-Semitic cartoon and the Times did hide the radical-Islamic responsibility for the 9/11 attack. I don't see anyone disputing that, including you!
Yes, John, so what is it that you would have me do? I happen to know quite a bit more about Canada, Israel and China than the "vast majority of people on this site", and certainly the "vast majority of people on this site" have never even been to China or Israel, and I have, and at least some have been to Canada which as you know is the country of my birth, citizenship and most of my life. By being on this site I'm happily learning a lot more than I ever knew about the USA although I have travelled it from Hawaii to Cape Cod, from the Redwood forests of California to Florida (where for some years I even shared ownership with my brother of a golf condominium), and I learned a LITTLE about your government by watching all 7 years of the West Wing TV series. Are all NT members so LIMITED in their focus and interests to only their OWN opinions of America, i.e. do they not seek out different opinions and viewpoints? If they have no interest in what I post, then perhaps I should seek a different social news site.
BANNED by the liberal-biased MBFC, but that does not mean that FACTS are fake news.
Here are opinions about the NYT bias published in media that are acceptable to MBFC:
israel -bias-at- the-new - york - times
And as long as we have the Times on trial we need to add that famous Times tweet which notably withheld the identities and motives of those who attacked the US on 9/11:
“18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center, today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.”
Twitter users were quick to point out that 19 Islamic terrorists, not airplanes, were responsible for the attacks and that nearly 3,000 people, or 2,996 specifically, were killed.
The response from the New York Times:
“We’ve deleted an earlier tweet to this story and have edited for clarity."
So retraction and correction. The HORROR!
Yes, it was proven that the NYT was biased and wrong, it had no alternative but to retract and correct, or it wouldn't be trusted even by its progressive liberal worshipers.
The NYT could have done what a plethora of other media outlets do, ignore it. Just like some members here on NT, we have a crap load of outlets that spew utter bullshit and when called out for falsehoods, they just blow it off.
So, by that you mean that some media is more biased than other media because they ignore falsehoods?
The day of unbiased media is LONG LONG gone. When I was editor of my university newspaper we considered the Christian Science Monitor to be our model, not just because of its format, but because is was a multiple year winner of the Award for the Least Biased Newspaper. Now it is left oriented, and I don't think that award is presented any more for obvious reasons.
No. ALL media is bias Buzz. It always has been, least bias is STILL bias.
My point is that unlike many other media outlets, the NYT makes corrections, retractions and takes action for egregious mistakes. There are many other outlets that do the same.
The fact checkers are biased as well, and the organizations that check the bias of the fact checkers are also biased, so there is no way we will EVER get the story straight unless we see it with our own eyes and even then I have posted what grandpappy said: Never believe anything you hear or read, and only half of what you see with your own eyes.
Unfortunately, all too many believe the gaslighting, check nothing and really don't care about the truth. They proudly follow their tribe unquestioningly.
I'll bet the original story is a bold headline on a first page, and the retraction and apology (if there is one) is in relatively fine print buried deep in the paper. For sure it's not going to have a headline equal to the original story.
Conclusion:
This seed finally produced some results. What we have found is that progressives can't defend the bias of the New York Times or do they feel the need to. Instead they use "whataboutism" and or their opinion that the far left slant of the Times is normal. That is the world they live in or how they were educated. The New York Times was once America's greatest newspaper. Today it is nothing more than an anti-Trump, ultra liberal mouth piece.