If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic 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?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
There’s a very good reason why the BBC is terrified of changing its funding model to a subscription system. What is happening at the New York Times [CEO the BBC’s Mark Thompson] right now demonstrates what that is….accountability via the wallet.
The NYT ran a deliberately biased, anti-Trump campaign rather than provide its readers with honest and accurate reporting of the election…this of course being precisely the same route that the BBC took, though the NYT openly admitted it was going to be biased because Trump was such an appalling figure in their estimation…
Bad or sloppy journalism doesn’t fully capture the Times sins. Not after it announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.
As media columnist Jim Rutenberg put it in August, most Times reporters saw Trump “as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate” and thus couldn’t be even-handed.
That wasn’t one reporter talking — it was policy. The standards, developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to build public trust, were effectively eliminated as too restrictive for the Trump phenomenon.
The man responsible for that rash decision, top editor Dean Baquet, later said the Rutenberg piece “nailed” his thinking, and went on to insist that Trump “challenged our language” and that, “He will have changed journalism.”
Trump indeed was challenging, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be broken without consequence.
After that, the floodgates opened, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper — all the tools were used to pick a president, the facts be damned.
That bias, that slanted, one-sided journalism, propaganda, is hitting them where it hurts…in the wallet….
Now the bill is coming due. Shocked by Trump’s victory and mocked even by liberals for its bias, the paper is also apparently bleeding readers — and money.
Citing reader anger over election coverage, Rutenberg wrote that, “Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions.”
Even its own journalists are asking questions…
Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking
On Tuesday afternoon, The New York Times told readers in its Upshot polling feature that Hillary Clinton had an 84 percent chance of winning. And for many weeks leading up to Election Day, The Times delivered a steady stream of stories. One described Clinton’s powerful and well-organized ground operation — and Trump’s frazzled counterattack. Another claimed a surge in the Latino vote that could decide the election. Others speculated on the composition and tenor of a Clinton cabinet. The picture was of a juggernaut of blue state invincibility that mostly dismissed the likelihood of a Trump White House.
But sometime Tuesday night, that 84-percent Clinton win Upshot figure flipped. Suddenly it was 95 percent — for Donald Trump.
Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, 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.”
The Times would serve readers well with fewer brief interviews, fewer snatched slogans that inevitably render a narrow caricature of those who spoke them.
That last comment in particular could also be directed at the BBC…its highly selective use of vox pop street interviews which put up inarticulate, often rough looking people against articulate, well groomed, often immigrant, opposing voices….the BBC deliberately trying to create those ‘narrow caricatures’ of who will vote for any particular side, one uneducated and probably bigoted and racist up against a lovely, educated, cosmopolitan immigrant. Saw it today as the BBC went in search of Trump voters….those they found were fat, working class, rough types with greasy hair, unshaven and clearly not encumbered with a sense of fashion. And how often have you heard the people say one thing and the BBC to sum up with a conclusion that flies in the face of what has just been said? Naturally the conclusion is one that suits the liberal, lefty BBC mindset.
The NYT has had to issue a letter pleading for understanding…but just like the BBC it refuses to admit it was wrong…despite previously admitting it was offering up a very one-sided view of the election…..
As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, 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. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.
We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.
Clearly the NYT is still intent on attacking Trump and is trying to make out that this is it just doing its job….’ to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.‘ What Trump voter would still subscribe to the NYT now?
And indeed what Tory, UKIP voter or anyone with an interest in fair, accurate and impartial news would subscribe to the BBC?
The BBC is terrified to put its money where its mouth is. It knows it does not represent the views, opinions and values of most of the country and that its journalism lacks depth, intelligence, investigative vigour and that ‘unflinching impartiality’ that holds power, all power, to account. The very opposite in fact as it actually adopts narratives and moulds its news to push those messages be they on climate change, immigration, Labour, the EU or independence for various regions of the UK as it seeks to break Britain up.
As with the NYT...’This is about survival. If it doesn’t change now, the Gray Lady’s days surely are numbered’…..the BBC might well suffer the same fate if it had to genuinely account to its audience for its failings.
