"...in Mr. Trump’s opinion [a] the media doesn’t reflect reality, [b] that he doesn’t get enough credit, and [c] that coverage of him and his administration is relentlessly negative..."
[a] Does Trump have a conception of reality? Or does he think reality is what's good for Trump--which is a form of psychopathology.
[b] Is it possible for Trump to get enough credit?
[c] "Negative" is merely [b]
I know the NY Times reporters are highly ethical, hard-working professionals; journalists of the highest caliber -- which makes it hard to do the work of covering Trump (et al) and others who dissemble and lie on a regular basis. People who are ethical often can't connect the dots behind the con because they don't think that way. But that should't stop the deeper investigations needed, reporting about our election system and how it no longer represents us as a democracy. Our voting system is vulnerable to extreme manipulation and computerized vote theft. Please write about that and less about the figurehead.
The Insecurity of America's Old and Underfunded Voting Systems
http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2017/07/20/538312289/fresh-air-for...
Voting machines hacked in 23 minutes
http://fortune.com/2017/07/31/defcon-hackers-us-voting-machines
Donald Trump Warned of a 'Rigged' Election, Was He Right?
http://www.mintpressnews.com/donald-trump-warned-of-a-rigged-election-wa...
Election poll indications of possible fraud
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/
None of this will reach Trump or the Fox audience, who will continue to categorize all responsible journalism as "fake new" because they use "unnamed sources" and they often report facts that seem critical of the president and of his policies
1
Rather than giving us the opinion of Times' journalists as to how the Times is covering Trump and his administration, give us the opinion of a handful of randomly selected readers as to how the Times is doing. Asking yourselves is comparable to asking the President how his administration is doing... And just as meaningless.
3
I randomly select myself, a reader to tell you: I appreciate what the journalists are doing, and I believe for the most part they are doing a great job. Some of the investigative work has been invaluable. Don't always agree with how some articles are focused, but hey.
I think the work by several parts of the paper's team really adds to the journalists' work, like the graphics folks. And I appreciate that I can comment and read others' ideas in this part of the paper.
I think the Times is extremely important to how we function as a democracy now.
I also value several other news sources. I pay for these services, and it is worth it to me. I am a lower middle class bubba elite living in the middle of corn and bean fields.
OK, Carlitos. Your turn. What do you think?
3
I have never valued a free media as much as I do right now. Trump is a dangerous man, and the media must not allow him to influence how they cover the presidency/cabinet. I don't think any president ever likes how they are covered, and to some extent I understand that point of view. However, we have a standard and that should not change just because the current president is a bully.
8
One of the things I find distasteful about the Times now after reading it for decades is its preoccupation with its own process. It's a huge organization that I trust to hire from the top ranks of journalists, but the navel-gazing actually turns me off. If Peter Baker, who sees the political process up close and personal day after day, doesn't vote, shame on him. Is he not in this with us? And now I read one of the "top comments" of the week is a suggestion that US Senator Bob Corker either resign or keep quiet about his concerns about the president's behavior. In my opinion, that's what senators are elected to do, and it's too bad more of them don't. Democracy demands that an informed citizenry formulate opinions, so let's quit pretending that the Times or anyone else is untainted.
8
I live in the sticks - no where near the location of the "media elite." I recently subscribed to the Times because I felt the need to educate myself and because it was clear to me that print media - The Times in particularly - is the only place where truth has any meaning at all.
My subscription is for my own edification but it gives me the same feeling I have when I donate to help victims of a natural disaster. All of you people there at the Times, drinking cold coffee, doggedly running down information to make sure it's true, not just sort of true, but true - spending time with people and situations that are odious at best and horrifying at best, all the while missing time with your own families - you are the foot soldiers in this strange battle we all find ourselves in.
I can't do much, but I can buy the damn paper. I can buy it, and I can know a little bit about what it took to get each column inch sitting in my lap.
Thank you. Thank you - each and every one of you.
18
Trump continues to to rail about anonymous sources. Maybe the press should finally press him to reveal the still unnamed "credible source" that launched a thousand tweets and lies that stoked xenophobia and racism in this country.
"An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."
6
There is nothing wrong with being liberal or conservative or libertarian or whatever so long as one can voice a factual opinion with civility and advance the conversation. Still, all must be open to other views not so much to convince but to understand what and why another would believe thus. We need more discussion and less debate to achieve this. Bring it!
2
"(Ms. Haberman, usually prolific on Twitter, is in the middle of a weeklong hiatus from the platform. “It’s a cleanse,” she said. “I’m doing the Twitter juice diet.”)"
I am with her on this one. I watch The Wheel of Fortune, and Jeopardy then the Property Brothers at least twice a week just to feel normal. Thrump's attacks on the media is all in his head. The media should continue to report him verbatim and let the public decide if he continues to be unfit to be in the Peoples House.
2
When I see your editor and reporters interviewed they are always extremely careful in what they say. I always like them. But when I read your articles, I see a great deal of opinion. It's there in the headline; it's there in the selection of certain facts and not others; it's there in the presentation of anonymous sources as fact; it's there in the word choice, the adjectives, the adverbs. Any reader of the Times knows full well what your collective opinion of Mr. Trump is as we knew what you thought of Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and so on. I certainly sympathize with the problem of covering a wild man like Trump when he says the things that he says about you. I would have trouble being objective as well.
I have read this newspaper every day of my adult life. I need it and value it, but I'm increasingly forced to supplement my reading of the Times with many other publications.Trump alarms me, but I may be even more alarmed if you actually don't know how biased you are.
2
“If it were up to me, we wouldn’t have editorials, because I think it confuses readers into thinking we’re a liberal paper,” Mr. Baker said.
Anyone who reads the writing of His Most Catholic Majesty Ross Douthat knows that the Grey Lady is liberal in the most conservative way possible.
4
Yes I feel it is very important to cover Trump and his terrible Administration. Also it is very important for the media to be informative to give the facts to the masses. Every time this clown and any of his cabinet members speaks the media needs to fact check and broadcast that along with what they are saying let the readers make their own assumptions. If these clown know that every time they have press conferences that they will be called out for their lies then hopefully they will be doing less of it. Yes i know one can only hope.
2
I subscribe to both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. Their news reports are strikingly similar day to day. Coverage of the same events, usually the more consequential national events, is almost indistinguishable. Kudos to both on that score. The only exception might be business news. The WSJ tends to have broader coverage and is generally more effusive.
Editorially, as we might expect, the papers are quite different. But the extremes (leftward in the Times, e.g. Charles Blow and Frank Bruni, and rightward in the WSJ, e.g. James Freeman) are nowhere near as far apart as our elected politicians. And both are generally well written and reasonable.
5
I never for once felt Trump's ire toward the press to be a shtick. He believes it, he means it, and it's a general sign of his disconnect with reality that he feels the criticism is unjust.
But where he scares me are all his calls to penalize the press for being well, a free press. There's a big difference between getting angry over articles you don't like and calling for the press to be jailed.
On the subject of his anger of "unjust" reporting, remember this is a man who lies with impunity. And I don't for one minute believe he believes his lies--he does it because so few call him out on it.
You can't be both boastful and insecure in the same sentence. Many say that Trump is boastful because he's so insecure. If he's insecure, I find it hard to believe it's because of his bragging--I just think he really does he think he's God's gift to everyone on earth.
As I was saying ... not exactly connected with reality, except the one he routinely make up.
30
" .. I just think he really does he think he's God's gift to everyone on earth .."
Small egos are very rare among U.S. presidential candidates. Look it up. You're welcome.
I read the Times because your reporting is accurate and to the point. You obviously must be as unbiased as possible when reporting about Trump (don't laugh). On the other hand, you have a gaggle of excellent editorialists who provide the criticisms and challenges that Trump deserves.
I think the Times is right on target and I thank you.
38
Bravo NY Times Staff. Our nation is at a great danger and you are our only hope. Regardless of the continuous assault by the pathological liar clueless child bully, you have taken a strong stand against the tyrant. He wants to turn our great nation like his buddy Putin does in Russia. The divider chief stole the election with the help of Putin. Please do everything to save our Country.
21
When I compare what trump and most of his administration says to the reporting of the legitimate news media, the latter has journalistic ethics, and the former is just lying.
trump is using political issues to build and consolidate a base to increase his personal political power. trump has no intention of “seeking reasonable solutions,” but rather creating chaos, positioning the United States Constitution, Congress and Judiciary as the problem for the chaos and blaming them when they are unable to create a resolution out of his chaos. He has twice stated that the highest honor that could be given him is “president for life.”
All of the things which many think represent political positions are just techniques for trump to build and consolidate his personal power, trump would not care if all Americans died; liberals, conservatives, President Obama ,coal miners, manufacturing workers, teachers, members of congress, fundamental christians, his own family—trump has no feelings for other human beings. trump has no empathy, no compassion, no remorse, he does not care about The United States, or being a president, he is focused on doing whatever it takes to build his personal political power. As far as international relationships, trump has a bomb shelter. If trump has any kind of a goal its to show the world he can do to the US what putin did to Russia.
16
Let me re-assure you Mr. Baker… nothing about the Times leads me to think of it as liberal.
5
Reality is largly liberal; Human psychology is mostly conservative. For instance: free movement is charateristic of animal life, from single cell amobea to us, essential and instinctive- averse to limitation and constraint; Biology requires genetic diversity and behavioral adaptability - responsiveness to change; Human success followed from co-operation, sharing, and reciprocal non-aggression. Yet the mind prefers constancy and inclines easily to greed, selfishness, hate, fear, self-superiority and other underlying elements of conservativism. Civilized success is deriving from institutions and processes that overide subjective psychology such as scientific method, democratic process, judicial proceedure, journalistic practice and corporations, legislatures, and perhaps now an enchoate interactive integrative organic social media - perhaps. What survives, lives, and grows is more liberal than conservative, though you might not think it so these days as psychopaths, power freaks, and supremacists make their last stand.
OMG robert! I sincerely hope that is sarcasm.
nothing? really? ....nothing leads you to think of the Times as liberal? I really can't imagine that. Even my most liberal acquaintances fully recognize the extremely liberal point of view of the NYT editorial and opinion pages. And most will even concede the liberal flow of the bylined articles and spin in the headlines .
And you say "NOTHING about the Times leads (you) to think of it as liberal" ? Incredible.
Will we ever see an unvarnished, critical, soul-searching assessment of the Times' coverage of the 2016 election by any one of these journalists? too much to hope for.
16
And I would add coverage and analysis of Bernie Sanders’ role in Trump's election and Clinton’s defeat. So far, zero.
1
See; Dowd's continuous attacks on Hillary.
Every piece that covers Trump should contain not only the now customary and necessary "fact-check" to counter Trump's unceasing lies, but also a concise set of reputable psychological observations and explanations.
Merely covering Trump without discussing his aberrant behavior patterns "normalizes" irrationality and malevolence in our already maniacal American politics.
Anonymous sourcing did enormous damage in the past when Judith Miller (unwittingly, maybe) served as the Bush administration's mouthpiece at the Times. The Times coverage, along with Tony Blair's knowingly criminal lies, and Colin Powell's cravenly immoral speech to the U.N., probably tipped public opinion in support of America's illegal war against Hussein's Iraq.
On the other hand, under the Trump Republican administration, the U.S. government has ceased to be an honest source of objective information and no branch, department or agency can be trusted. Most of the people now working in the federal government, whether they be hapless career bureaucrats or Republican apparatchiks, are terrified of Trump, Pence, Sessions and their virtual gestapo tactics, so almost none are willing to speak on the record.
Consequently, if the press is going to report on the federal government without merely echoing partisan Republicans propaganda, reporters must rely on inherently frightened government and political sources who insist upon anonymity.
13
Amen and amen.
So glad you haven't changed your motto to "All the News That's Fit According to Trump"--Bravo, Brava!
6
I appreciate the Times' reporting on Trump. That said: What a ridiculous thing not to vote, for fear of letting bias appear in your coverage. Whether you vote or not, you have thoughts, don't you? You have opinions and preferences if you're human. You know how you feel about the things that you cover. It is the height of arrogant correctness to preen around making statements about not voting as a way of showing how unbiased you are. I've seen Washington Post editors say the same in the past, and it's such foolishness. And that kind of statement accomplishes the opposite of what you want. Because people know we're all human, including reporters--so they know that whether you vote or not, your judgments do play a part in how you cover the news. It is out of touch and counterproductive to pretend otherwise.
23
The idea that a journalist thinks that not voting is a wise way to maintain journalistic objectivity or partiality is laughable. There's a reason there are curtains on those voting booths - because they are private. All of us exercise our right to a private vote (even if the counting system is corrupt) until we open our mouths about it. So don't open your mouth, and keep your mouth out of what you write. Halo-wearing on a journalist is not only unnecessary, it's self-aggrandizing. And -- maybe, just with your vote (and the votes of others like you, who couldn't be bothered to vote at all), the outcome would have been different and we wouldn't even be talking about this.
24
Media bias exists in the heads of editors, who decide what and where to print. Why are you giving us the 'insights' of reporters?
Maggie Haberman wrote article after article on Hillary Clinton's e-mail, and 90% of what she wrote was about totally insignificant aspects of a Republican imagined 'scandal'.
Who told her to do it? The same person who placed the articles on the front page?
Let's hear from her boss.
25
Maggie Haberman was mild compared to Maureen Dowd who, since the 1990's has been on an anti-Clinton campaign for both of them. In the past several years, almost every column she wrote included or ended with an often irrelevant tirade against Mrs. Clinton. I know columnists are autonomous, but someone at the Times should have said something to her. The columns were not worthy of the paper.
5
Without in depth press coverage of issues and politics we would have to rely on tweets like those who voted for Trump.
6
Interesting that Peter Baker hasn't voted since he joined the White House beat and doesn't consider himself a liberal. Wonder why he is contributor to MSNBC whose anchors are generally in-your-face liberal.
3
MSNBC regularly has conservative analysts and members of Congress on their shows, more so than Fox. And their reporting is not the angry, raging crud you hear from the likes of Hannity.
15
Ditto. Reading that denial made me laugh out loud.
3
They may be quieter about it, but I disagree that MSNBC’s anchors aren’t “raging.”
If President Trump didn't do and say so many negative and caustic things, his press coverage would not be exposing him as the negative and caustic person he is. Funny how that works.
55
The press coverage of the President is biased. More than 90% of the "journalists" covering this White House are card carrying Democrats who never voted for a Republican in their lives. The press has lost its credibility and without credibility it is not a "free press".
2
Coverage of Pence appears to prove your point.
Pence is as immoral, dishonest, arrogant and sadistic as Trump, but he is much quieter, so the press presents him as a calm professional and rarely observes that Pence also is a horrible person.
34
And if President Obama didn't do so many negative and caustic things, his press coverage would have been better. Funny how that works.
1
Somebody says that the NY Times is NOT liberal! Are you kidding or delusional? Even one of your Public Editors, I think it was Okrent, admitted that the Times was a liberal bastion of a newspaper. As the saying goes, learn to be comfortable in your own skin.
6
Bob, Funny how Daniel Okrent said that “of course” the Times is a liberal newspaper in the still smoldering ruins of the Times editorially endorsing the Iraq invasion, based largely on the Judith Miller journalistic malpractice of serving as an unfiltered conduit for anonymously sourced mendacity direct from the Bush Administration.
Further, the Times did not go to great lengths to strenuously oppose the unconstitutional incursions of the Patriot Act.
Even now, Eric Schmitt serves as a similarly unfiltered conduit for his anonymous Pentagon sources warning sternly about terrible consequences of a “premature withdrawal from Afghanistan, a position taken in January, 2014, when Afghanistan was ALREADY the longest active military engagement in US history. One of my few strong disagreements with Margaret Sullivan was her yuge blind spot toward the agenda driven use of anonymity by reporters on the “national security beat.”
Then, of course, the Times ran a very long magazine profile “How Hillary Clinton Became a Warhawk,” and somehow, in your mind, the Times extraordinary preference for Clinton the warhawk over Bernie Sanders fits your myth of “liberal bastion?” Sorry, no sale. The Times has always been a corporatist organ of the establishment. In total, it is center left at best. More objectively, it espouses very liberal social positions and very conservative military ones, and it remains center right economically.
20
Ahhh. A Bernie extremist. The Times is and always was a mouthpiece of moderate Democratic perspectives. It's never been far left. If you know it may not always reflect your opinions, keep reading the paper because of the breadth, depth, and overall brilliance of its coverage. Or you can decide to read news that better reflects your views. But you find there are problems just as serious over there.
Journalists are human, by the way, and they don't always get it right. Sometimes they get it terribly wrong. Like all of us.
1
Annie, in what way was the support editorially for the Iraq Invasion, allowing Dick Cheney to use the Times as a prop on his appearance on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press “a moderate Democratic perspective?” Because potential Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton voted for it out of pure political expediency?
The Times had people warning them, from within, that Jayson Blair’s reporting was not to be trusted. Howell Raines protected Blair and paid with his job.
The Times allowed Judith Miller to serve as an unfiltered conduit to publish lies pushing the Iraq Invasion without fully knowing who her anonymous sources were. That helped convince influential columnists (Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman) that the invasion was justified, and helped the Editorial Board to collectively endorse the invasion.
The Miller malpractice impelled the Times to empanel a “Committee on Credibility,” the results of whose report precipitated a public memo from then Editor Bill Keller entitled “Assuring Our Credibility.” I have an email from Philip Corbett assuring me that the standards Keller wrot are still in nominal effect. Yet his guidelines for the use of anonymous sourcing are flouted every day, never more than in David Carr & Ravi Somiya’s coverage of the firing of Jill Abramson, which used anonymous sources from the Times’ own newsroom. The standard says “ we resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal attacks.” Here all 3 were allowed.
1
I think the Times bends over backwards at times to be fair to Trump voters, out of guilt at underestimating their numbers in 2016. Not all Trump voters are anti-black and anti-Muslim racists, anti-government zealots or gun fanatics, but virtually everyone in those categories is a Trump voter.
In contrast, I think Fox and the Wall Street Journal editorial page bend over backwards constantly to be sure they are not saying anything positive about the Democrats. They are still as bitter over losing to Obama twice as Putin is about the breakup of the Soviet Union.
48
Uh .. there were some studies that indicated that Obama got the fewest "negative" stories of any president. That is, the news media was frightened to hold Obama to the same standards of any other president. And that major news outlets had "held" the story about HRC's obvious problems with email for years, and it was published only it was about to be leaked by "The Drudge Report" (which I've never read).
Obama had zero scandals during his administration. Zero. I look forward to to the results of the Mueller investigations into Trump's alleged crimes against our nation.
On the contrary, no US president in modern times had ever undergone a media barrage led by the network with the largest audience questioning his citizenship, religion and patriotism.
And did the study you reference include such influential news media as Breitbart and Infowars?
1
Most of my takeaways involved a lack of credibility, from Baquet’s admission of involvement in excising the Public Editor position, a position that supposedly never answered to him or anyone else on the masthead, save the Publisher, and his laughable rationalizations about anonymity unanimous.
I barely kept a straight face when Peter Baker said he hasn’t voted since he started on the white house beat, four elections ago. So much for patriotic duty, eh?
But the thing that had me pulling at my dwindling supply of hair was Maggie Haberman’s admission that she has been covering Trump since his hinting at a presidential run in 2011 and that she has been trying to get inside his head ever since. Good grief, whatever happened to “to report the news, without fear or favor?” Is she a reporter, or has she been hanging out way too much with David Brooks and trying to become all manner of social scientist?
So she emphasizes the “why,” while ignoring “who, what, where and when?” As Sergeant Friday used to put it: “just the facts, ma’am.”
Why do readers have to tell professional journalists that?
13
The key to getting a holistic view of events and especially Trump is to read as broad a selection of the opinion pages as possible. I read the NYT, the WSJ as well as some of the W Post, Politico, the LA Times and the Seattle Times. I also follow the BBC as well as Al Jazeera. What do I get out of this rather broad coverage other than eye strain, well, I feel that even though most journalist have a bit liberal lean, they are also professionals, well educated, well read and very competitive. This is very important because they do not get the headline by being a part of the pack.
Are there errors that might fit Trumps term of 'Fake News'? Of course, did NBC maybe jump the gun, probably not. Those they quoted said what they reported. Did they vet it as much as possible, probably. Was it less than the full story, more than likely.
But the bottom line is that to get a real feel of what is happening, it takes a lot of reading and retrospection. Trump does not read and therefore does not have a grasp of the real picture. He shoots from the hip, uses his gut instinct and is wrong most of the time. In truth, this is what makes him such a poor president.
33
Other than the WSJ, all the sources that you read/watch are liberal. You state "Those they quoted said what they reported". How do you know that? You don't even know who they quoted and what they said and whether it was reported accurately. That is the problem with using anonymous sources.
Sure, ignore how CNN rushed major "scoops" about Trump, had to run massive corrections, and "award-winning" staff were terminated. There's a real "grasp" on reality. Not.
Quality journalism is hard work, like Politico on Tom Price and Harvey Weinstein. Pontificating isn't sufficient.
1
The standards in mainstream journalism are extremely high, with great efforts devoted to checking facts and confirming what one source says with others. Journalists who get things consistently wrong get fired. The use of anonymous sources is necessary as people in government who speak out in ways unfavorable to their bosses would be fired. I consume a great deal of news and by professional training and a lifetime of experience have (I think) a very good nose for what is true and what is bs. The main stream media, by and large, is extremely reliable. The low opinion of it by many on the right is lamentable, wrongheaded, and a result of propaganda, and brainwashing. In contrast, the White House is, by and large, a firehose of lies, misrepresentations, truth twisting, illogical sneaky rhetoric, deflection, distortion, and bs.
Thank goodness for the NYT and the Washington Post. I also appreciate CNN and MSNBC. Keep up the good journalism and NOT fake news!
24
NYTimes was stunned that after ignoring the legitimate concerns of legal citizens for 30 years, in 2016 the legals' anger swamped the polls. That wasn't "fake." NYT is still trying to get the egg off their faces.
Reporter not voting? Ridiculous.
19
3. No, ignoring the president’s tweets is not an option.
“Oh come on,” Peter said, responding to a question from the Facebook Live audience. “So, if The New York Times didn’t write about the tweets, the 40 million people reading them — and the other millions more who would be retweeting — would suddenly not pay attention, or not care?” he asked.
This is an unforced error of the Times’ own making. The Times made the conscious choice to characterize any twitter spasm from candidate Trump as news. There was no precedent for this, and the Times’ expressed a just can’t get enough fervor for the tangerine twitterstorm that it had for the twitticisms of no other candidate. Had the Times insisted on quotes for attribution, not just mindlessly passing on whatever came in over the transom, we might not all be at the mercy of twitter spasms.
Don’t believe me? For MONTHS, the digital front page had a sidebar of “Trump’s Twitter Insults.” So it worked as clickbait for you, your previous protestations in the Reader Center that you scrupulously avoid clickbait risibly, incredibly notwithstanding.
Back when there was a Public Editor, I implored this paper not to move twitticisms into the realm of news, where they have no credible business.
All the rest is the foreseeable consequence of some abysmal editorial decisionmaking.
Peter Baker makes a claim of principled, self enforced, rigid objectivity. But any time he posted twitter maunderings during the election, he was violating that idea.
10
The President's own press secretary stated that this is how Trump connects with the voters. He wants his tweets out there calling these nonsensical connection of words his own real message. Until he calls them back as just jokes, bad jokes that is.
4
Ihanlon, That is my point. If the Times had refused to cover every twitter spasm of the then-candidate, it would not have helped to normalize that “connection.” In fact, had the Times and cable news not put all of those witless tweets front and center, he might not have even been elected, as a part of that vaunted “$2 billion in free publicity” afforded candidate Trump by the mainstream media.
1
Nice summary. Thank you.
First, studies show consistently there is no huge liberal bias in the news media; it's mostly a myth from conservatives and it plays straight to an indoctrinated base. Second, and that's ironic or hypocritical because their media sources--Breitbart, Newsmax, and Fox, for example--are obviously biased, but for conservatives, this bias they either can't see or don't mind. Fox says it's fair and balanced: while it may be balancing, it isn't balanced. And the way Fox treats Presidents Clinton and Obama is the opposite of fair.
50
What studies show there is no liberal bias in the media? Studies conducted by liberal news outlets.
" .. First, studies show consistently there is no huge liberal bias in the news media .."
How odd. This report says that is incorrect, that there is no "consistant" about this topic -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
NYTimes Publisher Sulzberger has been advised to have someone monitor the Twitter feeds of younger reporters. To be frank: when a "feed" is 95% snarky about President "Not Hillary" -- there is obvious "favor." Perhaps assigning them to do something different other than "Trump Is Wrong" stories, every few days, that would give them some perspective.
1
No, by non-partisan think tanks. :/
The reality of populism is still sinking in for both Republican and Democratic elites: whether or not the GOP is Trump’s party or the Democratic Party is Sander’s party, it’s not going to be theirs.
2
The definition of a media elite is simple. Someone who believes the life they lead
and things they've got for themselves are illegitimate. This alone would be ok except these elites, in order to stem the feeling of guilt brought about by their success, create victims to give the equivalent of what they have through the government.
Natural Genius
You may need to get another handle after this ......
6
Follow up question: Is journalistic impartiality even possible?
Is it even preferable? In the current political climate perhaps it is more responsible to take a position, bring whatever information you have in support of it to bear and let the case stand, or fall, on its own merits. Sticking strictly to the event at hand tends to strip away context and in the process incrementally legitimize the horrorshow that is the current administration.
12
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/politics/gary-cohn-trump-charlotte...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Here is just one article that is extraordinarily difficult to square with takeaways numbers 4 and 6.
It is generously larded with speculative opinion about “Gary Cohn’s thinking,” which is hardly consonant with Dean Baquet’s limitation of anonymous attribution to “facts.”
The link to Margaret Sullivan’s column of 2016 reinforces that the Times’ standard is that anonymous sourcing may be used as a “last resort.” But the above linked article, co-authored by Maggie Haberman, was one of THREE on that very day’s digital front page with Maggie Haberman as a coauthor loaded with anonymous sourcing. Three in a single day? I don’t think Baquet’s claim about reducing the Times’ dependence on anonymously sourcing is even remotely credible. Three “last resort” incidents on a single day? Fully incredible.
8
He thinks that Fox News is reality.
6