I understand and support your position regarding attacks on media reporters, but I must point out the political bias of the NY Times that you hide with your repitious use of the term "free press." I can't count the number of times you used it, but it implies you, unlike the "state media" you routinely call the competitors in contries you regard as "enemies", are free of any ideology or agenda. To the contrary, I suggest you as a capitalist enterprise are "free" only to extol that system's virtues and dismiss its defects.
Some time ago, an editor of the Times noted that he and his employes are mostly US citizens and as such are obliged to be loyal to the state. Reading each day's editions, I am struck by how consistently the Times speaks with the voice of the educated ruling class.
While its voice is informed and conherent, it speaks in the service of its political and economic institutions. At least part of the world recognizes this fact and so is aware of the limits of the "free press." Perhaps this explains why your appeal to defend it may not resonate among those with a less sunny take on capitalism.
Journalists need to rethink their relationship to and the role of Twitter in the daily corruption and degrading of their critically important profession in the eyes of many. It should be a professional requirement among serious journalists not to have a Twitter account, which inevitably distracts both them and their readers from things that actually matter, and too often puts them at the center of a debate they should be covering, not creating. Twitter should also never be used as a source of “news.”
As for the presidential Twitter account, if Jack Dorsey and his company followed their own rules they would have banned Trump long ago for violating their terms of use. If threatening the personal security of people who expose things he doesn’t like (the Ukraine whistleblower), disrupting international cooperation on a regular basis (baiting EU member states with his reckless support of Brexit and attacks on Brussels), threatening global security (his unhinged tweets aimed at North Korea and bizarre threats to wreck NATO by leaving it), demonizing people who confront him (peppered with false accusations of “treason” in recent cases of Democrats trying to stop his abuse of power), and spreading dangerously provocative disinformation (Trump’s ritual attacks on the press) don’t constitute the justification for a lifetime ban, it’s not clear what does. The Florida mail bomber also appears to have used Trump’s Twitter account for target selection.
Jack Dorsey: do the right thing.
I am surprised to read this essay and not find one word about Julian Assange. Not. One. Word. This screams hypocrisy.
Hold tight, keep doing what you do there still those of amongst the common citizenry that value journalism and free press. We appreciate the burden you carry and the risks you take to keep us aware and informed of even the hard ugly truth's we don't want to hear. I believe we will overcome this dark age as we have others, we will learn, grow, and find ways to ensure it doesn't happen again. Unfortunately our world sometimes requires the hard lessons before we truly value what we have. We've lost so much with this administration it's hard to see ourselves in our country right now but the tenacity and perseverance of true journalism will bring us back. There's more support and appreciation for articles and sentiment like this than is voiced day to day, so many feel lost and overwhelmed it's difficult to give voice to all we value, all we're losing as a people, and all we the future will bring.
I believe we'll get ourselves and our values back, we'll be stronger because of this struggle.
Please stay safe and know there are still many voices behind your own.
Shocking as usual. One question: did the NYT report this when it happened? I might have missed something, but I don't remember it.
Journalism is a sort of transaction that involves journalists, the people in the events they cover, and the powers that be. But it also involves the reading public. Increasingly, that public doesn't care, doesn't even read. Top-down oppression of journalists and journalistic freedom is being matched by indifference among the public in free countries. Where I live, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of people care about anything but their houses, their cars, and their families. Society is entirely too abstract a concept for a large segment of the population to deal with.
"Here in the United States, that means rejecting efforts like frivolous lawsuits and investigations targeting government leaks that aim to chill aggressive reporting. And around the world, it means opposing the countless efforts underway to attack, intimidate and delegitimize journalists". And not a single mention of Julian Assange co-founder of Wikileaks, who is currently locked up in a supertax prison in London, Belmarsh, in solitary confinement, awaiting an extradition hearing in order to be handed over to the US secret grand jury in Virginia next year -- for the heinous crime of publishing -- the very same material from 2010, Collateral Murder and the Iraq War Logs, that the New York Times itself published at the same time, with not so much as a slap on the wrist. Who else published those documents with no repercussions? The Guardian, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Der Spiegle, Le Monde. But who went to prison for it? And not a word from you. Erased.
At some point we are going to have to create a mechanism to organize and put into action more aggressive countermeasures to this threat. I do support via subscription various news outlets (e.g. New York Time, Washington Post, The Atlantic ...) and it feels like we are losing anyway.
Of course voting is key, but we see that this system is corrupted as well.
Not sure what/how, but it is clear we left leaning people play by rules that are from another time and that needs to change, somehow.
2
@gARG:
Exactly. Tragic and correct.
"Rules are all right, long as there's someone left to play the game." Paul Butterfield, 'Born In Chicago'
1
I would feel so much better if some of the abuses Mr Sulzberger described were not committed during the Obama administration. It would be convenient to say this is a Trumpian anomaly, but alas, the abuse comes from the seat of power. We have three co-equal branches of government. Two of them must work together to stop the excesses of the executive, especially one driven by an amoral ego-maniac.
Powerful!!
In view of the present state of our nation, this much-needed Opinion piece is timely. Our country is at a crossroad as are both House and Senate members. Will we Americans come together to choose Democracy over the perilous present state that could readily tip over to Totalarism with Trump at the helm? Will our leaders: Democrats and Republicans have the courage to put their party aside to honor the Constitution and defend the Second Amendment?
@Olivia The answer unfortunately is clearly: no.
I grew up during a time when a morning and then evening paper was delivered to the front door. I even remember my uncle, who was a literature professor and traveled widely, receiving a special edition of the London Times in the mail – the paper was printed on a very thin stock and airmailed to his home address. My other uncle which I mentioned in a prior post who was a newspaper man, drilled into our family that local news, well reported, was a necessary check on potential abuses by those in authoritative positions. In addition, the local news could also drum up support and/or aid for a particular community need or action. Unfortunately many Americans are addicted to their smart phones (which is by design) and don't read past the first four lines of any article that shows up on their tiny screens. But I also won't let the media industry, including newspaper publishers, off the hook so easily. When the memes for social media sites like Facebook started showing up on screens of national news broadcasts that should have set off an immediate alarm and well coordinated effort to demand appropriate regulation and the strengthening of Fair Doctrine laws. But that didn't happen, and newspapers and journalists were caught flat footed. Not all new technology is good. Trump's rants are taken right out of the fascist playbook. He was given way too much room by editors of major press. Our democracy is paying the price.
1
Fifteen years ago, as a member of a large writer's group composed of mothers trying to make it in the dog eat dog world of freelancing, I used to put out a press freedom newsletter. It was usually just a few links and some commentary.
By and large, the moms who were members of our large community, at the time, we were pushing several thousand members (and that was VERY large for the Internet at the time) didn't see themselves as "journalists" even though many of them were working and *paid* writers. They covered the parenting markets. They wrote about crafting. One or two wrote in the higher end worlds of national women's magazines. One did profiles of celebrities. The most "serious" journalist among us wrote in high tech. I don't think anyone worked in business or politics.
Yet every week, without fail, there was a new journalist jailed, or someone killed. There was a new challenge to press freedoms overseas. There was danger to press freedoms *here in the US.*
Yet these writers were completely oblivious. At times, they *themselves* railed against "the media." Snarkily, I would answer, "YOU. ARE. THE MEDIA."
If journalists hate themselves--or don't see themselves as journalists--in the freest, most important bastion of press freedoms in the world... what hope is there?
Not to mention, every single one of those inestimable women, once working journalists, now have day jobs... doing something else. The Internet destroyed pretty much all of us.
Game over
1
Perhaps if you would be more forthcoming and diligent in your reporting there would be nothing to label as "fake news." However the number of corrections, amplifications and just plain retractions from your firm and various other "news sources" over the past decade and more illustrate that you are not producing "journalism" at all. Rather than present the news as the Who's, What's When's, Where's and Why's of a given situation, you and your colleagues have become advocates of a desired outcome and filter and shape the news to reach that desired outcome by manipulating the American people. In the words of Greta Thunberg, "how dare you."
3
From the moment Trump started attacking journalists he did not like and scapegoating minorities during his first run, I told people around me this sounded just like what Hitler did. I was told I was over the top by one friend, but I believe he has rescinded that comment. LOL
2
This is an important piece, but alas I do not have much hope that more than a small percentage of citizenry will make an effort to be informed and engaged.
Critically reading on a news topic requires both time and effort. This requirement has been exacerbated by the rise of click-bait and by the fragmentation of news sources, requiring people to make an extra effort to discern the quality of the news and to not have their attention easily distracted.
It took me about 15 minutes to read this piece and I am lucky to be able to slack off at work on many days to get through some quality articles. I think of the typical person juggling a long work day and family responsibilities - when do they get to absorb any in-depth news aside from very high level headlines?
Those of us who still care and are willing to make an effort to stay informed need to go beyond paying for subscriptions. We also need to work on our friends and family and encourage them to make being informed a critical part of their busy lives. This is no small order.
17
This newspaper’s many kindnesses to this regime, beginning well before its installation in 2017, are certainly ill-repaid by the conduct its publisher describes here.
1
I’m afraid that the most important messages of this article are burried so far into the article that those who should most need to get the message won't: Persons who are casual readers. And the emphasis on Constitutionality is not what those readers need to appreciate.
So let me YELL, casual reader: READ THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE.
And Editors around the nation: REPRINT THIS and highlight its most salient points that your readers should appreciate. Don’t just go for the dramatic accounts of endangered journalists on foreigh soil. This is about the future of American humanity
In particular, I quote Mr. Sulzberger, addressing all Americans: “...raise your voice. Care about where your news comes from and how it’s made. Find news organizations you trust and enable the expensive, arduous work of original reporting by buying a subscription.... Most of all, carve out a place for [accurate] journalism in your everyday life and use what you learn to make a difference.... I believe in this country and its values, and I want us to live up to them and offer them as a model for a freer and more just world."
4
I subscribe to NYT & other newspapers national and international to get a broad spectrum of what's going on in the world, and I particularly prefer articles written by Pulitzer's. Being a great-grandma one thing I can offer to readers: GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out). Another bit of advice came from a detective, 'Always look for a motive.' What is the motive any reporter has for writing what they do? I've not met one reporter thus far in my long life who is a millionaire. I applaud and honor the honest ones.
1
The New York Times is a Liberal paper and has a history of being so, and that ok. However, the paper and the Times publisher are reaping what it sows. Domestically, the public sees no balanced reporting, lack of accuracy, left out facts, and no real desire to produce great journalism. The American public is smart. The American News Media has lost the trust of the American Public. Don't blame the President for the lost of trust the American Public has for the media. The American News is just reaping what it sows.
2
The American Public is smart? They(not the majority)voted for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump puts Freedom of the Press at risk in the US & all over the world. He is the true Enemy of the People.
1
I'm sobbing. I have a BA in Journalism but no longer work in that field, but am a critical and voracious consumer of the quality journalism done in this country and overseas. Every word you uttered is true and each paragraph caused more anguish.
I want to print this out and shove it in the face of every person I pass on the street. But I live in SF so that's silly because 99% of my fellow pedestrians already agree & are calling Nancy begging her to start impeachment.
Can the NYT just mail this to every registered voter in all 50 states? I'll pay more for my subscription. Seriously.
1
Since the Trump election, there is basically no “news” to be found on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, the NYTimes, WaPost—-all of whom have traditionally represented for me the best of free speech. All I hear from all of those sources are articles represented as news but are really editorials, not critical, but hateful, about the Trump presidency. I must say my opinion of our news organizations has taken a big hit.
It's no surprise that Americans don't trust journalism (or the Times). In the real world, many Americans have to go into debt to pay a $400 emergency, they die because they use gofundme to pay medical bills and die if they can't afford insulin. In the NYT a Kate Spade bag is a rite of passage and doctors who make $300K are middle class. In particular, the Times' Op-Ed and political writers (e.g. David Brooks, Sydney Ember) seem to be more focused on protecting plutocracy than democracy. They treat Bernie Sanders like Fox News treated Obama. It's not surprising that the Mr. Sulzberger spoke at Brown - Brown's students' parents have highest median income of any college in the country. Doubtless he sees them as a microcosm of America.
One area of the world the NYT is starting to ignore is Tibet. Attention has recently been paid to the Uighur's plight in Xinjiang but since Edward Wong's departure from the China bureau, Tibet has mostly vanished from your coverage. This is extremely unfortunate since Tibet is well-known to be under a constant stranglehold by the CCP's leadership. Tibetan customs, culture, religion, not to mention the unique Tibetan environment are all being systematically destroyed. I imagine that the NYT can't even get a reporter into the "country" anymore.
Imagine sequestering Texas, not allowing a single foreign reporter within its borders, and then systematically depriving all native Texans of their rights. This would make international headlines. Why isn't Tibet treated in the same way?
The press has done much to sully their own image as the press became advocates of liberal progressiveness. The NYTs and the other major news organizations in promoting their own political agendas have earned the right to be labeled fake news.
1
Many of the factors which led to the shrinking population of journalist positions in this country, including the disappearance of so many storied newspapers, were regrettable side effects of a free market. Why buy a newspaper when you can find a Cable TV guy who, for an hour, will feed you exactly what you want to hear? Or FB can update you all day long? Or the President himself can tweet you in real time?
Here’s the part that is oxymoronic: with such greater access to facts and information, the American people have become less and less capable of discerning things like sourcing, bias, motivation, validity, truth. Mainstream Media valiantly tries to hold the line against a tsunami of deviant information purveyors with ulterior motives, but it is increasingly difficult to do so when the President of the U.S. is not a believer in Freedom of the Press. He not only believes he is immune from investigation and indictment, he also believes he should be immune from criticism.
Not acting to insure the safety of NYT reporter Declan Walsh who was in imminent danger was disgraceful. Having been tipped off to his imminent arrest in Egypt, this administration smugly chose to stay quiet and presumably were waiting to see it happen and feel good about punishing the NYT. (Note that they sent top U.S. Diplomat and hostage negotiator Robert O’Brien to Sweden to help rapper A$AP Rocky who was only in danger of a misdemeanor fine.)
Unlike Trump, NYT and WAPO regret their mistakes.
The following made me laugh:
"His most frequent targets are independent news organizations with a deep commitment to reporting fairly and accurately. To be absolutely clear, The Times and other news organizations are fair game for criticism. Journalism is a human enterprise, and we sometimes make mistakes. But we also try to own our mistakes, to correct them and to rededicate ourselves every day to the highest standards of journalism."
When you have a narrative to push, you are very bad at reporting accurately and fairly as your recent reports on Kavanaugh made very clear. Yes, after a lot of pushback, you did finally make some corrections - but not for too long after the story appeared.
Outside of the Trump administration you've done the same thing for implausible stories that follow a narrative you want to tell. The Rolling Stone gang rape at UVA was another one you were right behind. When I read the story I had questions - like, how is it she was raped over a bed of broken beer bottles and didn't have lacerations and lots of bleeding all down her back? But you bought it without hesitation. Duke lacrosse case also comes to mind. Or the article about those expensive drapes Nikki Haley had installed in her apartment near the UN when they were ordered by the Obama administration. You buried that in the 4th or 5th paragraph.
I could go on but it seems you are so blinded to the narratives you believe in that you have lost all claim to being objective reporters.
1
I wish that the author didn't use the phrase "on the ground"; it appears three times! That lazy formulation is vastly over-used these days; I hear it constantly on CNN. Readers understand that the NY Times reporters don't hover in the air.
I'll give Sulzberger points for having the honesty to publish this under "Opinion" (vs news), and to use the word "independent" instead of "unbiased" referring to the NY Times. The readers can decide for themselves which is the more accurate. Please note that just because a news source agrees with your point of view does not make the story more accurate or unbiased. Rather ,it may go to prove the contrary. But that is only my unbiased opinion.
1
Words of wisdom. Long live the New York Times and the First Amendment.
As a long time every day reader of the Times, and as a person who loves the paper, I have the following comments:
"Our mission at The New York Times is to seek the truth..."
That indeed should be the mission of the Times, unfortunately however it is not. Or it is way down the list behind the real mission of the Times: making money (number 1 - of course!), attracting eyeballs, printing stuff that your readers agree with (pandering), and of course most of all, pushing the political agenda of the Times owners and top editors.
It is this: bending of the truth, ignoring the truth, passing opinion off as truth, which are practices that can be found everyday on the pages of the Times and many other news outlets that is the greatest threat to journalism today.
Fox News and many other outlets do the same thing, except of course the political agenda is different.
Six words: Tell the truth, all the time.
If the Times simply does that every day, the threats to the journalism, the country and the world will diminish.
I am here to tell you, you are not doing it! Too much messing with the truth, and that is the real threat.
1
In his book " In The Land of Silent People", written in 1943, in the midst of WW2, about his flight from the murderous Nazi onslaught through the Balkans and Greece, the renowned AP reporter Robert St. John said his mission was "to report to the free world what happened, not what to think." That kind of dedication to facts is why I support the New York Times.
Journalism is suppose to report the news...not create it.
1
THANK YOU.
1
Trump is a making of news media like the NYTimes with the constant above the fold coverage of the Hillary emails nonsense.
So perhaps a good look in the mirror is in order.
How about removing liberal political bias out of every single article in this newspaper and then we can talk.
1
Bravo!
Meanwhile, we're waiting for the Editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other major newspapers of our nation, to call for the impeachment of Donald Trump. Waiting.
Journalism is a business like any other and has to follow the C.E.N.T.S. process. C.E.N.T.S. stands for control, entry, need, time and scalable. See readers as cave dwellers. These people have been in this cave all their lives. They share the same reading habits. The cave’s exit is not impossible to reach but since it entails unfamiliar reading, most people stay inside the cave. If a being managed to exit the cave, at first he or she would be disoriented because being exposed to new things may seem intimidating and scary. But as the fear goes away, the person is no longer a prisoner.
How easy is it to Enter and make these changes is up to the individual. Next, as a former cave dweller, you’ll see how narrow the paradigms of your former colleagues in the cave continue to be. You may not feel a Need to return to the cave and feel conflicted. If you returned to the cave and rejoined them, you would take no pleasure in their accolades or praise for knowledge of their inability to get out of their own way.
If you’re an altruist and want to help the unenlightened, will you have enough Time to truly make a difference? For their own part, the people may see you as deranged, not really knowing what reality is and would say you think you’re better than the rest of them. Lastly, is your process Scalable?
I wrote this comment to spark self reflection & self awareness that will help individuals help themselves in perpetuity.
This analysis is problematic on two fronts. One is the partially true assumption that traditional media outlets like the New York Times are being assailed by the usual suspects. This is true as far as it goes, but this argument seems to downplay the fact that attacks on journalism are not entirely “traditional” (dictators, bad social actors, corrupt governments, war, social unrest, etc.) or are happening in a “traditional” historical space. A dynamic, ubiquitous information economy amplifies the noise within which “traditional” news is disseminated. This is a new historical environment. This fact alone blurs the distinctive role and identity of traditional news media like the Times, apart from the usual attacks on journalists and traditional media outlets.
The other and to me more disturbing front is the fact that traditional media outlets are viewed by many as partisan sophists. Traditional news media, so the arguments goes, do not have a particularly special role to play in the preservation of a political system like democracy, let alone a plausible claim to be viewed as seekers and defenders of truth. I don’t agree with this view, but it is something to think about.
Journalism would benefit if readers had a greater awareness of some of the critical economic paradoxes that underpin our society. Our goal shouldn’t be perfection, we should strive to do the greatest good through the most pardonable inconveniences. Are we deserving of a President who will have a perfect blend of self-delusion and ego to think that he/she can succeed where others have failed? Throughout history, politics has enabled disingenuousness with the media and the voters. Washington is inundated by legal distractions, investigations, blatant omissions, lack of transparency & poor communication. Despite this, our savviest politicians are aware of the impossibility theorem, a concept in social choice theory that proves when voters have three or more differentiated choice or options, the absence of ranked order voting system can lead to rankled preferences of individuals over a community-wide ranking in addition to meeting a pre-specified set of criteria. This concept affects the political process by treating all conceivable rules under a common framework. This provides the meaningful tool for expressing social welfare. Despite all that’s negative in the world today, an economic era of enlightenment is possible since the social media puts the voters at the center & with work, could do a better job at producing a more informed populace and higher voter turnouts. Through social media, it’s possible to implement campaigns that interacts with existing and potential voters.
In 1990, a friend showed me how to Telnet to read news for free. "What!" I exclaimed. "That can't be right. How will reporters get paid if the news is provided for free?"
In 2001 or so, as the phrase, "Anyone can be a journalist!" was starting to take hold, I said to myself that if that's the case, we are going to need more editors to plow through all of the trash, because it's obvious that not everyone actually knows how to write. But I wondered - who was going to pay them?
In 2016, I realized that the only content I cared to read online was all behind paywalls ... and that this was no accident. So I finally subscribed: to NYT and a few others. Because after all that time, it finally got through my thick skull that when it comes to news, you get what you pay for.
1
Without freedom of the press, true, enlightened democracy is doomed. It is as simple as that.
When someone was accused of something, a right approach was to first think about why was accused. My view is that the media failed to deliver the truth and also tried to enforce very naive view upon us.
I was deeply hurt by NT's report on former Chinese premier Wen Jiabao. He was not a perfect person for sure, but he was almost only person amongst top Chinese leaders who was on people's side, but NT time took some untruthful material from Wen's political enemy, accusing Wen for corruption and published. That hurt the reformer badly. Things like this made people totally lost confidence in the media. And now you are furious about the media got attacked? Don't simply claim you were a victim, DO RIGHT THING! Political news would either be beneficial or harmful to the society, report truth, but also consider the consequence! Otherwise, you would keep loosing people's trust.
Heart-breaking but beautiful editorial that should be in textbooks from now on.
While Sulzberger pointed out how Google, Facebook and Apple are contributing to disinformation, he left out one pivotal pillar of journalism in America: TV news broadcast networks such as CBS, ABC and NBC. These broadcast news channels, driven by ad revenues, have been largely contributing to the dumbing down of America by focusing on sound bites and sensational news and by keeping Americans ignorant about issues of real importance both at home and abroad. And a person like Trump has capitalized on their ignorance to drive a sizable section of Americans to subscribe to his agenda.
One of the TV networks titles its evening news as the World News Tonight. Lo and behold, world news forms a fraction, or in many cases none at all, of its evening broadcast.
Americans' skepticism of the news media has not arisen in a vacuum. The news media has fed into it as well.
2
My uncle was an old fashioned newspaper man and publisher – owning a few midtown sized papers that were eventually forced out of existence because of the internet and lax regulation of the disruptive social media industry. He was one of the finest and most intelligent individuals I ever knew and I loved him dearly. He was also one of the first adults to open my eyes to a wider world, and when I would walk the dogs with him after dinner, I was always amazed at how he sincerely solicited my opinion on a variety of topics. The loss of vibrant, local newspapers has had a tremendously negative impact on local communities. The local TV news which limits its coverage of any topic to a mere two or three minutes doesn't even begin to make up for the proverbial "town green" that is or was the local newspaper. The result is many Americans are terribly less informed and more vulnerable to disinformation scams. There are many other papers I would enjoy subscribing to but at $100 bucks here and another $100 bucks there it can all add up to quite a significant expense. I have long felt, especially with the advent of smart technology, that a kind of "Muni pass" like one can use for mass transit across a region would be a great idea for newpapers (or maybe even a dedicated device). I don't live in NY so there is a lot that the NYT covers that is less relevant to me. An annual "journalistic pass" would let me support and enjoy a variety of periodicals.
6
@Twg
You have raised a significant gap in the transfer of information between locally based reporters and the residents in rural areas, small towns and mid-sized cities. This distribution of news is an important aspect of an 'informed citizenry' and essential for democracy. I think the loss of journalism on a local level has been replaced by the influence of 'fake news' as well as less examination of corrupt, self-seeking politicians, demagogues, businesses and social-media. Your idea of a 'Muni pass' could move from concept to reality with a strong entrepreneurial boost.
@AACNY
Demagogues, such as Trump, along with dictators Putin, Kim Jong-un, Bashar Al-Assad and others like them do everything they can to 'disappear' journalists. The human race needs none of them and many more journalists.
Thank you for this article, Senator McCain's comment is right on target. Responsible journalism, is essential to an informed public. Social Media should not be considered a reliable News source. Journalists who put their life on the line to report the facts should be protected. Our free speech as well as a free press is on the line, and this threat should not be taken lightly.
Thank you for this column and detailed description of the existential threat against press freedom--and with it, life as we know it in America. In addition to our current president and the other threats discussed in the article, even those who read and appreciate "true news" have come to expect it for free, or nearly free. I find myself frequently reminding friends that journalists and their publishers must be paid and if we don't provide support in every way possible, the media we depend on will disappear. We can't function without you, at least not as a democracy.
An excellent piece but I can't help but think back to the coverage that the NY Times gave of the presidential election in 2016. IMO, the reportage in the Times gave great credibility to Mr. Trump and undermined Secretary Clinton's campaign. I even commented on it at the time. So, now they're unhappy that the person they helped elect is doing exactly what should have been expected, even then. Bitter fruits indeed.
1
Information is power and no doubt there are still plenty of responsible journalists left in the world, but there are also many vocal ones who "slant" their writings to satisfy the political or social angles that please the beliefs of their readers. Compare the journalists writing in The New York Post and the New York Daily News, or those working for FOX, CNN, or MSNBC reporting on any given event. They all give their respective followers an interpretation of that event which is congruent with the network's Board of Directors and Editorial ideology. So there is not a "Free Press", but one that follows the dictum of those groups that control the flow of information. Certainly no members of any profession should be persecuted or killed, but those who write against a group, government, or faction, attract the attention of its rival and find themselves victims of those powerful groups. Take the horrendous number of Mexican journalist killed recently. They all wrote against government corruption or reported about the various cartels.
1
We have a fight ahead of us
Join young and old, join one and all
Dylan was right, my darling young ones
A hard rain's a-gonna fall
Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a useful model here. As an individual, I can venture out the cave, but not very far, and I'm often not in a position to ascertain the validity of what I think I see. Responsible Journalists, however, extend my awareness way beyond the proximate path. Thank you NYT!
1
I kept waiting for your article to launch a vigorous defense of Julian Assange and the right of publishers to publish evidence of war crimes, to document the actual numbers of civilian casualties, and to expose the torture of prisoners in conflict with international law.
But all I heard were crickets. Don’t you care about the precedent being set regarding criminalizing the publishing of classified information in the public interest? How does Assange’s imprisonment affect your ability to do your job? How does the persecution of a publisher affect your ability to report on criminality, perpetrated under the cover of “national security?” How will your silence affect our democracy for generations to come?
4
Mr. Sulzberger, I am grateful to you and all the Times’ journalists for your dedication to the First Amendment. This piece should lead in your Opinion Section given the import it conveys.
The challenge our nation faces, as you hinted, is an increasingly uneducated and incurious population. This provides the medium for despots and authoritarians to manipulate the masses, as Trump has succeeded in doing. Journalistic integrity cannot compensate for a society that doesn’t read and doesn’t care, and - especially - does not discern truth from lies. Yet, someone must lead and do what is right. Someone must be the defender of the Truth.
Your mission is the correct one. Persevere.
5
It's not easy to understand or explain the recent world-wide rise of fascism, and it's even more difficult to confront it. But make no mistake, it really is "fascism", and failing to call it that, or hiding behind euphemisms like "nationalism" doesn't make it any easier. One might think that the lessons of the past would help, but apparently not. The irrational aspects of fascism seem to override all history, logic and understanding. The next election will tell the tale.
4
When I first moved to NYC in the mid 60's, it became immediately apparent if U wanted to know what was going on in NYC, the NYT was your best source. Years later when I moved to SF CA, the local newspapers did not have a reporter in the state capitol and their national/international news was missing. Well I would drive to the SF airport every Sunday morning and there was a news stand that had the Sunday NYT. I went to my favorite brunch place on Union Street and there were several former NY people who waited for their review of the NYT.
Yes despite all the challenges from trump and his crowd, the NYT continues to be the best source of news. When the NYT says they print all the news of the world, indeed they do!
5
While I agree that the Trump's comments are not helpful. I think the news media is playing a role in its diminishing position in the world.
With a now 24 by 7 focus, the news (and politics) has become a blood sport. It is candidly too much. Given the speed of communications (video and audio) we are surrounded by people who routinely ask each other have you heard the latest? As if if the speed of information outweighs the importance its accuracy.
When highly touted stories that are shoved down people's throats endlessly don't turn out a certain way or yield the results we have been promised, credibility does suffer.
A few quick cases that the Times were directly involved with serve as clear evidence. The projection of Hillary winning easily. The insistence of Trump's Russian collusion for 2 years and the Mueller dud. Lastly, the Jussie Smollet case.
I sadly think the NY Times has gone beyond reporting the news and drifted in to making the news.
3
Absolutely timely and excellent!!!
3
Some of us value and count on what you do. For that, we thank you. Trump is the true fake, and enemy of the people. All he cares about is being worshiped, and making money on it.
3
It's heartbreaking to see how Trump is betraying the values that made this country great. Republicans have always worn an insincere mask of patriotism. Now they have pulled aside the mask and are open traitors to American values.
2
We used to view journalists as an intrinsic part of society... now we portray and view them as separate from society, as if they linger just outside, peering in... and the result is public funding for unbiased accurate journalism has declined while at the same time institutions that used to view news as a philanthropic endeavor, have begun to shift to "infotainment news" in an attempt to make news profitable. The bottom-line is there is no money in telling the truth and money runs the world now more than ever.
So when the president attacks the media... or when a country kills a journalist... it's no longer happening to us... it's happening to those outsiders over there...
The press is no longer free... as witnessed by this comment that will not be published because I haven't paid the subscription fee to this site and yet I have full access to read and type without doing anything subversive to access... so, it's pay to play...
That is the problem. You want people to care about journalists, stop being capitalists.
Speaking of the free press you pretend to champion Mr Sulzberger, I am curious how many of your journalists you hired are free to voice and write anything pro Trump, or pro any of the issues this newspaper stand against. From the outside we see no diversity of opinion in your pages, only diversity of race. I also wonder how many comments with diverging points of view are approved. Just a tiny percentage.
As a former journalist who worked for a big news organization in NYC, I recall I never felt as if I worked for on organ of a free press, we were all supposed to be in lock and step with directions coming from "above," regardless how much we disagreed with them.
3
The news section (internat'l, national, regional, and local) of newspapers are expected to report relevant facts and information - not to approach the news with a variety - or "diversity of opinion" or a prepackaged outcome flattering to the current administration.
It's expected that an op(inion)-ed(itorial) section of the newspaper in question would have an editorial slant. Nevertheless, the NYT has on its editorial staff conservatives such as Bret Stephens (a noted climate skeptic, ex-WSJ), David Brooks (ex-National Review), Ross Douthat, Arthur C. Brooks with his lively, occasional back-and-forth dialogue with Maureen Dowd, etc. And that's only the editorial section.
I can't tell you how many times my day has been flummoxed by some news report, editorial columnist or guest op-ed opining about x, y or z. Their job is to inform - and to make me think.
The crux of the Sulzburger editorial was his disclosure and account of the emminent arrest of his employee for doing his job. With this revelation, Sulzburger asserts that withholding life-saving, time-sensitive information constitutes an administration policy shift - because Trump didn't want to embarrass his fellow strongman-ally el-Sisi. A diplomat risked his or her career to do the right thing - to pass on this info.
Prioritizing or suppressing derogatory info based on a political or ally's political self-interest over the national interest (or humanitarian) is neither pro- or anti-Trump but newsworthy.
Only a few like NYT, WaPo etc. are keeping our hopes alive. We areindeed in a dangerous era that reminds the 1930s Germany. Our President represents a large number of people including the Republican leadership in the Congress that has usurped our constitution of checks and balances. We are being led to a totalitarian regime that the Trump supporters fail to see. Can we afford to wait before it is too late?
1
Given that almost all, if not all, that you say is true, given the recent efforts by immoral leaders to undermine factual reporting by calling it "fake news", and the authoritarian state-directed misinformation campaigns you mention, it is unfortunate that this communication follows so swiftly after a sustained effort by The New York Times to illegitimately demonise perhaps the greatest public health initiative of this century: the development of the electronic nicotine solution vaporiser or e-cigarette.
Illness and deaths caused by the use of illicitly supplied nicotine and thc solutions containing oil in the United States, does not make for a case against the vaping of all nicotine solutions responsibly made available for sale world-wide. Efforts to discourage the consumption of nicotine at all - particularly by adolescents - should not resort to illegitimately problematising the vaping of the liquids typically found in nicotine solutions, particularly as the vaping of such liquids sans-nicotine, has frequently been the last step in many people's only successful attempt to leave smoking, and nicotine consumption altogether, behind them. And the only attractive alternative to nicotine solution vaping available to the nicotine addicted, is smoking believed to be responsible for the deaths of over 480,000 Americans each year. And that medical scientists representing the venerable NHS have declared nicotine solution vaping carries only "a fraction of the risk" of smoking.
Every time Trump calls out "fake news", we all should call out "Fake President", as loudly and constantly as we can!
1
We are in dangerous times. I completely support the free press. It is unthinkable that our government would not protect its citizens, especially the press. I see many comments about how the press has been degraded and the news producers in this country have failed the people to varying degrees. This has some truth to it. But I do not see it as having any place in this conversation. Yes the press needs to reflect on its behavior and the it's choices that have made many question their willingness to choose money over truth, etc. That is another topic and I would argue not needs discussing. But not here. Not in a story that shows how our government is willing to let it's press be arrested, abused and told that their coverage justifies their attacks by foreign governments. This is not America. This is not who we are or who our government should be.
2
As a part-time former freelancer, I couldn't agree more that the free press is a staunch ally of American freedom. Trump's continued attacks on papers of record such as the Times and the subsequent conviction among the less educated that he is right are downright frightening. Please keep up the good work.
4
Sobering times. One thing to consider too is the journalistic tradition of relying on officials as news sources, even when they're known liars. This has long been a problem in coverage of other countries, and now more than ever it's a problem here. New reporting conventions need to emerge to deal with the level of lying we're dealing w, to call the lies what they are and not give so much space to them. Thank you to the NYT team for all you do.
1
I believe the only free press we have right now are the individual YouTube channels who are under debt to no one, of any kind. Corporate media is only propaganda.
3
@Idealist
I would give my life in order to maintain a free press. The New York Times, The Washington Post and myriad other daily papers represent excellent -- make that superb -- journalism.
2
This Opinion by A.G. Sulzberger reports the consequences on a global basis of Donald J.Trump's overt and covert attacks on the 'free press' and on lives of journalists. It provides the flesh and bones results of Trump's 'fake news' and accusations that journalism is 'an enemy of the people'. Don't think that Trump just threatens, he acts malevolently and is part of the gang of dictators whose sole interest is their own power, while snuffing out the freedom of the people. Please read this Opinion to have an even clearer picture of what is at stake for all Americans and many others around the world as long has Trump is in power.
1
„The press is the immune system of democracy“ I once read. Seems right.
1
Thank you for a much needed reminder of the importance of freedom of the press and the extent to which it is under threat. I looked in vain however for any mention of one of the most important promoters of transparency and one of the first victims of this assault on press freedom: Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I find it very puzzling indeed that the NYT, which published large amounts of the revelations of war crimes made possible by Mr. Assange and Wikileaks has paid little attention to his plight since and never mentions him in this otherwise commendable article. Perhaps it is because including him in the discussion would make evident that the assault on press freedoms (and whistleblowers) did not begin with the arrival of Mr. Trump in the White House, but to a considerable extent, under his predecessor.
1
Sorry key point two years ago. If you were concerned keeping quiet for two years is the wrong way to express it.
True journalism has and will always be the voice of truth for the people. Thank you to all of the journalists, editors and staff that put their lives and reputation on the line for the sake of the truth.
2
I treasure the work journalists do to flush out the facts and report accurately, sometimes under dangerous circumstances. I am still aghast that our nation is an accessory after the fact in the Khashoggi slaughter. I have (late) family members who put themselves on the line as journalists, accepting personal risk as part of their reporting.
That said, journalism often takes a token look inward in pieces like this, then rapidly self-exonerates after only superficial analysis. But the truth is journalistic standards today are abysmal. Deceptive headlines are written to attract clicks, and this is in a world where we know most people will not read the associated article. In today’s journalism “people say” is legitimate sourcing. In today’s journalism a reporter can say, “I think...” a clear violation of the rule that the Press must not become part of the story. In today’s journalism, an anchor can interview a network analyst who has zero special insight on an issue, the analyst can speculate anything, and it then gets treated like news. In today’s journalism reporters ask gotcha questions that come out of left field - truly distorting the issue and giving the stupid small stuff center-stage - both for personal glory and for ratings.
Much of this is about cable news (not Fox Performance Art, from which I expect tepid entertainment, not journalism). But mainstream journalism must embrace fixing itself if it wants me to defend it against “fake news.”
5
Something I wish Mr Sulzberger had mentioned in this piece: The current Egyptian government is an ally of the United States that came to power in a coup backed by the US.
It would not be wild speculation to suggest that the reason the US government was decidedly unhelpful in trying to protect Mr Walsh was because they'd helped arrange for him to be arrested or worse because they didn't like what Mr Walsh was writing.
3
This, in my opinion, really started in the age of advertising, Young & Rubicam, one of the larger ones, where they learned how emotional weaknesses in the human psyche could be used to persuade people. Having lived in, and worked in New York City at the age of 20 for a financial institution, back in the sixties. I learned a lot about how America works for those who want to make money. If by birth, or being in the military, or having a job abroad, then you learn about other countries, cultures, governments, religions, etc. which all play on the psyche of the people, where for centuries, threats, assaults, death, and even worse has been done to people to keep them in line, by those in the military, who have held up most of the regimes of dictators around the world. Until people lose their open, free press, and the rights, and laws, they have taken for granted, they won't know as it slowly but surely slides away from them. The truth is, the age of television, which was mostly family entertainment, ushered in a new age of both ignoring our jobs as citizens, and trusting that those who held sway over us, had our best interests in mind. They didn't, as it became all about money, little else, and the idea that blatant sexuality, and I'm no prude, and blatant in your face reality television was anything that was good, it was, and is not, and here we are. People, ignorantly believe in being infantile, and letting those at the top take care of the people. That is very dangerous.
5
Spot on and timely.
2
The New York Times is one of America's last great newspapers. Than you A.G. for being its publisher today, and keep up the great truth-seeking and truth-telling you all do. The only thing fake is Trump's patriotism and integrity, and those of his supporters and enablers. I can't wait one day for the headline: 1600 No Trump!
3
And yet you remove comments people make when those comments aren't offensive while leaving others that are personal attacks, inflammatory, or just plain not true. Your algorithms select against comments that are complex, use certain words even if those words have been used in the article or opinion. You delay putting up comments that have been submitted quite soon after the article has been posted unless those comments are simple. In your own way you are contributing to the dumbing down of the "conversations".
Your reporters often voice opinions in news articles. They use hyperbole when they shouldn't. I've seen misuse of apostrophes, misspellings I never saw when you had copy editors, and sentences that make no sense no matter how I parse them. What good is a free press if the editors don't check the articles for clarity, spelling, punctuation, etc.?
I value the NY Times but it has changed and not for the better. I say this as someone who has watched the Times change the Week in Review from being a summary of what happened in the past week to an opinion section. The same has happened to the Sunday Business Section. The Metropolitan section focuses solely on NYC where before it had some of Westchester, Nassau, and even Suffolk county in it.
We are progressing nicely on the front of fake news. Fake news in the form of articles that have opinions in them, use loaded language, are incorrectly punctuated, and not proofed. Please return to fact based reporting.
8
@hen3ry
Spot on. Unfortunately, the only way to change this is to replace some of the managers at the top. I added a comment here, expressing the same concerns and suggesting the firing of Dean Baquet but I see that it never saw the light of day.
5
"fairness, accuracy, independence"
Sorry, Mr. Sulzberger, but you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If you go to the NY Times website at any arbitrary time, the great majority of articles at the top are all opinion, and the great majority of those simply bash Trump, often with no new information.
The Times used to print factual news with some commentary, analysis and opinion thrown in.
Now, the Times prints opinion with an occasional factual news story thrown in.
Right now (approximately 1:24 PM Tuesday, Sep 24), the right side of the website has articles by Douthat about why Trump wants impeachment, Goldberg about why Pelosi ought to want impeachment, Leonhart about why he wants impeachment, Krugman about why Republicans are not patriots, and an editorial demanding Trump admit what he did.
To be honest, in addition to wasting the opportunity to do real good with your website, this stuff is just plain boring.
So, please Mr. Sulzberger, make the Times a news organ again, instead of an Upper East Side version of the National Enquirer.
13
No doubt Trump is a huge corrupt and ugly person. I know him first hand and just cannot believe what he gets away with. One thing that is a problem for me is the huge animosity NYT jumps on regarding him. No stopping the negative. Reason bothers me is it seems NYT picks some wrong fights on this and thus loses some credibility. Hey, I know he is a horrible person and it really messing up our futures. He also is setting new norms that could lead eventually to the US become like a 3 world dictator country. However NYT needs to try to balance a bit more. I feel like I am reading the polar of Fox and rather have some balance....hard to do as I know with such a despicable person in White House. What I am also seeing more and more is the entire corruption in Congress.....all sides. Terrible.
5
How can it be that the human animal has not advanced even a little when it comes to supporting the jingoist desires of its leaders? The aggression style of government perfected by Adolph Hitler seems to go through a repetitive cycle in almost every nation on this planet. Are "We the people" really that dumb? Remember the Ghost of Christmas Present's closing statement to Scrooge: "This girl is ‘want’ and this boy is ‘ignorance’, but beware the boy". The human animal will seemingly forever be poorly educated not matter where the technologies of tomorrow take us
Yes!
2
Of the many threats to journalism one of the biggest is the decreasing amount of balanced journalism reported and the amount of OPINIONS that creep into articles disguised as journalism.
The NY Times is now OVERLOADED with opinion writers whose opinions are sadly unbalanced. David Brooks is always leveled in his analysis and he's the conservative.
8
lol
2
Hiding oneself under cloak of journalism and claiming to be comparable to your counterparts in Hong Kong is to much of a stretch to me.
I can't watch cable news such as Fox, CNN and CNBC without believing I"m watching, to make it printable here, a cast of narcissistic sleaze balls and head cases. Three years of Trump bashing does not make a newspaper either.
Did anyone get fired for the latest Kavanaugh debacle. Or was agreed upon to lie. Keep repeating the same lie over and over is not Journalism is it? Need another example? We've been told the Auto companies are for California's standards. How did I like everyone else, fall for it. It Turns out only four companies what to go along. Not exactly a consensus.
Usually the comments I make about the Nytimes veracity never get printed. It's your paper but it's my country. what a wicked web. You know the rest.
5
We count on a free press to inform us, thereby empowering us to make decisions and take action. We give voice to protest so we do not stand silent like Dante's citizens for whom the "hottest places in hell should be reserved " because they "in times of great moral crisis reserved their neutrality." The attack on the press detailed here and the failure to guard the press is terrifying in its potential to strip us of our collective voice.
2
I am torn.
I am a NYT subscriber and (small) shareholder. I am eternally grateful for the light this paper shines into so many dark corners and upon so many facets of the world I would otherwise miss.
I am also an election forensics specialist and advocate for election integrity in the US. I collect and analyze data that indicates that our elections have been subject to outcome-altering electronic manipulation throughout the computerized vote-counting era (2002 - present) and that the resulting political veer has taken us to the dark place Mr. Sulzberger laments.
And I am eternally frustrated that my beloved (since I was a three-year-old) NYT, in its role as media gatekeeper, has refused to publicize or indeed seriously examine the work my colleagues and I have presented. As a result, the movement to reform our vote-counting process and restore public, observable counting to our elections has lacked the force and urgency called for by the crisis that is computerized election theft and its ghastly political consequences.
So how should I presume? The Times is my hero and my goat. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, and there is so much here that is good. But does that not make this signal failing all the more egregious and impactful?
As I began. I am torn.
5
Thank you, Mr. Sulzberger, for eloquently stating the importance of journalistic integrity, and the need to protect a free press. It is obvious from reading many of the comments you've received so far, that others share your views and also offer some good thoughts on how the media can do an even better job.
I am outraged by the President's use and abuse of the media and often wish that when he's wagging his finger at the "fake news people," that someone would just close the camera lens, mute the sound and shut him down. I know that this won't happen because the media must cover the good, bad and the ugly, but it's my private little dream of revenge.
I worry about tyranny and dictatorial leadership. I worry for people's safety in these times - citizens and non-citizens alike. I worry that we are being swept along in a sea of discontent, disconnect and dishonesty. I worry that as much as I wish to help, as many times as I have raised my voice in protest against lies and unfairness, that we are hurtling toward a very dangerous tipping point. Our democracy is being challenged on multiple fronts. But I am not giving up. I am not being quiet. And, I take heart in having at least a few good and strong newspapers intelligently doing their jobs.
4
Fortunately we live in a time our world is emerging out of its long dark night of misinformation and half truths. Our capabilities of expression are in the process of being fully restored, which will includ the uncovering of all the half truths, and lies, previously perpetrated on a populace unaware of this practice. The world is experiencing an awakening, which is beginning to ridicule out of existence, anything less than the truth told in its entirety.
The greatest threat to journalism is loss of integrity. Liberal bias and blatant partisanship in the USA have done more to hurt the reputation of journalists than anything else in the last couple of decades. Not only are many leading media outlets in the USA and elsewhere sloppy on vetting their facts, the analysis of the news is also extremely lopsided. Thank goodness for the internet so that we can access original sources and vet the accuracy of reporting. Unfortunately, it appears that the "Big Brothers" at Google and Facebook etc. are now joining the biased MSM. to censure and distort what the public gets to see and read.
4
"The true power of a free press is an informed, engaged citizenry." Fox news, white supremacy websites, questionable social media postings "gone viral", and other news editorial rebuttals of anti Trump stories are indeed under the umbrella of a free press. So are their competing media outlets seeking the truth like the NYT, CNN and others in the press and on cable news.
How can conspiracy theories and outright lies and propaganda compete with the reputable reporting of these organizations covering the same news? And more importantly, how can a huge portion of the population be educated in what is true and what is false when they never read publications like the NYT and exclusively get their daily news from Fox? That is the challenge. They receive daily doses of "fake news"on their TVs, computer screens and even on the racks at check out lines of the suprmarket. Can it be possible that outlets like the NYT, WSJ and Wapo who perceived to be "enemies of people" may well be banished someday from the public as they have already been in some countries who have only maintained their own media propaganda and reporting of authoritarian regimes.
It is highly unlikely that our guarantee of a free press would not continue to be protected by our Constution, but it may come precariously close to such a fate, especially with Trump's relentless repetitive attacks on the "fake news" imparted to a believing citizenry who support his every word. This editorial gives much food for thought.
2
As a recent writer of "letters to the editor" of my local newspaper about the critical role of a free press, which I support wholeheartedly with a subscription, I am reminded of the challenges I had as a history/government teacher to help guide students to become critical consumers of media. Were I not retired, I would have our school newspaper re-print Mr. Sulzberger's essay for all to read, and would use it as a first-rate springboard for learning. As it is, I am sharing it with family members to encourage them to re-discover the trust needed to keep our 1st Amendment freedom alive and well. Thank you NYT and Mr. Sulzberger for all you do.
6
I believe you are sincere, Mr. Sulzberger, in your defense of First Amendment principles, and right to take Trump to task for undermining them.
But while I respect that journalists make mistakes, when those mistakes fester for too long without redress, they undermine public trust and empower demagogues like Trump. The New York Times failed the American people badly during the run-up to the Iraq War, suppressing dissenting views and uncritically publishing government pro-War propaganda. That craven betrayal of public trust left a stain on the Times my generation will never forget. Have you learned from that "mistake?"
More recently, your coverage of Venezuela (which you reference several times as a bogeyman in this editorial) conspicuously omitted the role that US sanctions continue to play in deliberately undermining that country's economy and impoverishing its citizenry. Even though Trump, of all presidents, is clearly concerned with neither the corruption of foreign dictators nor the suffering of South Americans, the Times consistently and uncritically presents our government's interest in Venezuela as purely altruistic. That propagandistic slant, sadly familiar after Iraq, doesn't inspire confidence in journalistic integrity.
By all means, take Trump to task. But to restore trust in journalism, doctor, heal thyself.
2
Journalism is in fact under threat - from media that caters to the internet mob without bothering to define the line between news and opinion. These so-called journalists have the lowest approval rating of any group of people on the face of the Earth.
3
One of the worst threats to the free press is the fact that the public now prefers the opinions compared to the facts because we have turned into the biased individuals eager to receive the reinforcing media support regarding how smart and right we personally are…
We live in the world of self-deception and imaginary reality…
We urgently need the collective mental detoxification.
I mean US, not THEM…
1
I think reporters and the Washington press in particular should be less deferential when questioning Trump at his press talks or availabilities.
The ones where he stands on the White House driveway waiting to board his helicopter and goes on and on.
When he says something he made up - umm, everything! - push back.
"Sir, every news outlet is reporting the opposite."
"Mr. President, that's not accurate."
"What you just said is not true. Why did you say that?"
Why let him ramble and lie with no consequences?
Hit him back with truth and challenge him to his face. Knock him off his perch.
If the reporter is banned for the push back, the administration creates a damaging story.
Let the press core say what's true in moment that Trump lies.
If they ban the whole bunch, hit them for that and pound their paranoia and weakness.
4
A poorly educated, reality-television and celebrity obsessed populace is ill equipped to appreciate the importance of a free press. No surprise, then, that these benighted folks make up Trump's base. He knows exactly where to aim his destructive propaganda.
5
The Fairness Doctrine needs to be revived
1
As a high school student I remember complaining to my parents that when I stepped across the entry to our Evangelical church that I was required to leave my brain at the door. All of those adults in my church, including caring teachers, smart lawyers, NASA engineers, coaches, and laborers believed absolutely preposterous myths about the world. Otherwise intelligent people told me that faith was more important than facts. Why? Tribalism, fear, culture, upbringing, and the Importance of membership over science or logic. When journalists or anyone weilding the truth faces the intransigence of human fear and tribalism, they will be demonized. It is simply human nature.
1
As a retired Foreign Service Officer, who often had to visit American citizens in prisons because they had been arrested overseas, I winced to read this commentary by the Times’ publisher. I know that when I was a diplomat, we treated journalists the same as any American who had been detained. To think that the marching orders from the Trump Administration may be different makes me fear for the Foreign Service and for our nation. The Freedom of the press is vital in keeping governments honest. Long live an independent press.
7
For those clamoring for Trump's impeachment, consider this: When Mike Pence was governor of Indiana, he deleted from his official state government social media accounts constituent comments criticizing him, until it was reported in the news media. He tried to establish a taxpayer-funded government news service that would, of course, likely publish only "information" that portrayed him in a favorable light, i.e. government propaganda. When it was reported in the local news, the plan was cancelled. The point is that Mike Pence would likely be no friend of a free and independent press.
5
All the Times' opinion piece writers have been vitriolic and rude toward Trump since he launched his campaign. Much of the news section, followed the same pattern and used a choice of words that always attacked Trump. Just take a look at the head line of Trump's speech at the UN, something positive and rather neutral and tame is presented as something sharp and negative, using the word sharp where the tone was more subdued than ever.
So it is rich to expect Trump's cooperation when in need. The media and the NYT cried wolf too many times so we no longer care. Their past and ongoing coverage hits them back as a boomerang.
The free media is an faux concept to begin with when it is owned by mega rich men with a clear agenda (Carlos Sim and Bezos), and it is openly serving a certain politically party through thick and thin.
The free media is more of an aspiration and a nostalgia than a fact. It is a slogan that sounds good but less and less people are fooled by it - and all the polls show this distrust.
6
Let's not confuse the two entirely different threats journalists face in modern times. Here in the West we have freedom of expression, which unfortunately for our journalists who wish to remain employed, includes a duty to their employers to purposly misinform their readers. A maleficence which has eroded the credibility of the media to near irrelevancy, no one is paying much attention to the news anymore. An unfortunate dilemma for today's writers living in a time of social and political changes which are unparalleled in our recent history. Where is the good news we never seem to hear about.
1
Those who are currently putting out the news, should read all the comments in this article. Upon completion, share a comment that takes the same approach as Marcus Aurelius’s ‘Meditations’, whose purpose and application was for personal clarity and not public benefit. This practice will allow for the endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without complaint. Whereas, most of us fear the solitude of Marcus Aurelius's methods opting instead to seek validation and increased social capital through bonding, bridging and linking. Bonding can be described as the social support we may receive from the people we are close to as part of our backgrounds. Bridging can be described as the social cohesion between individuals and groups, bringing people together and possibly promote diversity. Lastly, 'linking', where the associations between those gaining independence and democratic lifestyles due to status are linked with those in authority or between different social classes, communities and organizations. Keep your heads up, a thing doesn't cease to be true because it's not accepted by many. More journalists have to get people to ask themselves how do I get better at the things I don't think I'm bad at?
Democrats are attempting to fight within the rules of our laws, against Republicans, over which political party will control our democratic government. What the majority of Democrats don't realize is that the Republicans are fighting a different war. Today's Republicans are using every illegal and amoral weapon at their disposal to dismantle our democratic government and replace it with a malevolent government in which Republicans will rule indefinitely, with absolute power and authority, completely above any law. Unless the Democratic party wakes up in time, our American experiment in genuine representative government is coming to an end. The changing national demographics that are threatening the Republican Party will be insufficient to overturn the institutionalized autocracy that Republicans are building in every branch of our government. Republicans would rather be in power in a dictatorship than be out of power in a democracy.
5
@LNW I agree with you. The mainstream media also has to be very careful about "both sides" coverage when it is clear only one side has the facts.
1
Important article, and I am so grateful to NYTimes journalists for what they do.
I do think more self-reflection is required however. Last week I read the phrase "all the news that fits the narrative" in relation to this paper. Unfortunately it hit home. The reporting is exceptional, but it now often seems that we read only part of the story.
Some things Trump does are helpful. There have been some unfortunate consequences of #metoo. There are perils to unmanaged immigration. Mass shootings are not the largest part of gun violence. White supremacy does not explain all the variation in outcomes across ethnicities.
While your paper sometimes addresses these issues, it is too rare and too buried (The Daily is a notable exception). I read a variety of news to try a reach a balanced view. In some cases I land far from the NYTimes narrative.
"Fake news" as a claim is fuelled by this variance in what you and others print.
Were I a Trump supporter who favored a secure border, tougher trade, improved rust belt economies and Justice Kavanaugh (I am not), I could read a variety of credible sources and find your narrative deeply misleading.
I will continue to support this paper - its too important - but I really hope you'll take a hard look at the balance.
3
Not Trump, but the internet is actually the greatest threat not only to a republic of informed citizens, but to journalism itself. However, the story doesn't begin there. 500-channel TV was sold (and I mean sold!) to the American public as a way to provide more diversity through greater access. Instead, it had the exact opposite effect, as quickly people found a channel that simply reinforced 24/7 what they already believed. In order to be "entertained" they no longer ever had to watch something that might portray reality as something other than what they thought. The internet is merely 500-channel TV on steroids and speed. And, like steroids and speed, it too is an addicting drug.
Before 500-channel TV and the internet, we essentially had three middle-of-the-road national networks, whose news departments were oriented toward the public good, not profit. Usually there was also one or two local papers. People actually discussed and argued more back then, because most people experienced from these sources the same narrative about which to argue, facts largely agreed on, interpretation and preferences to be contested. Today with echo-chamber "news" sources, we do not share a common narrative or even a common notion of "facts."
As to Google and Facebook unleashing a historic flood of misinformation: their business model is predicated on "more of anything and everything." They make as much money from a lie as from the truth, with no economic incentive to correct anything false.
3
Each species comprises certain characteristics that make up our essences. One of humankind's essential characteristics is that we employ an articulate language. This distinguishes us from all other species. Another is that humans seek truth. Truth is a linguistic phenomenon; truth is propositional. Without propositions, without language, there could be no modus ponens, the foundational axiom of propositional, or symbolic, logic. Seeking truth is linguistic and in our DNA. Donald Trump has a tangential relationship with truth, at best. He has no regard for its ability to reveal reality. Donald Trump has shown himself to have a basic human genetic deficiency, a disease perhaps. Living in a truly alternate and solipsistic universe, he is a great danger to us all.
News organizations, like the New York Times, would serve itself better, if they did not put editorials on the front page, or coordinate with papers across the nation to blast the President, no matter how odious his actions.
When they do such things, they shed the fig leaf of independence and non-partisanship.
11
Consider some of the Times’ own transgressions against a free press.
Foremost are the Times’ frequent objections to the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, which upheld the right of an advocacy corporation to broadcast a video critical of Hillary Clinton at election time. It is difficult to understand your objections to the decision; the Times is itself a corporation, and considers it part of its mission to print editorials which attempt to influence the outcome of American elections.
In April, the Times published an investigative report on Rupert Murdoch’s empire, prominently accusing his media of “destabilizing democracy” across the world. Mr. Murdoch is in the same business as you are, except that he favors the right, much as you support the left. Perhaps the Times should tone down its own rhetoric when it comments about the press.
One of the greatest threats to a free press is its loss of credibility in the eyes of many, and the Times is a big part of the problem. It is no longer possible to separate news from opinion in your pages. It is understandable that the Times doesn’t like our President, but this is no excuse for your lack of objectivity in news coverage, including your decisions about what to cover, the ways you color your articles in the interest of providing “context,” and the facts you choose to omit.
You can protect help a free press by getting your own house in order. A good place to start would be to reopen the office of Public Editor.
10
A saying from the old country.
“Never pick a fight with someone
who orders ink by the barrel.”
Thank you to Mr. Sulzberger for a wonderful essay, and particularly for remembering that the word "media" is a plural noun. "The media are..." he wrote. This is a grammatical element that has been forgotten by so many people. I'm glad Mr. Sulzberger is not one of them.
Excellent.
This should not be behind a subscription paywall.
This is why I subscribe to the Times, WaPo, and our local paper. And when I started a gofundme to send Katy Tur out for a nice dinner after her torture by the trump campaign, she turned it around and made it a fundraiser for the Rory Peck Foundation, supporting freelance journalists around the world. Together, we raised over $2500 to support journalists and photojournalists working in some of the worst conditions in the worst countries, to get the news out. https://rorypecktrust.org/. In order to be outraged, we have to know enough to be outraged at.
2
Perfectly said.
1
Yeah, tell it to Gary Webb.
Trump is terrible and opposed to press freedom. But this editorial would go down a little easier coming from some other source. Less patting yourself on the back would help. And stop pretending there was some golden age before Trump. There wasn't.
4
Sympathize with you, Arthur S. But only if only NYT has been more objective in its coverage of democratic primaries in 2016 rather than hoisting Hillary as the anointed queen, we the readers would have a little more respect for you. Instead you disappointed millions of young readers millennials and Bernie followers by either refusing to cover him or if at all writing about him, doing so negatively, portraying him as an annoying distraction. By doing so you shut off voices that are essentially to a healthy democracy. I hope you realize this eventually.
9
If this opinion piece in defense of the First Amendment and journalists' essential work around the globe doesn't set off a Trump Tweet Storm, it will prove that A.G. Sulzberger outfoxed the president.
1
A free press is indeed necessary for democracy to thrive and even survive. And, today, a free press faces serious threats. The problem is the New York Times and its Editorial Board have become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The biggest issue is probably the Times' inexplicable and incessant objection to the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, which confirmed an advocacy corporation's Constitutional right to broadcast a video critical of Hillary Clinton at the time of an election. This is the absolute essence of freedom of the press, and SCOTUS clearly made the correct decision. Yet the Times, itself a corporation, strongly objects.
The second major issue is the loss of credibility of our "independent" press, which has seriously eroded public support. Instead of objective reporting of news, and perhaps a clearly separate and distinct opinion section, the Times has thoroughly intermingled opinion and news, to the point where your news coverage, especially the important political sections, is strongly biased. This has completely undermined the trust of non-liberal readers. You have decided that pandering to your left-of-center base is more important to revenue than unbiased reporting of the news. Over the long haul, this is a substantial mistake.
Finally, one last suggestion: restore the office of Public Editor.
6
I would agree with the premise of this piece---a "free" press is guaranteed by the Constitution and a key element of democracy. But the Constitution doesn't gurantee a "fair" press--and that's the flaw here. People aren't not as stupid as the national media thinks we are. Readers can see when news stories and headlines are slanted in a partisan manner. More and more "news" stories should be labeled "opinion" pieces. And frankly when the NY Times runs stories like this:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/style/women-poop-at-work.html?searchResultPosition=1 you have to wonder.
1
Thank you, Mr. Sulzberger, for your whistleblowing op-ed, and for the reasoned and reasonable voice you use to call out the President and much of the world, including us, your readers. I cannot fully express the gratitude I hold for the New York Times and for your thoughts here, so calm and yet so urgent. I hope that many will read and heed this warning.
I also hope the Times will deepen its commitment to covering the grassroots movements that abound in this time of crisis, and by informing the public about the many thousands of ways that ordinary, dedicated citizens are resisting the dangerous global turn toward authoritarianism, amplify their voices and propagate hope. All is not yet lost, but we are in a time of significant crisis indeed. We need you, your newspaper, and the will of the people now more than ever.
5
I read this as a former journalist and full supporter of a free press and think, only Trump and his worldwide cohort of dictators (supported by their dark arts spies and moneymen) really understand propaganda and the uses of 21st-century media.
Meanwhile, progressives and journalists believe that people act out of information and reason.
91
@Sara
The author writes about censuring the press: "But what’s different today is that these brutal crackdowns are being passively accepted and perhaps even tacitly encouraged by the president of the United States."
Perhaps this is grounds for another article of impeachment.
7
The day after the 2016 election, I bought an online subscription to the Times.
And the tech companies need to be held accountable for what they allow to be published. The Times moderates comments. I have seen some of mine held up until they pass muster. Yet there are few restraints on everything from sarcasm and satire (which should be ok) to outright lies and the most despicable hate speech, even incitement.
Finally, while the press has an absolute right to investigate and publish the truth, too often in the rush to be first to get the story of out, editing is slipshod. The story last week about Justice Kavanaugh lacked an important detail. Many people look at the way the national media covers the horror of the week, complete with news crews camped outside someone’s home in the worst hours of their life, and see a braying mob. Please do your jobs as well as we are expecting. You are much too important to do less.
67
@Lawyermom. Agree 100%. Starts to make one question what is printed. Times needs to slow down and get facts straight and not rush to wrong judgment. It harms being correctly informed and the truth. Some articles are just not balanced.
4
@Lawyermom-take out a wrong detail here and there if it makes you happy. As the article said, the media is far from perfect. Seems to me, however, that this disaster of an administration is something you really don't want to contemplate, and that the media's imperfections are flimsy straws you are reaching for, as a child might when caught making excuses.
4
@Mark
I am not making excuses for Trump, whom I pray will be out of office very soon. But “the paper of record” in particular, and the media generally, have a responsibility to publish all relevant facts known at the time of publication. As I stated in my comment, they are too important to do any less.
Too bad Mr. Sulzberger's brave comments didn't extend to the newspaper industry's (including the Times) ongoing campaign to eliminate full-time editorial cartooning positions with the flimsy excuse of budget issues or other bogus reasons.
When I joined the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists back in 1979 there were several hundred full-time newspaper cartoonists working in the US and Canada. Now, there are fewer than 3 dozen in the US and the number north of the border is shrinking as well.
So much for our courageous American newspaper publishers, defenders of the free press. Money talks.
74
@Paul Fell Special pleading, Paul. The essential point of Sulzberger's speech is not reduced by your position. I can certainly understand that you and editorial cartoonist colleagues (and we who follow and enjoy them) are unhappy with the belt-tightening that's affecting ALL reportorial positions and nearly ALL internal operations of print newspapers. But that regrettable fact doesn't mean that open, unhindered, truth-telling journalism shouldn't be supported--and I do, despite the negatives of technologic change and financial straits.
18
@Paul Fell
There is at least one newspaper I subscribe to that has editorial cartoons daily and often that is the page I turn to first. That paper is the Concord NH Monitor. Often more pages on high school sports than anything else, but since we are the state capitol politics does get a fair amount of coverage, especially local.
6
@Susan in NHW
WAPO has two great political cartoonists: Ms. Telnaes and Mr. Toles.
3
Forget the world!
Right here in the US, the Free Press is burning down!
1
All true but there are many more threats to journalism that need to be elaborated. An unedited internet in which everyone is his or her own creator of "truth" has led to many parallel universes. Cost-cutting has gutted newsrooms of good investigative reporting and killed most local papers. A lousy education system produces an audience more interested in sensationalism and WrestleMania than facts. And so it goes on.
76
"Our mission at The New York Times is to seek the truth and help people understand the world."
No matter what else happens, whether it comes together or whether it falls apart, and no matter where else the rest of this article goes, in the past year The New York times has helped me to seek the truth and understand the world. Thanks
The denigration of the distribution of news begins with the decline of local news sources. The chilling effect that Mr. Trump’s self-serving rhetoric has had on a global scale is horrific, but in combination with an uninformed citizenry at the local level it has also been devastating where public policy is concerned. In our small village in Michigan, our village council decided to raise water rates without making a public announcement. They buried it as a budget line item and citizens only became aware of it when I called the water department inquiring about an increase. I assumed that we had a leaky valve and searched all over the house, only to realize that my son had done exactly the same thing at his residence.
If we still had a local newspaper, this would have been front-page news. Instead, a lack of transparency at the most basic level of government is allowed to perpetuate and flourish due to the non-existence of a local newspaper.
I understand that local government needs revenue to function effectively. That is not the issue here. The issue is that journalism on a local level also needs to be supported and facilitated if we are to thrive as democratic society.
96
@Delaney Are you trying to blame the current American President for a media economic trend that began in the 1990's?
Do you get out of the house every day?
That fresh air works wonders....
@Delaney
Oddly enough, publication of the change in water rates is probably legally required. They probably can't just change them without legal notification, public comment, etc.
TGNYT!!!!
Thank you and all those who try to bring us the truth every day every year every truth!
Why we subscribe.
I am an American -- a former Peace Corps Response Volunteer -- living on the remote island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia in the western Pacific Ocean. I stayed on after my service ended and am now the only freelance writer reporting on news from here.
I have been on the receiving end of shouts of "fake news" by senators, the Speaker of the Yap State Legislature, the chiefs, and their supporters for turning the light on their activities, some of which are illegal. Some involve attempts by China to take over this island and others throughout the region with money bribes and build massive resorts and casinos that will obliterate the island and the culture.
They have even attempted to kick me out of the country; tossed me out of public meetings in the legislature's chamber; and slashed the tires on a friend's car that I was driving. I do not go out at night alone and when I walk along roads, I am alert to the cars passing by in fear of being sideswiped.
Still, I have many supporters and friends on this tiny speck of an island who, due to the repressive culture, are not able to speak out. They stop me in the post office, on the street, in the grocery and thank me for what I am doing and they often pass along information.
125
@Joyce
You certainly have MY support and perhaps Mr. Sulzberger will read this and give you a retainer for your stories.
Your adversary is the Television industry that enslaves Americans and elected Trump. They are your competition. They are propaganda and social psychological manipulation. The truth of many major murders is coming to light.
1
I find it interesting that he leaves out the numerous reporters in Mexico killed the cartels. They were killed because they exposed the corruption and evil.
More reporters are killed in Mexico than any other country in the world. Yet, with the exception of the American reporters at the border from Breitbart News, it doesn’t get mentioned in the NYTs.
Why is that?
4
This is the most important piece of the New York Times, as it concerns not just its own future, but the future of us all.
1
Although mr. Sulzburgers main point that the free press is under
attack from Trump and his lackies, it is also true that the times isnt totally without fault in creating this sad state of the 4th estate. The media for the most part is in a state of denial that we have a corporate puppet government run by dark money (see WEILs NYT op-ed that big campaign contributions do corrupt our govt.) Although its clear that reporting is and was a dangerous business, the opinion pieces garnered from his on the ground troops have been just awful as with Palestinian opression. conflict.
1
I subscribe and salute the work of the NYT. It's the first news source I read, and their reporters give credibility and depth when they join CNN or MSNBC on a daily basis.
And after hearing the clarion call yesterday by Greta Thunberg, it's clear how our global "leaders" have failed or misled their countries.
If it were not for the constant drumbeat of questions, concerns and reporting by the news media, we would be swallowed up by the lies, arrogance and greed of people who claim to be leaders of the free world.
And one of the scariest scenes is watching a Trump rally where the audience--similar to "the games" in a Roman colosseum--pick up on disgusting themes to verbally persecute journalists perceived to be their "leaders" enemy.
Stay the course NYT. You're a pillar of importance and information in the hurricane of lies we face today.
1
Twenty years ago, a Dutch journalist Sander Thoenes was murdered in East Timor. Still, the Netherlands, the former colonial overlord of Indonesia appears to have done little to bring justice to his family. What a tragedy.
1
As a former newspaper reporter in the United States, I have deep concerns about the state of journalism today. As I scrolled through the piece, I saw the photo of Linsey Addario, who was beaten and jailed in Libya in 2011. I met her 2 weeks ago in Perpignan, France, at the annual International Festival of Photojournalism. Her special project during the past 10 years has been documenting infant mortality around the globe. I stand in awe of women like her willing to go where there are stories the world needs to hear.
129
The internet is actually the greatest threat not only to a republican democracy of informed citizens, but to journalism itself. However, the story doesn't begin there. 500-channel TV was sold (and I mean sold!) to the American public as a way to provide more diversity through greater access. Instead, it had the exact opposite effect, as quickly people found a channel that simply reinforced 24/7 what they already believed. In order to be "entertained" they no longer ever had to watch something that might portray reality as something other than what they thought. The internet is merely 500-channel TV on steroids and speed. And, like steroids and speed, it too is an addicting drug.
Before 500-channel TV and the internet, we essentially had three middle-of-the-road national networks, whose news departments were oriented toward the public good, not profit. Usually there was also one or two local papers. People actually discussed and argued more back then, because most people experienced from these sources the same narrative about which to argue, facts largely agreed on, interpretation and preferences to be contested. Today with echo-chamber "news" sources, we do not share a common narrative or even a common notion of "facts."
As to Google and Facebook unleashing a historic flood of misinformation: their business model is predicated on "more of anything and everything." They make as much money from a lie as from the truth, with no economic incentive to correct anything false.
100
The Times itself needs to look in the mirror and not repeat the mistake of CNN. The latter lost its credibility, when in a futile attempt to outfox Fox, it went from programming that was defined by news to shows defined by personalities. In the past year or two, this paper has headed in that direction, as it more and more features opinion with prominence traditionally reserved for news.
Mad Magazine is also a case in point the Times could learn from, as that tremendously insightful and influential magazine, when ownership was transferred from Gaines to a corporation, started to mix advertising with content, losing its credibility in the process.The Times, by having headlines not supported by their articles, by giving prominence to a narrow selection of opinion, by placing opinion pieces where news ordinarily was located, and by the selection and duration of articles on the Home Page effectively comes of as having an agenda not limited to its editorial "page", thus mixing legitimate editorial content with news, the result simultaneously diluting its credibility while attracting more and more people who prefer an echo-chamber niche.
4
A terrible trend, but in the US the tendency of the media to express opinion instead of presenting the facts has added to the disgust that many have over journalists. This doesn't excuse the poor treatment of journalists, but poor treatment of journalists does not justify the abandonment of traditional journalistic standards. Both the left and right media now believe their stories must support their underlying philosophy; this leads to propaganda masquerading as news. Walter Cronkite is turning over in his grave.
58
Not only in US, the entire world sees in accordance with their philosophies...
Almost impossible not to see things subjectively.
I try to digest opinions for 24 hrs and even then I need to effort to undo my
life experiences to try and see what is really meant.
As Buddha said he was concerned with the “treacherous sea of words”
3
@Dr B Accusing the media collectively of expressing opinion instead of facts doesn't tell the story. Yes, there are many more opinion pieces, labeled as such, but I see far too many comments that don't recognize the differences among news articles, analyses and opinion/editorials.
The Times and others try to make those differences clear by labeling or otherwise setting apart the different types of writing, yet many readers ignore that guidance.
4
@Dr B
"Both the left and right media now believe their stories must support their underlying philosophy; this leads to propaganda masquerading as news.”
OK, you like concept of the “fake news.” Why don’t you just use it instead of all this words?
I taught a high school journalism class for years, in a supposedly "progressive" school in California. Even there we had constant attempts by the school administration to repress stories that were entirely fact-based, well-researched and objective, if the admin felt the story challenged their version of reality in any way. This included blunt confrontations in my job review meetings, despite the clear laws that govern journalism and free speech rights even for teens working in high schools. By the way, this is a common problem nationwide with journalism classes, not only in high schools, but also in colleges and universities.
Much of the current erosion of free speech in the US has come, in my opinion, from grass-roots erosion of free speech in workplaces and schools over the past couple of decades. If we want the US to be a world leader when it comes to free expression and respect for truth, then we need to respond more courageously and more often to those daily attacks on truth and the free flow of information that the vast majority of us are witnessing in our own backyards. The answer to this starts there, not from the top down.
I respectfully suggest to Mr. Sulzberger that the long-term, deepest effect the NYT can have on this issue, locally and globally, is to provide resources--ideally in partnership with other media organizations across the political spectrum--that provide schools with clear models and rationales for the practice of good journalism in our society.
76
@V.B. Zarr
I worked on the yearbook staff of our tiny high school in rural Southern Illinois. One year, we had a number of students become pregnant. In selecting photos from various dances and other activities, those students inevitably appeared. Our graduating class was barely over 100. Upon seeing our photo selection, our yearbook advisor, a fundamentalist Christian, declared that we couldn't use any photo with a pregnant student who was showing because of "their sin." We called her out for censorship. Our dispute reached the principal's office, and when he sided with the advisor, we all quit in protest.
We were in the right but after we quit, the adviser finished the yearbook by herself. No pregnant students appeared in any photo. Censorship won that round.
2
@JB
Yes, the school yearbook is certainly another area where this happens a lot in high schools. And so goes the airbrushing of history and the dumping of facts down the memory hole--and/or the setting up of official stories that contravene what everyone well remembers, but cannot publish.
This is precisely the meta-education in "fake news" that goes on at the grass roots level of society and from which sprout the more high profile (but of course lamentable) examples and issues that Mr. Sulzberger mentions here. If we don't challenge this at the level you're mentioning, then we can't be surprised when students "graduate" with the obvious message that repressing significant facts, or even anything that indirectly reminds people of them, is the way the world is to be run.
I used to gag at hearing school admin types bemoan the G W Bush White House for misleading the public in various ways that they were mimicking in their own small, but influential, grass roots ways. Hypocrisy is no small part of the whole equation we're talking about here--and we don't need to go to China or Saudi Arabia to find daily intimidation of truth tellers and repression of facts.
1
@JB
This is what schoolboards and courts are for.
Seriously. If it's a public school, it was an illegal application of her personal religious beliefs.
I am currently in the midst of a biography on Marie Colvin, the illustrious war reporter who was targeted and killed in Syria by Assad. She was exceptional, brave, and selflessly committed, but she was not one of a kind: We have many other journalists who take extraordinary risks to cover stories, or investigate corruption, or uncover the truth. Democracies are absolutely dependent upon a free press, and the journalists who serve it, in order to remain as such. Without journalists, we have no democratic republic, we have no informed citizenry, we have no checks on those who lead. I urge all of those with the means to contribute to the development of new journalists, young people who want to write for a living even it it means limited incomes and unstable employment. Contribute to journalism schools, to funds established to off-set tuition costs, to early career journalism fellowships. Like Marie Colvin, these are people who will change the world.
81
@Tintin
Do not idealize journalism. It is a tool like anything else. In the hands of the wrong people it could be the worse enemy of decency and a democratic state. Goebbels was a journalist, one of the most effective in the history of mankind. Mussolini was a journalist. Funny enough, Tintin, your alias, was a journalist too.
2
Mr. Sulzberger, I headed into this article with the notion to berate the Times for some recent mistakes. Instead, I finished the article with an abundance of thanks for its sixty-plus-year presence in my life.
I have a side hustle as a photojournalist for AP; mostly sports, where my worst injury resulted from Steph Curry falling on top of me. (We all should be so lucky.) But I do occasionally cover breaking news, and I have been threatened. And I have colleagues who have repeatedly been in real danger. They persevere, despite the layoffs and poor pay and declining social respect.
I have the utmost respect for all of you in this profession. I try to convey that from time to time via a short, complementary email to journalists who have done especially important work. I always receive a heartfelt thank-you.
122
I strongly disagree with a lot of what the New York Times prints, and I will defend to the end their right to print it.
2
This article alone should serve as the basis for impeachment.
I cannot forget how I was rivited by an investigative piece in a local Washington state publication. The piece laid out how an aluminum smeltering plant in Canada had, for years, been dumping tons of mercury-rich slag into the headwaters of the river. The Columbia was the life blood of my community, the main source of our drinking water, a place where people swam and fished. Until I read that article, I had no idea we were being exposed to mercury.
Democracy cannot survive ignorance. We need a free press, one we can trust to tell us the truth, one that shines a light onto things that need attention.
148
"One recent poll found that 82 percent of Republicans now trust President Trump more than they trust the media. "
And this is why we are decades away from returning to anything approaching a "normal" democracy:
-- where you could believe your President, regardless of Party, believed in democracy.
-- where you could believe that the vast majority of your fellow Americans believed in democracy.
The current attacks on the press are symptoms of a larger attack: the purposeful undermining of our democracy by a corrupt and unstable President who uses and is used by a Republican Party who no longer believe they can hold power in a fair and inclusive democracy. And they have the support of millions.
There are uninformed and credulous voters but I do not believe that 82% of any group of adults believe what Trump actually says. They just trust in his underlying tribal message: dispense with democracy and I will insure you will keep power.
"The United States has done more than any other country to popularize the idea of free expression and to champion the rights of the free press. The time has come for us to fight for those ideals again."
Yes. We MUST fight. Just don't make the mistake in believe that the majority of Republicans want a free press (or an inclusive democracy) to win that fight. Or that the fight will be over when Trump is gone.
175
You in the media need to change your tactics to fight people like Trump. Stop falling into the trap of false equivalence. Stop being scribes and tell it when you see injustices being perpetrated AS injustices. Another side is NOT needed in these cases, they do not need to be given a platform to lie, spin and obfuscate. This climate of harassment and the ultimate danger that the free press will be shut down will only worsen under Trump. If you use your current guidelines for reporting he will destroy you and then all of us. Bringing down Trump will not ensure the end of the “fake news” issue but it would be a start. You know he’s corrupt and dangerous and a liar. Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt and be relentless.
1
Beautifully written piece. The truth laid bare. Let's hope this warning captivates people to do more. This most certainly is a time of deep worry and anxiety particularly because so many "leaders" have lost their moral compass.
Only thing is … education system needs to be addressed. Why so expensive? Why so much debt? Why is going to an Ivy League attached to a "guaranteed" job path? Is the system rigged? How come people don't vaccinate? Don't believe in climate change?
Necessary to work on educating all people to recognize fact from fiction.
Thank you for a brilliant essay the dangers we now face. I knew from the first moment Trump said "fake news" and derided our own intelligence community that he was shifting away from honest investigation of the truth (something I don't think he'd recognize in any form!) and into a totalitarian stance. What he says (even when he--often--contradicts himself; even when he lies, which is quite often) is the truth, no matter the facts. This is a dangerous position for a supposed leader of the free world to take, and we are all in danger of having less and less--and perhaps no--actual facts on which to base our opinions and actions. More so the US government, which is operating under his aegis--also without facts and essentially as a "Yes-man" team of sycophants. It is shameful that Republicans support him blindly--and blindness never shines a light on the truth. Thank you a million times to the NYTimes for continuing its mission, sending journalists into dangerous places, and speaking up against this assault on our democracy.
2
I so appreciate the NYT’s and am truly worried about our access to the unblemished truth.
One of the benefits of a free press is to allow us to make decisions not based on what some politician, or corporate CEO wants us to hear, but on facts. We can also see readers “comments” and they are a terrific education for each of us.
Please Mr. Sulzberger, please keep going. Someday, the USA and other nations suffering from narrow, self interested leadership, will stand up and say “go away” to these so called leaders. Without you, that may not ever happen! I am a grateful reader!
Your organization has done many valuable things, and there's every reason to expect that they'll continue their good record. Please do one more important thing to make the world a better place: follow European standards of privacy with your American readers. It won't bankrupt The Times, and it will eliminate a troubling contradiction between the newspaper's reporting on privacy issues and the newspaper's practices as a business.
Thank you Mr. Sulzbeger and the Times for all you do.
The fight against Trump and his minions is becoming a very basic one: survival of the Republic as we know it.
I could go on, but I've got to make a contribution to Reporters Without Borders.
God help us all.
WikiLeaks, unlike the NYT or the WaPo is and always will be first and foremost an enemy of corrupt power. The liberals who used to love Assange when he was dropping leaks about the Bush administration now hate him, and the conservatives who used to attack him as an enemy now celebrate him as a hero. This dynamic will necessarily switch again when more leaks drop and conservatives see clearly that Assange’s principles are not for sale. Right now they still don’t get it, and the delusion that Assange is a Trump supporter is even more pervasive than the equally absurd claim that he is a tool of Russia, who WikiLeaks has also published documents against. Long before the Spy Files dropped last year covering Russian surveillance practices, independent journalist Suzie Dawson documented the thousands upon thousands of other critical Russia documents that WikiLeaks has published over the years and its other obvious signs of lack of sympathy for Moscow. The only thing linking WikiLeaks to Russia is the authoritative say-so of the notorious liars in the US intelligence community and their plot hole-riddled narratives. There is in fact no reason to believe that Assange is a Trump or Putin asset, and there are many reasons not to, but the partisan dynamics of America’s neurotic political feuds will continue to keep people blinkered for as long as the cognitive dissonance is more uncomfortable than keeping their heads in the sand.
1
America wrote in the founding document, PROTECT FREE SPEECH. Protect a FREE Press. So what person if you can pick one, who caused all this to happen?
I see “the tech giants,” as you call them, as key. Their de facto redefinition of “news” as “all information” that they can obtain without the restraints, values, and institutional structures of journalism has been an assault on the country. Reining in tech media is essential to the very meaning of truth—fact and its corroboration. Its destructive side must be brought into the light, including its insidious “addictiveness.”
In the meantime, we should be saying to our journalists what we say to military personnel and first responders: Thank you for your service.
39
@rjon
It is a special type of journalist who goes into harms way to ensure that stories are told to the public. I think often about the dangerous environment is for our journalist, lack of appreciation they receive for informing us of stories that play a role in our lives. To be a journalist is to be about the truth and the unique ability to write it in such a manner that people understand.
We the people realize how important the truth is , I believe that a shift is taking place right now. We dont see it yet, but the children are major proactive drivers of change. They have an understanding that change from the ground up needs to begin, no misplaced faith that adults will do anything There is a demand to understand civics, bill of rights, constitution the law. People are getting involved in life, more, people are leaving Facebook , employees of Amazon are standing up for change.
Granted its slow , journalist need to be supported everyday . We the public have to grow up and be able to distinguish the difference being lazy and do our own thinking.
Facebook,google thrive on us being stupid, we need to read and think. By allowing tech companies into our homes, they are selling our privacy , slowly murdering us all in the process.
Many of us have found our voice support the great work of journalist, and doing everything we can do to turn people away from cable TV and begin to read and think again . We cant let journalist die in vain
3
@rjon
You do realize that MOST military members find that particular phrase to be profoundly empty and lacking in sincerity. It's perfunctory. Given how this country treats its veterans, no, y'all most certainly DO NOT thank vets for their service. It's facile and too easy.
Also given that half of journalism jobs have disappeared, and most journalists who are still working are vastly underpaid and feeling very precarious...
NOPE. JUST NO.
1
Thank you, NY Times!!! This newspaper has come to represent, along with the BBC and possibly El Jazira, the face of REAL journalism in the modern world. In-depth, accurate reporting is rare in this increasingly jaded world of "Alternate Facts", wild accusations of "Fake News" every time a politician (well, one at least...) feels threatened by the REAL facts, and the baleful rise of "Infotainment" as a major growth industry. We live in a society where Weapons of Mass Distraction are used increasingly effectively by .. well, seemingly everyone who has a vested interest in fooling enough of the people enough of the time so as to keep what they acquired through illegal, immoral or unethical means, and to gather as much more as possible before their particular bubble finally bursts. The Times does its very best, IMHO, to keep us informed and to stir an apathetic citizenry to action whenever it can. I find the accusations of "liberal bias" to be untrue: editorial standards remain high here, despite what must be an incredible temptation to go with the flow, stop caring and join the crowd. Foxy News will NEVER have a stranglehold on anything media-related so long as true journalism is alive and well. Again, Thank You.
1
Any damage the press may suffer is self-inflicted. When the press decides to take political sides, as most do today, the press loses credibility. The biased right and left wing press validate that proposition everyday. It is a rare and precious media outlet that delivers a balanced and fair approach. I did not ask to have bias in the news and I don't like it. It is the only existential threat to the media and it is media driven.
8
@dudley thompson
Agreed!
I found it a case of taking political sides when the NYT changed its headline regarding a speech by Trump - it revised “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism” to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.” No reason for doing so other than appeasing a certain political faction.
Also, Mr. Sulzberger states: "So when The Times reveals his [Trump's] family’s fraudulent financial practices, when The Wall Street Journal reveals hush money paid to a porn star, when The Washington Post reveals his personal foundation’s self-dealing, he can sidestep accountability by simply dismissing the reports as 'fake news'.” Will the NYT also investigate and reveal any "fraudulent financial practices" and "self-dealing" by Joe and Hunter Biden? Consistency in reporting across the political spectrum will do wonders for maintaining respect for our free press.
3
To quote one great intellect, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
One can parse it a thousand different ways of course, but this to me is one of Journalism's biggest blind spots. I would argue it's almost habitual. There are Narratives out there, and it seems often the facts of the day are bent, twisted and distorted to fit one or more of the prevailing Narratives. This then becomes a kind of shorthand, or in calculus a derivative (reduction of dimension), in which it comes to seem like we're talking about something but really we end up only talking about the Narrative(s).
Another way to parse it is to say we are where we are because for several generations now we left it to Journalism to spoonfeed us democracy, with predictable neo-liberal results.
That said, your speech is inspring and I will be thinking about it for a while. It's too big a topic to say much in 1500 characters or less, I might be moved to respond if I can think of something worthy to say. For now I'll ask what I keep asking more and more lately, in the hope that someone will tell us all the answer:
How can I help?
The enemy of a free press is basically everyone left within the Republican Party. They are afraid of Warren for good reason, for she has a plan to go trust busting. Rupert Murdoch's empire is high on the list.
2
It continues to confound me that we have mainstream Republican politicians like Lindsey Graham insist that their Democratic counterparts are Communist dictators in disguise while their own Republican President is acting much more closely to Stalin, Maduro, Castro, or any other Communist tyrant willing to suppress the media. I was very glad to see this editorial point out that similarity.
The Trump administration continues to declare the White House to be the only reliable source of news. His loyalists remain silent. It appears that they fear the expansion of medicare is too far of a step towards communism but a complete and total reliance on the word of the president for news somehow bears no similarity to Communist authoritarian rule.
No matter what political ideology they use as the means to attain power, authoritarians generally play the same game. Eliminating trust in the media is crucial for them.
1
Of course, I affirm what Mr. Sulzberger asserts. I'm going to help with a voter registration drive this afternoon and hope that it will also do something to have the voice of the majority in this country be heard.
It’s an oxymoron to have an independent free press corporation.
If it is independent, then it doesn’t care about the customers so it cannot be profitable.
If it serves the customers and has to be profitable, then it cannot tell the truth to the readers, listeners, and viewers for being fearful of insulting and alienating them.
This combination is especially impossible for the free press outlets depending heavily on the advertisement income and having to please their advertisers, thus trying not to irritate their customers either.
Wouldn’t the truly independent free press outlet inform the readers, listeners and viewers that the advertisers are chronically lying to them by hyping own products?
1
It's horrible. And yet there's no denying that Trump is your best salesman. Readership is up. Subscriptions are up. Is it too cynical to imagine that the Times continues to treat Trump gently, continues to give him the benefit of the doubt, and continues to print his lies for fear of losing those profits?
14
If we recover our democracy, in 2020, our country will also be able to defend freedom of the press, around the world, with a democrat who does not call journalists "enemies of the people," but appreciates that they make democracy possible. If you elect more Republicrook, expect this country to move fully into 1984. Maybe that's what Americans want.
11
@ChesBay
At least that's what Trump's base is telling the rest of us. By their hootin and hollerin True Believer approval, they are claiming that allowing Trump to run America as a dictatorship is how "We Will Make America Great Again". Doublespeak right out of Orwell's "1984" novel.
@ChesBay--I should say WHEN we recover our democracy, going on the premise that 70% of Americans actually prefer democracy, and traditional institutions that make this the United States of America.
Every presidential election, the NYT endorses a candidate. The last time NYT endorsed a Republican candidate for president was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956....60 years ago. I believe this says something. I would appreciate other opinions regarding this phenomenon and what it implies.
12
@John
It implies that the editorial board, owners, publishers, whoever does the endorsement should not impose those views on the daily work of the organization's journalists. Fair question to ask whether they do or not, in any news organization--but there is a tradition of creating that management/reporter barrier and, at least sometimes, it works fairly well. Personally I'd prefer if media organizations didn't do these endorsements, but there seems to be a First Amendment issue about any attempt to block such freedom of speech. So, as with much in democracy, we don't get the clean binary scenario, but a gray area that requires "eternal vigilance."
Why don't you ask the NYT what criteria they use for endorsement? Then have them post a chart showing how each candidate measures up to that criteria including the candidate 's voting record against that criteria.
Granted that the criteria may be subjective, it may still indicate whether the candidate stands for what is needed by the people as opposed to what the candidate desires personally.
@John The tacit of ignoring the fact given in an argument, then changing the discussion to something not related is a good one, and often successful. Well done.
The examples given are facts. The idea that we should fight to save free expression is an opinion.
If you would "appreciate other opinions," there are plenty out there, including Trumps twitter feed, sharing the idea that Freedom of the Press should be killed off (literally and figuratively). I'm sure they endorse Republicans as well.
I wonder how many Brits like me are turning to the American Press because they simply dont trust the British media?
7
I would like to know more about the ownership of The NY Times Corporation. What does Carlos Slim get out of being a significant investor (17 percent is the figure given)? Surely he can find a better return on equity than what the Times provides its shareholders. And he is a savvy investor and not in too distant past the richest man in the world.
Why was J Ito if Media Lab (in)fame on the Board of the Times? Who appointed him? Did they check his connections and his donors?
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. He wrote a personal check for it. It should be clear what he wants out of it.
The Rothschild family and the Agnelli family own a large chunk of The Economist Newspaper (they call it that there). What do they get out of it? Intellectual satisfaction only? Superlative return on equity?
Of course it is a free country and people can invest in whatever is legal to invest in.
But let’s just be menschen about what we are about as fully as we can.
There is a lot of celebratory stuff in this comment section. Good for the Times and Mr Sulzberger. There is a lot to be proud of and a lot in the shade that I am not sure is fair to keep there.
14
@Blunt Don't you find it ironic most demands for transparency on the comment section are usually from people who omit using their full name? Is it only me?
No I don’t find that ironic.
There is absolutely no need to know your name to understand your comment.
I am a highly educated and wealthy individual who have multiple degrees including a doctorate in applied mathematics and mathematical economics from Harvard. I ran a hugely successful business at the premier investment bank that gave this nation several Treasury secretaries and a couple of New Jersey governors. My family members are all educated at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. I paid millions in taxes over the years, always happily and proudly (no I am not a masochist). I support Bernie and Liz Warren.
Now, Jose Franco, did it matter to me if you were Apostol Vasilliadis or Karabash Hundkopf in real life? Not an iota.
2
I used to run a newspaper. On our masthead we ran a Thomas Jefferson quote for many years..."I'd rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers." We are dangerously close to the second thought...
37
@WdennisT
Thank you sir!
1
@WdennisT
It is the left's desire to eliminate all non-left publications that makes the second thought so dangerously close.
Thank you for writing this. While I disagree with the Times' reporting as often as I agree, it is vital that the US get back into the business of being a bulwark against such abuse rather than the prime purveyor. The part that makes me so sad is knowing those who read this all the way through will be those who understand this already. I hope we can someday get back to our noble experiment, but things are not looking good.
12
Freedom of the press is like any other privilege, there are rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately much is discussed about the former, but little about the latter.
In recent years we have been seeing a tsunami of opinion, masquerading under the guise of news. This was probably rare or non-existent when the clause was added to the US constitution but these days it's getting to be the rule, rather than the exception. So if the media want the rights of a free press, they need to abide by one of their own slogans, 'All the news that's fit to print' and publish only that as news, with everything clearly labeled as opinion. When that starts to happen, perhaps the reading and viewing public will start trusting their 'news sources' again. It will also help differentiate news from blogs and other social media, which is not held to such high standards.
We're living in a world that's getting accustomed to instant availability of information, and we need to see standards of excellence before we can trust any particular source of that information. It's the responsibility of a free press that wishes to remain relevant to maintain those standards if they wish to regain that trust.
9
@Vivian
I agree with the majority of your post; however, opinions in the news are most often announced as just that, an opinion. One can choose to read another opinion as a way to consider another perspective and perhaps enlighten themselves, or they can decide not to read the opinion section.
I do not agree with your comment, that opinions are masquerading as news. Being able to see the world from someone else's shoes is what provides us the opportunity for empathy. Having empathy is essential in understanding one's own emotional intelligence and is a link between self and others.
While opinion may not be "traditional" news, it is undoubtedly a valued component of reporting in today's world.
1
@Vivian American newspapers going back to the 18th cent were always tremendously partisan. This has mostly improved over the last century. The critiques I'm reading her are mostly unsubstaniated claims that don't take most of Sultzberger's main points seriously.
@Vivian Freedom of the press is not "like any other privilege." It is a First Amendment RIGHT. The difference between a privilege and right is that one is granted in discretion and the other is owed.
You need to see "standards of excellence." I've already seen them. I see them every day. It's too bad YOU can't tell the difference. That's on you. Don't speak for we. You are not we and you don't speak for me or anyone i know.
To journalists everywhere who peer into dark corners, go into dangerous places, and ask tough questions to bring us the truth: Thank you for your service. You are as vital to our freedom and democratic ideals as any soldier in uniform.
38
"One recent poll found that 82 percent of Republicans now trust President Trump more than they trust the media."
This is alarming beyond belief. Isn't it bad enough they pursue his political views without actually accepting them as truth, cynical as that may be?
This is a fabulous piece about the one institution of all that informs our 1st Amendment and keeps societies free. As the president becomes more emboldened, I worry deeply that he'll begin to actually take authoritarian steps to censor or outright ban our free press.
I read the NYT pretty much all day long, checking in every couple hours to see what's breaking, what to look for, what to be aware of.
Given the extent of the Times' global reach, I'm quite sure people around the globe look to it for information crucial to their own understanding of war, peace, and their own governments, honest or corrupt.
Making sure the free press stays free is the responsibilitly of all of us. Freedom has a price, one of which is to support free press protections.
20
Truth really does matter. Facts matter. When leaders deliberately attack the free press, when they refuse to come to the aid of journalists holding up this essential aspect of life in a democracy, they attack democracy itself. An ill informed and gaslit public is a basic requirement for would-be tyrants who tell their followers who and what to believe, what to think and whom to fear. The more people read and absorb facts as provided by fearless journalists across the globe, the better chance we have to remain free.
12
Ibsen's "An enemy of the People" should be a required part of the high school curriculum.
Since the beginning of the republic the media has been used to spread political bias and even lies, Jefferson being no stranger to that approach. Nevertheless, freedom of the press was considered so important to the future wellbeing of the fledgling nation that it was incorporated into the very first amendment.
Against the power of the oligopoly that now controls the vast majority of the media, the collapse of news gathering into infotainment and regurgitation of distortive viral events, and the withering effect of constant attacks by political leaders, the role of the free press is now more important than ever. The Ukraine affair is a great example.
Thank a journalist for his or her service today.
8
Though I have not always been a real supporter of Mr Sulzberger, this article has won me over, so I say a mind opening thank you. This is one great article and I can only hope that the electorate begins to understand the importance of our free press.
I can only do so much work but what I can do is to keep my subscriptions current and my eyes open to what you report.
I apologize for the members of the US who are not literate enough to recognize the importance of what journalists do to make the world safer and I thank each one of those journalists who take such risks to keep us informed. I shudder at the horror faced by the foreign journalists as they try to bring the truth to so many terrible places.
May the Free Press always be free, and may tyrants pay the ultimate costs of justice; forever removed from power, even jailed where warranted. We have a tyrant at our head who we must remove, or freedom is lost.
I see no other way than to totally support all blue on every ticket and in every way possible.
Long may the Free Press survive.
12
Passionately agree but the New York Times still needs to work out its blind spot of being the voice of the Trying a little too hard to be woke privileged progressive upper middle class left. As much as this large organization deserves our respect, it also has the responsibility that goes with it, and it needs to keep working on that — after all arguably it contributed to Trump’s success And the country’s polarization with said blind spot. I don’t have the answer since it’s a tricky puzzle, but maybe pour some more resources into that and be careful of younger, less mature staffers in leadership positions. Recent stumbles and what not.Maybe.
5
Excellent - and alarming - essay. I subscribe to numerous newspapers and PBS for this reason - to support local, national, and international free press and journalists.
On a related note, I have almost stopped watching the major network evening news programs - all three major outlets (NBC, ABC, CBS) lead with the same stories, coordinate commercial breaks, and include too many fluff pieces in the limited 30 minute timeframe.
Good newspapers, magazines, podcasts, and other news sources are increasingly the last bastion. Thank you, thank you to the journalists, editors, and publishers who gather, research, and print the news - and speak truth to power.
15
I am glad that an alarm is sounded on this important aspect of our post industrial revolution life. The traditions of journalism was established by the great minds in the early and middle years of twentieth century life where industrial society provided the one way mass communication equipments to the society. These societal change from the agricultural society of communications using books and letters made our life much richer and citizens well informed. The invent of internet and search engines and cloud computing changed the old communication paradigm radically - every citizen and every journalist now can interpret any event based on their personal physiological state and facts and data they are able to use - there is no more a single interpretation of an event. The news become a debating society where multiple interpretations of same physical observation become the fact of life - all are fake news relative to each other. The biggest dilemma of a journalist is which one to accept as news and statement of truth - there is no truth any more. A new type of journalism is needed that is not anchored on interpretation, it is anchored on statement of reporting data (measurement points) only and separate the interpretation as personal opinion. This separation is essential to maintain the credibility of journalism - a new way to get the citizen informed about the true states of the world without coloring it by the opinion of journalist.
This is why I read the NYTimes (and the WSJ) every day. Articles like this clearly articulate what I cannot. I have shared this piece, I will discuss this essay with my peers, I will ask strangers what they think about the free press. And when I do this (and even when I'm alone with my thoughts) I will have Mr. Sulzberger's clarion call to action ringing in my ears and filling my heart as I listen to their words and then answer them with my own. Thank you NYTimes.
11
I’ve scarcely read anything as powerful (and as alarming) as this important, well-written piece.
11
I have tremendous respect for the journalists venturing into the most dangerous parts of the world. Since I was 10 I have always started my day reading the news on my way to school and finished the day reading them at bed. It has not changed for 15 years now. However, the language did.
After Viktor Orban became prime minister of Hungary he and his loyalists slowly eaten up the local newspapers and TV networks. Independent, reliable, 50 year old news organizations were shut down or bought by loyalist oligarchs and now most of these news-networks serve the administration and it’s propaganda campaign against the EU, against democracy.
Today I read about the most important Hungarian news from a newspaper which is based on the other side of the globe, written in another language because the Hungarian independent journalism has been dead for years now.
7
The armies mobilized against American truths, laws and freedoms are formidable, but by no means almighty. The voices of our democratic values must never be silenced yet always be strengthened. Factual journalism has been so often ridiculed as fiction that millions now believe that wrong is right and right is wrong. The precious balance of fairness has been sorely tested in the race to destroy America through greed, corruption and hypocrisy. As former dictators and their acolytes have said, a lie told a thousand times soon becomes the truth. We simply cannot allow this to happen again.
Many, many thanks to the NYT, Washington Post and their allies
for encouraging the support of who we still are and how much greater we can and will be. We owe it to our ancestors, ourselves
and our descendants.
Vote.
6
Thank you, Mr.Sulzberger for reminding us again that the price Journalists pay every day to provide us with information.We eagerly read the articles but seldom think of the courage and risk taken by the person giving us the news.This is the age of TMI, too much information which is careless and conflicted and meant to obfuscate rather than to educate.Congratulations to the Times for being on the forefront of protecting our precious First Amendment and promoting the best of Journalism.
6
I agree with a free press wholeheartedly, and am a subscriber to more than one paper (including the NYT) even though I don't have a large income.
I am also someone who believes in freedom of expression at a personal level. It seems, though, that people can now get fired for all sorts of personal opinions that the Far Left doesn't like....this is becoming a frightening situation and feels like we're living more in a Soviet State (or Communist China) than a free Western Nation.
We MUST support freedom of expression even for things we don't like.
6
wow
Thank you to the gov official who warned about Declan and to the honorable journalists for their service to country.
Brown students were extremely fortunate to hear you speak. I hope you inspired them.
5
Chilling!
While on the subject of repression and intimidation I think the Times should give far more coverage to the current jailing of Chelsea Manning. And for that matter Julian Assange. Whatever distinctions people might want to make it is all part of the same impulse to control, silence, punish and keep people in the dark.
5
@Robert Roth Yes, Manning and Assange should be defended and Edward Snowden deserves our thanks, but instead he faces trial under the Espionage Act if he dares to return home.
3
@Robert Roth...Absolutely. And there are more cases that ought to be covered, not only when actively in the news but with regard to the daily life of these politically incarcerated people. One such active case at present is the case of Daniel Hale, a former U.S. Air Force language analyst, who was barred from presenting any evidence that he had “good motives” when he allegedly disclosed documents to a reporter (from The Intercept) that exposed a targeted assassination program involving armed drones. He was prosecuted under the Obama administration. It is important, as Robert Roth writes, for the press to keep the citizenry informed that there are people in jail for exercising constitutional duties, and what is happening to them.
2
Traveling in Chile in my 20's during the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, I experienced fascism first hand. I stayed with families of the exiliados who escaped to find safe harbor in New York City. Listening to the music of Inti Ilimani, I initially thought the experience to be exciting; I fancied myself to be a Martha Gellhorn covering the Spanish Civil War until I ventured into Santiago's Cathedral to meet with the mothers of the desaparecidos. I made the acquaintance of a mother whose son disappeared in the night - one night the policia knocked on the door of her house and took him away. She never saw him again. Hearing the repulsive stories of torture sickened me; knowing my beloved country supported the Chilean military dictatorship made me ashamed of the ignorance of our President and the CIA who looked the other way in the defense of fighting communism. In the absence of numbing out over my 64 years, I am struggling to love my country, to be proud of its leadership in the world. Although I have always taken advantage of proximity to prestigious college towns (I know how to "live off 'da fat of the land), I am proud to be the recipient of an exceptional public school education, from kindergarten through college. We the people must lead the change we want in this country before it is too late. Stop whining and DO SOMETHING. I am weary of being in a perpetual state of outrage.
7
I personally feel the threat against journalists pales against the threat of free religious expression. Tens of millions live in fear from hostile actors. Many are killed or imprisoned. Far more of a crises than a handful of journalists.
@Dady
Without a free press the threat of free religious expression can easily flourish. And without a free press the world will not truly know or understand that religious repression is even happening. So I'm not sure it's about weighing one concern(free press) against another(religious expression). When we defend a free press, we are ALSO defending other freedoms like religious expression.
As far as "a handful of journalists", I'm sure their families aren't minimizing their loss in this manner. But the violence against journalists worldwide is rampant. The Committee to Protect Journalists has reported that more than 1300 journalists have been killed worldwide since 1992. Defending free press must be one of the most important goals of our country.
2
@Dady
But how would you know about these atrocities if not for journalists or some type of "reporter" who dares to speak, print or show they truth? They are your eyes and ears into this persecution unless you are there to witness it for yourself.
Keep plugging away. Trump has discovered that if he tells a lie often enough, people will believe it. Billionaire? I don't think so. Businessman? I think not. Brilliant mind? Oh, please.
9
Amen.
I often dion't agree with The Times and know they have their slant on things, but don't we all.
The internet is a blessing and a curse, in many ways, and we all must be painstakingly dilligent to get our news from honest, trustworthy and reliable sources.
And, most importantly, we must be willing to pay for it! Afterall. how much is freedom worth?
A subscriber.
2
It is not for Mr. Sulzberger to praise the NY Times, it is for curmudgeons like me to do so - which I hereby emphatically do. We are faced with a sea of advertising, messages from companies whose 90% motivation is to make money, to try and get as much of our money as they can. The free press's, on the other hand, 90% motivation is to get and to publish the truth, to be a reliable authority on providing the truth, and devoting only 10% of its motivation on making money. I believe the NY Times is a model for truth purveyance. Regarding current attacks on the press, I long ago noticed that in a discussion, when someone is devoid of a convincing argument he/she often resorts to name calling. The term "fake news" is exactly that: name calling. Why not produce a counter argument, if you believe you are innocent of an accusation ? Maybe I'm weird, but whenever a government attacks the press, I assume it's a government I should worry about. When dictators or dictator-wanna-be's make statements I looked to the free press to enlighten me. You know, I don't worry about Trump that much, but what really scares me is that so many of us are so bad as discriminating the truth from the baloney, and are willing to believe the most outlandish claims by Republicans and the tyrants of the world. I am a suspicious person, but in a dispute between a politician and the free press, I invariably lean towards the free press.
6
for over 50 years i read the NY Times which, in my opinion, is the best newspaper in the world. The NY Times was always impartial, fight for humanity and raises the right issues. But in recent years "Journalism" is less and less impartial, journalists became commentators, more and more representing a side. This becomes clearer since Mr. Trump won the USA presidency. The threat to journalism is growing because more and more of the readers feel that the news are not "All the News That's Fit to Print" anymore but "All the News That's we decide to Print."
4
Wise words, explaning, as if it had to be said, again and again, to a misinformed public, that there cannot be a real democracy without a really free press, to inform us as accurately as possible, what's going on at home and abroad; this, recognizing that flaws and mistakes and, even exaggerations, may occur, as reporters are flawed human beings like the rest of us; but their intent is well taken, especially so when reporting implies not only insults but death. Kashoggi dismemberment is only one of many casualties, even if we were talking only about what happens in Saudi Arabia, when assassin Salman's thin skin is being touched by criticism, however constructive. Of course, there are exceptions to responsible reporting, just look at Fox Noise's noise, confusing fact with fiction on purpose...to keep a gullible public aligned...into supporting an expert demagogue in the Oval Office, claiming that the press is an enemy of th people...unless they fall in line with his lies and insults and telling the truth according to his convenience...instead of what reality shows, to those willing to see and hear the evidence. However much we appreciate your efforts in our behalf, it behooves us to consult multiple sources sometimes, to exercise some healthy skepticism. Of this, I'm certain, you would approve as well, unafraid of different views, to let the truth shine, unabated and uncensured, even when it may boomerang to you. The facts ought to make us real actors in this democracy.
1
How can our citizens understand the importance of a free press when they have been denied the education needed to understand it? The free press was assaulted when A Nation At Risk was published - you just didn't know it yet. Where is the conversation about that? Our schools are segregated, dilapidated, and underfunded. People who can't read - or don't understand what they are reading - don't buy newspaper subscriptions. They go online, watch short un-vetted videos, listen to racially charged hate speech, and flounder in moral complacency because they don't have the education to understand that they are being cheated out of the truth and a decent way of life. Our government has silenced them by keeping them in the dark. The real moral outrage should be directed at the original source of this problem - a public school system that has been successfully undermined for the last forty years. The issues plaguing the press are just symptoms of having an uneducated public. Where is the coverage on that Mr. Sulzberger?
7
Good journalism is the glue that holds democracy together. I appreciate Mr. Sulzberger’s thoughts, but I also hope that he will guide the NYT to more accuracy and less effort to avoid irritating Trump. NYT headlines often minimize a Trump issue while exacerbating a story about others, especially Democratic candidates. The Times put its hand on the scale for Trump in 2016. Let’s hope they avoid doing the same in 2020.
5
Donald Trump has done a great disservice to our country and world. Period. However, the Press has provided him with ample evidence of bias in reporting to the fuel for his manipulation. As a 50 something first generation American, I remember when the Press was about news. Growing up, we'd discuss the Press in places like Italy where the Communist paper would say XYZ and the Far Right paper would tell a different story. Today, journalism routinely conflates fact finding with opinion. It is not possible to watch a Fox News and while specific news stories may be solid, the totality of editorial choices, interspersion of Opinion pieces and outright biased pieces makes the the product biased. MSNBC is no different. Frankly, the Nytimes in totality suffers from the same biases. If a reporter routinely uses the Center for American Progress or Center on Budget Policy Priorities or quotes Thomas Piketty, their bias is set in the same way, the use of Heritage Foundation, Cato or AEI move the argument far right. The Press can't be effectively be sued and by being above the law, they lack accountability, do not self policing, & are inherent bias. It makes them ripe and often deserving of attack. Until the Press restores it's credibility they will not have earned the right to public support. The Constitution guarantees their right to exist not our respect
2
What are you going to believe: what you read in the press or your lying eyes. Donald Trump's total existence is based on lies, and he can't stand the media that continually points this out. As this is becoming a trend around the world, we need a paradigm shift in human thought to right the ship. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is important and what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for dirty tricks and destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
2
When in we visited Italy we were intrigued by an refreshing orange colored drink on virtually every outdoor cafe table. We,ordered an Aperol cocktail....terrible! And that is NOT fake news!
Although Aperol may be putrid, it seems like a trivial matter to highlight.
What we as citizens must reconcile is that to some the divisive rhetoric of a demagogue may sound appealing, and reflect a “truth” the politically correct are afraid to speak; but we must remember the bitter taste in our mouths which will linger on.
Mr.Sulzberger makes it clear that reporting the “real news” is a difficult and dangerous endeavor. We do not appreciate the effort... and seldom understand the importance of the fourth estate to the health of our society.
It is amazing how easy it is for dictators and demagogues, the corrupt and corruptible, to undermine the vital role of legitimate journalism.
The Growing Threat to Journalism Around the World is truly a clear and present danger to what we used to know as truth, as Mr Sulzberger explains perfectly.
And that means that this contagion - this destructive manipulation and distortion of facts, morals and bedrock values - threatens ALL of us.
2
❤️ the NYT. My dad used to buy it when I was a kid and I would read it, learning new words and concepts of freedom and dignity for all mankind. If the current administration tries to go beyond mean-spirited words with respect to professional journalists, whoa be Trump is all I have to say. Keep that bright light shining on our government!
2
While this elegant op-ed is true, maybe if the NYTimes didn’t endorse Hillary Clinton and bury Bernie Sanders in 2016 Trump would never of gotten into office.
As the largest and greatest newspaper on earth, the Times does bare some responsibility for endorsing a flawed candidate seemingly ignoring the plight, prejudice and fears of Americans who elected Trump.
7
Sergei Brin, Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook would do well to read and consider this editorial and then look in the mirror. Their pursuit of profit by algorithmic influence of choice have been fundamental in destroying truthful news. What ever happened to “Do no evil” as the Google motto?
I have a love/hate relationship with the media in the United States. Love for all the noble things mentioned in this article. Hate for the tendency to create news rather than report news.
I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Liberia from 1984 to 1986 when dictator Samuel Doe alleged there was a coup and subsequently carried out the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of humans in opposing tribes. One of my friends, John, saw eight of his high school students dragged by a tractor before being killed with a machete by the vice-principle of the school. Randy, another friend, found five people on the beach with gunshot wounds to their heads. American coverage, including the NYT. was tepid.
I was a medical resident in Los Angeles at Martin Luther King Hospital in 1992 when riots broke out. A reporter from the newspaper of the small southern town that I grew up in completely lied about our interview: my take was that people were angry but criminals and thugs took advantage to loot and pillage. He reported that African-American anger had boiled over and led to the riots and he even used "" to quote things that I never said.
The NYT has TREMENDOUS power and influence. I'm frustrated with opinion articles like yesterday's "let's hold Brazil's Bolsonaro guilty for ecocide" when the problem is that our government supports right wing governments. (My spouse is Brazilian: I'm sensitive.)
Investigative reporting, not opinion, is the lifeblood of humanity! More of that, please!
6
The constant assault on truth and facts through attacks on the news media is working, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of republicans who believe Me Trump —a daily liar — over journalists who lay out clear, reasoned information. The attempt to silence the free press is the single biggest reason why I fear for my country.
Mr. Sulzberger‘s eloquent words and the sheer guts of his team (along with the many other respected outlets) are why I cling to a shred of hope that America’s better angels will survive this dark period in our history.
I’m so grateful to you, NYT. I will forever support you as a subscriber and admirer.
2
"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" (Joni Mitchell).
Fascism is once more on the rise and is again, through its seduction of the people, the greatest threat to freedom in the West since the end of WW2.
I subscribed to the NYT and the Washington Post after Trump's election, knowing this was a crucial period in history and trusting you to be a rigorous investigative voice.
Thank you to all the reporters and photographers at the NYT and around the world who work so hard to implement journalistic standards bringing both nefarious and unsung heroic deeds to light.
I'm afraid we must also mention the propaganda networks and organs masquerading as independent journalism, from Fox News to RT, who do so much to spread disinformation, and, rather than holding power to account, produce "news" in the service of autocratic (and would-be autocratic) oligarchic, kleptocratic and disaster capitalist powers. For that reason it is essential we scrutinise who owns and funds our media at every level.
1
Super well said. Bravo!
I have been visiting Québec for the past several months to avoid the rise of social disinformation that is presently flourishing in the USA. How ironic. ‘And I have found that the dislike of President Trump and his ‘fake news’ rhetoric runs so strong here that my social network is strengthening its support of independent journalism. One of my friends is the owner of a major newspaper in Montréal. His recent response is that “[his] journalists are professionals who are smart and left untouched by his well known political directions expressly because his readers are even smarter — and they will source the truth, relentlessly” [expressed without blinking, even in his second language of English].
Stay with your roots to report the facts: you have parallel supporters.
3
While i am very concerned about violence toward journalists around the world. I am also a former reporter for two daily papers in Flyover Country ( Springfield mo News-leader, I& St. Louis globe-Democrat) and a lifelong Democrat, and I cant help believing that the obvious political bias of the Times and other news outlets, both liberal and conservative, are a bigger threat to the future of newspapers than even the murder of journalists.
6
Free expression is the keystone, upon which all of our individual rights have been constructed. The absence of a legally-guaranteed freedom of expression means that only our opinions are safe, and only if they’re never vocalized.
The First Amendment doesn’t come first because talk is cheap, and it isn’t followed by the Second Amendment for dramatic effect.
The New York Times needs a couple of ombudsmen, or maybe a public editor. Not censorship at the direction of Donald Trump.
2
"We hate to imagine what would have happened had that brave official not risked their career to alert us to the threat."
And we hate to imagine the retaliation that brave official will now face from the Trump administration after being outed in the Times.
1
I hope this is available freely to anyone. One of the most important columns written about our troubled times.
1
History has shown that repression of the free exchange of differing points of view is the first nail in the coffin of democracy. It has been used by every tyrant and demagogue. Will we not learn this?
2
I've been reading the many negative and critical posts about the Times, and I think most of them -- although they may have some legitimate points -- completely miss the gist of the article. Mr. Sulzberger's primary point is that independent journalism has been under attack around the world for the past few years, and the fuel for this anti-journalist sentiment has been provided by our president. In line with a dictator's mindset, Trump will attack ANY news outlet and reporter that doesn't write about him in a favorable light, or opposes his policies. He is exceedingly reckless with his labeling of the press as "enemy of the people", and "fake news", which encourages the use of similar tactics by authoritarians in other countries, resulting in repression of the free press and putting reporters around the world in peril.
Trump is a dangerous con man and fraud, and it is the duty of an independent press to call him (and his cronies) out when he blatantly lies to the American citizens and the world.
8
@Gregg
Maybe the House of Representatives should craft an article of impeachment against President Trump for being against the First Amendment and not looking out for the "general welfare" of the country as is his duty.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am glad you published your speech in The Times. Alas, I wish you were able to go to all college campuses and speak to them directly! One suggestion, please be more direct with young people when describing the reality that so many journalists face - physical violence, rape, imprisonment and even murder. They absolutely must know. We all need to protect journalists from harm.
7
How do we get this message out to the mainstream?
As a former writing teacher / lawyer, I can see the editorial rational for most of what NYT does, but as a current political/social observer I am frustrated by NYT’s slow adaptation to the digital age. While NYT is producing fabulous digital work (headlines and tweet captions aside), it isn’t doing enough to reach a mainstream audience.
It is no longer enough sufficient to assume that information produced for an educated and inquisitive target audience will have beneficial a trickle down effect. If the free press is to survive current assaults, it must extend its voice outside the echo chamber of its faithful readers. Please NYT, use your extraordinary resources to better reach the social media / DWTS crowd. Murdoch did it. You can too.
3
This is an elegant essay by A.G. Sulzberger, and his words about the challenges facing journalists abroad and at home are undoubtedly true.
It is heartening that The New York Times has become a leader in exposing the authoritarian bias of President Donald Trump and the personal greed which seems to drive many of his decisions and statements. Frankly, candidate Trump rose to power on the free, often non-critical, publicity provided by the newspaper’s reporters and columnists.
We have reached a decisive point in our history, where the extremism and corruption of an emboldened President Trump have become so brazen, there is no exaggeration to say that our democracy is in danger.
Our elected officials often do not do their jobs very well when it comes to opposing Trump the autocrat. Democrats, to their credit, oppose Mr. Trump, but they seem disorganized and even inept. Republicans are better disciplined regarding Donald Trump, but their skills are used shamefully to enable Mr. Trump’s worst impulses.
We increasingly rely upon The New York Times and other trusted news organizations to bring out the best in the politicians and to expose the worst.
Keep it up, Mr. Sulzberger.
5
Underpinning this whole awful phenomenon we find ourselves living through is the glaring fact that the Constitution, including the First Amendment, only works if leadership subscribes to the norms and guidance embedded in the document. What Mr Sulzberger is discovering in his profession is that reason and decency have been abandoned. You cannot have dialogue and reasonable discourse with ignorant forces that are agnostic with and antagonistic to a fact-based, reason-based world.
5
I did my part by sharing this as far as the Favebook algorithm will allow me. The 20 eyeball range. Which is a far cry from AOM (any only meme) territory. Good work.
The most endangered reporters have never been protected by the government —the government has always refused to come to the aid of reporters taken hostage. Any request to secure their release by special efforts has consistently been deemed inappropriate. Journalists are not public officials. They work for private corporations controlled by the wealthy. The government has no more obligation to protect reporters than CEO’s of multinational corporations.
Media moguls who expect special government consideration for their employees ask for something to which they are not entitled.
6
Speaking out for the rights of a free press around the world is not much to ask of the US govt. Help from the US embassies, whose salaries are paid with our tax dollars, is not a lot to ask either. Would the US govt not help you if your passport was stolen while traveling abroad?
6
@michjas
Sure lets just gloss over the fact that our own country would throw US citizens under the bus and actively work against them, our own citizens. The fact that they are journalist is kinda secondary, Trump and his administration would not come to the aid of an American citizen. What we are “entitled” to is knowing that our government will stand for us as citizens and actively be an advocate when one is held up in another country. You should be careful of using the word never, an absolute that isn’t true. Pretty sure Jason Rezlan (sp) held in Iran may dispute that.
1
@michjas - The se reporters happen to be US citizens first. As US citizens they absolutely should expect their government to protect them. Your attitude is disturbing and indicates your bias against the real free press vs. Fox for example, which is the epitome of fake news.
1
Some Americans resent a world where the input of other countries are addressed. Instead of taking global concerns seriously, many US citizens continue to tell themselves a counterproductive story. The left and the likes of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez are just as guilty as the conservatives by not allowing citizens to self reflect. Cortez’s base fear of being taken advantage of and the Right’s fear of under producing for lack of opportunities are at times, counterproductive since the tragedy of the commons predicts only three possible outcomes. One is for actors with coercive power to enforce an allocation policy on behalf of the people (socialist solution). Another is for the commons to break up as village members, fence-off bits they can defend and manage sustainably. (Trump’s physical and metaphysical wall) Lastly, the sea of mud many think we have today. Both Ms. Cortez and Mr. Trump’s ideas are half truths (smoke-and-mirrors) of often repeated Republican and Democratic economic policy talking points.
Ask yourself, how can we avoid strategies of divide and conquer, ignore distracting messages and instead create a way for us to work with citizens and government in a format that eliminates these ingrained fears by understanding both supply and demand?
2
Despite today's treat to the media, I believe American exceptionalism is alive & well. For it to continue, we have to practice & enable freedom of thought. Most Americans who are unwilling to ask themselves tough questions, may think America finds itself in a dangerous position in 2019. These well intended citizens fear that America has lost its greatness. They fear they’ve lost their self respect & their perception is validated through nostalgic propaganda (“M.A.G.A.”). The reality of the United States predicament is that things aren’t as bad as many politicians would like us to believe. This common political game plan is designed to keep us distracted from asking ourselves tough questions since we seldom reflect on the distinction between an intellectual democracy & a democracy by birthright. I believe America’s future is brighter than it has ever been despite giving the vote to all citizens without connecting it to that of wisdom. Collectively, we have to decide the direction we wish to follow instead of folding to externalities. Our responsibility to other countries absent mutual benefit, have been mostly transferred to encourage these nations to practice self reliance. At this great juncture in our history, Americans should be self reflecting in order for each of us to make our own way in the world. We should rejoice as we visualize the rebirth of the American people. Unfortunately, not everyone will ever see things the same way, & here is where the danger lies.
1
The major difference between mass media and social media is this; the mass media puts the audience in a passive position. Social media puts the audience at the center and with work, could do a better job at reaching your audience. Through social media, my business has implemented a marketing campaign that interacts with existing and potential customers. Our typical patron is interested in a healthy balanced life style consisting of healthy food options, exercise and consciousness. By posting original articles reflecting our customer’s interest on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter pages regularly, our brand’s exposure has increased exponentially.
Small businesses commonly advertise to increase brand awareness and sales (online, print, radio and television) A new recipe or the smoothie of the day are common go to's to promote healthy food choices. Instructional videos on exercise are every- where and also promotes desired healthy lifestyle. These videos are featured in ad spots during shows their intended demographic is likely to be watching. Newspaper advertising, typically costs less per thousand readers than television, radio, and direct mail advertising. In addition, newspaper staff members will work directly with advertisers to create ads at no additional costs. Newspaper advertising can also be customized to meet your budget.
Mr. Sulzberger, thanks for your wonderful expose of the way our free press is being treated by the powers to be. Maybe the sentence where he says "the true power of a free press is an informed and engaged citizenry" reveals the problem in our country. Our citizenry may not have the time to engage with a free press or not informed enough to understand the dangers its suppression poses. The authoritarian regimes survive because they can rule over an ignorant citizenry which is deprived of true knowledge of how their country is being ruled and remain ignorant because the price of knowledge is too high to pay!
1
Let's face it things took a Wrong Turn when President Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine which lead to Fox news & other Conservative media outlets. Next Rupert Murdoch was able to lobby & change the rules to where previously foreigners could only own 1 piece of Media in OUR Country & he owned the NY Post but now was able to buy Fox. Next he put Roger Ailes in charge, who thought that President Nixon wasn't treated properly with Watergate etc. & in his head I think he believed that Only Republicans truly loved America & only they knew how to go about running the Country. I think it was this belief that justified all the lies that Fox passed off as news etc. & their constant attacks on Democrats, especially President Obama, often done in a nasty fashion.
And without Fox trump could have Never been elected & when he was elected of course he was going to attack any & all news organizations that shined a light on his corrupt practices & lack of knowledge about OUR Shared History & his cluelessness when it came to how any of OUR Government works. That coupled with Faux-Populism that is a worldwide trend & really just a place for wannabe dictators to hide in plain sight, it was the perfect storm when it comes to the dangers that trump has put legitimate Journalists at risk.
1
This is why I continue to read the Times.
As an American expat in France the Times is my lifeline to the truth in America and around the world.
I’m not starry eyed and take a skeptical view toward all news until I can verify it.
I believe A.G. Is a young man trying to do an honest job for the free press.
God help us Americans if the A.G.s in the free world turn out to be false prophets!
Mr. Sulzberger’s editorial is timely and correct. The work of journalists and real news publishers the world over is as important to democratic self-governance as the right to vote—for what good is that right without the information we require to make good decisions at the ballot box? A free press and suffrage are the two sides of one coin, democracy.
But he lets Google, Facebook and Twitter off the hook far too easily. The ad-supported digital media business model upon which all three are built is fundamentally hostile to journalism and democracy. Every problem named by Mr. Sulzberger—inclusive of ill-conceived summer spritzers—lies at the feet of these companies and the people who continue to work at them.
We must of course continue to fight for the safety and freedom of journalists everywhere, at every step. But to reverse the current catastrophic course of history, secure journalists the baseline freedoms and safety that all humans deserve, and avert the planetary disaster looming over our children’s futures, we’ll need to break the business model that is breaking every single thing we care about.
It won’t be easy. But we’re human beings: we tamed fire, discovered the wheel, and invented so many cocktails that all new ones are bad ones. We need to get to work now, but we can do this thing.
2
While I have always stood with Mr. Sulzberger's views, and have always supported the Jeffersonian concept of the necessity of a strong free honest press, strangely enough, it appears possible to maintain strong democratic principles of governance without it.
With the possible exception of the magically shrinking Globe and Mail, the vast majority of the Canadian press is biased, right wing and viciously conservative- vis Conrad Black etc, etc. Despite this fact, Canada is far more liberal, it's citizens far more politically aware, and they turn out for elections in far greater proportions than in the US.
9
@Reality In your definition of the Canadian press, while rightly mentioning the Globe and Mail, you seem to forget the existence of the second largest circulation newspaper in Canada, the Toronto Star, a basically liberal voice.
Apart from that, I agree that the remainder of the Canadian press is alarmingly skewed towards viciously conservative.
2
@Reality
Might Canada's proximity to America's free press and media outlets such as cable TV help to explain that?
LONG LIVE THE FOURTH ESTATE.
When I first heard Trump utter the phrase "enemy of the People" in reference to the press I couldn't believe my ears. A Stalinist phrase. Could no one remember this cold war tag line?
A friend of mine who supports Trump asked me what was the worst I thought about him, suggesting maybe his anti woman anti abortion positions and I said, no, it was not that. I told her that the most horrific were the constant attacks that he was making on the press.
And, by the way, my friend was surprised and unprepared for that answer. Never occurred to her. I took that as a testament to how the value of the press is instilled in our citizens (trumpies also) and a very encouraging sign that all is not lost. (on them, whether they know it or not)
Fully aware of the abuses of the press in our history (Oh, have we forgotten the election of 1800???), the press, Freedom of the Press, is our ace in the hole, our salvation.
Thank you.
58
According to Professor David Logan, author of “Tribal Leadership”, 48% of the groups we belong to, at first, seem to be functional, with most individuals having a high regard for their place in the organization. However, many of them complain that they’re doing all the work. They form “dyads” – one-on-one relationships between two people – and have little communication beyond that. Immanuel Kant and Donald Trump’s philosophy fall under this group as many of Kant’s writings and Trump’s rhetoric promote a revolutionary enthusiasm that are often bias & flawed. David Hume's “Method Of Moral Philosophy” showed that reason is properly a “slave to the passions unlike the experimental and empirical; which illustrates mankind’s greatest weakness. Unlike Hume, Kant unintentionally blinded himself by seeing the world for what he wanted it to be, instead of Hume’s emphasis on reason and empirical data, to perceive the world as it really is. Kant emphasized the superiority of good will over nature. His writings omitted vital events and information that make one question man’s behavior or their convictions. We find this behavior in most places where smart, successful people show up. Failure to confront our imperfections forces us to continually look for scapegoats to make up for when the story we’re telling ourselves doesn't add up. Scapegoating at a group level is made easier by the fact that some group members (all races) are individuals composed of their own weaknesses and flaws.
I just heard former Ambassador Ryan Crocker speak on the topic of the Middle East. In his Q/A, the discussion regarding a free press came up. He considers the First Amendment elemental to a democracy. If we protect free speech and a free media, we’ll make it through. If not, then the odds get unpleasant.
13
Strong piece! What is the whistleblower currently in the news, but a journalist who has had their mouth taped shut and their hands tied held in some hidden location within our own government. See the danger in the suppression of free speech even within the acceptable restrictions imposed by the highly restricted speech in a national security settings. Watch as this contributes to the weakening of our own democracy. The assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and the callous indifference of those in leadership positions seemed to herald a new chapter in journalism's struggle, and increased peril for free speech. Thank you for what you do.
24
Brilliantly stated. The free press does heroic work every day all around the world to keep us informed and to protect democracy. Perhaps they have done such a good job that we have taken them for granted, but we cannot take them for granted any longer.
We need a loud, vigorous, public debate about the value and need for a free press, in order to counter the "fake news" narrative that is the tool of autocrats.
I so agree with this:
"But the responsibility to stand up for the free press extends beyond news organizations. Business, nonprofit and academic communities, all of which rely on the free and reliable flow of news and information, have a responsibility to push back on this campaign, too. That is particularly true of tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple. "
Our tech companies, which have been so responsible, albeit probably unintentionally, for the decimation of journalism, need to take some responsibility to work with the press to counteract the troubling trends they started. Our government needs to strengthen and codify protections for journalists. Our presidential candidates need to speak up about the dangers currently posed to the free press. The media can devote more attention to helping the public understand the heroic work of journalists. Much can be done and needs to be done.
13
@CC business needs to speak out - the economic miracle that is liberal capitalism is predicated in the rule of law and a free press. They are killing their own future as well as the future of our republic. But the NYT must also EDUCATE and explain - not just give opinions and “color”. Please also improve your headlines. They have become tendacious.
2
Bad things happen when good people do nothing. I'm glad to subscribe to the NYTimes and the good people who are not going to ignore the danger of doing the right thing.
84
I commend this principled declaration of our values as journalists. Trump is the carcinogenic cell that is at risk of metastasizing, causing problems that cannot be solved. To tell the truth is the mission of journalists. As Superman said, if someone doesn't like journalists, they probably have something to hide.
48
We can reduce the threat to journalists by the choices we make and the stories we tell ourselves. Both the attack on the free press and self imposed biases have hampered many of us from understanding the value and validity of having an open mind. How do we get better at something we don’t think we’re bad at? We should have the greatest reason to be grateful to those with differing views for saying so well what our biases prevent us from seeing and/or understanding.
8
Regardless of his threat to journalists and the media, in 2020 or 2024, Trump’s presidency will come to an end. In a perfect world, the President eventually will confront his dark side. What are the chances he frees himself of his internal struggles by writing the things that trouble him in a journal? Will Donald Trump ever be capable at laughing at himself or begin to meditate with a focus on self-compassion and acceptance of his own humanness? Will he think of his good qualities and accept the possibility that he may have many bad qualities too? and be okay with it? Will DT realize that his shadow side is a reflection of his power, his honesty, and passion? Or will he ever feel safe enough to open up to someone he trust, possibly a therapist? Today, the United States has a president who promotes fear by exploiting the inability of most people to deal with things rationally when history and emotions are involved. The uneven results of human achievements evoke simplistic notions of injustice that can cause people to misunderstand the best actions that require difficult deci- sions. Any citizen with a proactively civic mentality has to closely follow current politics and affairs, since the decisions made at the seat of power are neither simple nor transparent. These acts naturally affect the future success of the country and require continuous attention.
4
Thanks to the NYT and other local, national and international news outlets for reporting on the deeply disturbing events in our country since 2016 election. We can never forsake our democracy, valued by so many worldwide, and in every corner of our divided country. The Truth shall set us free from this madness Keep the faith and fight the good fight to save us all!
14
@Allison
Make that the 1980 and 1994 elections also. Maybe throw in 2008.
Plato describes Socrates trying to describe the flaws of democracy by comparing a society to a ship. If you were heading out on a journey by sea, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring? The latter of course! So why then do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country? Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm. Socrates was to have first hand, catastrophic experience of the foolishness of voters. In 399 BC, the philosopher was put on trial on trumped up charges of corrupt- ing the youth of Athens. A jury of 500 Athenians was invited to weigh up the case and decided by a narrow margin that the philosopher was guilty. He was put to death by hemlock in a process which is, for thinking people, every bit as tragic as Jesus’s condemnation has been for Christians. Crucially, Socrates was not elitist in the normal sense. He didn’t believe that a narrow few should only ever vote. He did, however, insist that only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote. We have forgotten this distinction between an intellectual democracy and a democracy by birthright.
6
@José Franco
If you haven't read I.F. Stone's "Trial of Socrates" you should. Stone studied ancient Greek to write the book.
Socrates could have run away, but stuck around for the theatrics of throwing his life away.
Also, Socrates was teaching the young men of the aristocratic elite, and there was a real and legitimate fear of the Athenian democracy being taken over by a tyrant.
Absolutely terrifying. Please expand on this with a longer, reported story on how the accusation of “fake news” has been weaponized by governments across the globe, and how its use that way has spread. This is a phenomenon, like climate change, whose global nature makes it hard to grasp. But it seems like a serious threat to people around the globe that should be reported in a factual way as well.
20
Decades ago, I started reading articles brought to light by Project Censored, an organization that showcased reporting buried by giants of the media. Its basic stance was an implicit rebuke of mainstream media that buried the lede on important stories.
However, part of the reason they focused on stories buried by media companies was the general lack of major censorship by the government in the US.
I have not had a chance to check Project Censored in several years, as personal responsibilities have drastically cut into my reading time and my focus. I worry that they may have to change their focus to include stories the government is explicitly trying to bury.
The fact that I even have to consider this is more than slightly alarming.
I have not always been a fan of NYTimes reporting. That does not make the assessment in this column any less true.
So, for this, and for encouraging and promoting lots of good reporting: Thank you, Mr. Sulzberger.
15
Vladimir Putin shared a smiling moment with Trump as he said that in Russia, they too have the problem of ‘fake news.’ We all know how ruthless the Russian leader is with journalists who won’t be reduced to propaganda mouthpieces. Trump would be as iron-fisted if given the chance. Instead, Trump tries to build public hostility to and discredit the media by referring to them as ‘the enemy of the people.’
Nothing could be further from the truth. Journalists put their lives on the line to bring us truth in the most pure, complete form. The news keeps the powers that be in check. And while we can’t make freedom of the press a protected right everywhere worldwide, we should guard it as part of our own Constitution, and never excuse a president’s incendiary behavior towards the media.
23
And that’s why I subscribe and support the NY Times. Thank you for doing what you do.
146
Democracy is only robust when the government is representative of the people and not the dynastic plutocracy. Can no one remember why this country was founded?
Without any interesting the welfare of every citizen’s health and welfare, how can we move forward into any kind of future but the dystopian nightmare that awaits us if we allow this course of great greed and folly to continue?
6
You had me from the moment you mentioned "truth." It is so difficult to discern in today's world of ever-present social media, and that's why it's more important than ever for professional, quality news-gathering organizations such as the NY Times and Washington Post to delve even harder into the facts and to report them as objectively as possible, especially when it comes to reporting on the activities of our elected officials. Our nation cannot survive without a free press and if its citizens stop believing that, we are destined to collapse.
26
i must applaud this opinion as being relevant, truthful, vitally important, informative, just beautiful, and very american. thank you sir for this eloquent opinion.
23
Censorship no longer works by hiding information from you; censorship works by flooding you with immense amounts of misinformation, of irrelevant information, videos of people falling, SMNR and music videos, until you're just unable to focus. Most of us are flawed beings, when confronted with low-hanging fruit in the Tree of Life, we have to resist plucking it. To put it another way, If offered $50 today or $100 in a year, most people take the money and run, even though it's against their best interests. However, if offered $50 in five years or $100 in six years, almost everybody chooses the $100! Our decisions are guided by the perceived values at the moment of the decision - not by the potential final value. This is why I think so many of us are distracted by the less nutritious products with larger advertising budgets that my business compete against.
When public goods are present, everything changes. Information is an almost perfect example of a pure public good. It is completely non rival and largely non excludable. Non rivalry means that, once produced, information can be used by as many people as can gain access to it, without reducing its availability to others. The crucial development of the Information revolution has been to reduce the cost of distributing information, in many cases effectively to zero. The crucial development here is the ease with which information that promotes the public good can be reproduced and made available on social media.
3
Great comment. The problem, though, is that in ad-supported digital media, i.e. on the current version of the internet dominated by Google, Facebook and Twitter, nonsense and extremism (fake news) enjoy an insurmountable business advantage over journalism and informed opinion (real news).
Real news is expensive and takes time to produce. Fake news by contrast costs nothing and can be produced in the time it takes to type it.
Real news, by virtue of its necessary complexity and adherence to humdrum fact, provokes measured reaction (aka “engagement”). Fake news is explicitly engineered to drive engagement, whether outraged or enthused.
Net, fake news costs less to produce and earns more, in addition to accomplishing its ideological aims quite easily. The decline of journalism and democracy is an externality, or unavoidable side effect, of the rise of ad-supported (“free”) digital media.
To solve the incalculably important human problems discussed here, we first have to solve this really dumb but somewhat intractable economic problem. We need to make real news a better business than fake news.
“Trump administration intended to sit on the information and let the arrest be carried out. The official feared being punished for even alerting us to the danger.”
This is unconscionable and if true add this to the growing list of crimes this vile person needs to account.
113
@Robert
The “official” simply stated his “ thoughts” on the matter. He had no proof of what Trump or his administration might do.
4
Excellent. I was unable to put it down and then realized that we readers, in the US, take our press freedoms too easily for granted.
34
You are a writer, Sir.
I look forward to reading more of your work.
6
Some journalists do indeed bravely report on various injustices that harm the public good, but mostly the media carries water for the left and the Dems.
6
@Liz:
"Carries water for the left and the Dems."
Ha ha ha ha! Right. Vast corporations, who control billions of dollars and are never satisfied with their profits, carry water for the left. Yeah.
Oy.
2
Donald Trump used to love love love the press. No piece of press was too small for this man. Ask him for his favorite cookie and he'd call you back in two minutes to say "Chocolate chip! No, wait. What kind of cookie gets me the headline?" It was Hillary, battle-scarred from Whitewater and Monica and all things Bill--who would freeze up when a journalist was near. If Twitter shut down the President's account for hate-mongering, the media refused to give a platform to his inane lies, and Congress did its democratic duty to impeach this staggeringly corrupt and ill-informed leader, we'd all be better off.
10
How many conservatives do you have in your news room? Please don't pretend you cover all issues when it is apparent you only cover issues that align with your team's worldview.
Like my instructor for beginning journalism at UC Davis once said, "whatever you cover, cover it truthfully. You don't have to cover everything."
Despots and their followers will continue to pronounce you the enemy of the people, and will continue to gain more followers, until you open up your blistering criticism to other equally deserving subjects.
16
@David Foster
here! here! An NYT reader that gets it.
3
@David Foster
Maybe you should ask: how many conservative reporters are willing to write unbiased reports.
2
@Grace
I'd say the same percentage as progressive or liberal reporters. Why do you think otherwise? Do you think a right-leaning new grad would pass on the offer to work at the New York Times if it meant they'd have to write unbiased articles?
1
Every day until the election The NY Times needs to have a column in the far right hand corner of the newspaper’s first page shining a spotlight on Trump’s dishonesty. Offer a ‘reward’ for his tax returns and condemn him in the strongest possible language until the majority of the country understands how improper all this is. A third of the US still supported Nixon after he resigned but this is far worst. All the news that’s fit to print must be put aside until we are assured that Trump is a one term president.
4
@Tom Ryan >..yes AND a column with a spotlight on false Facebook news. Call out Facebook for its laissez-faire, blatantly false stories if they are going to stay in the game as purveyors of important news items!
2
The NY Times is now very much a part of the existing political establishment in the US - hardly worthy of the vitriol thrown by conservatives.
Truly independent investigative journalism died some time back in this country.
Sitting on the NSA surveillance story for a year allowed George W Bush to be re-elected.
6
Reporters Without Borders ranks the United States the 48th freest press in the world. Just behind Romania and just ahead of Senegal. Discuss.
11
Well, maybe if the op-ed pages of the NYTimes and other old stalwarts were not 95% pro-Democrat, you would all be doing better. Only 35% of Americans are Dems. And of them, maybe 1/2 of those are Warren/Sanders/AOC lovers, hell-bent on higher taxes and more government.
When 95% of staff think one way, while only 17% of Americans think the same way.... well... welcome to your decline.
10
This is a two way street: the NYT is just as guilty here.
It’s always a ‘war’, ‘savage’ or some other over-the-top wording in a headline. Trump heads to ‘war’ over X, Republican continue ‘onslaught’, etc. War is not Trump leaving the commode to argue in a microphone. But the Times likes the trumped up language for engagement then throws its hands in the air when people are mad!
The rhetoric and writing style is to engage and get the most coveted two metrics in digital: try and repeat, and visits.
The diversity of thought is basically ‘Trump bad/racist… and here is why!’ from Blow, Goldman, etc. Every. Single. Week.
Furthermore, the photojournalism on the NYT is tailored to its audience: protest against Trump in Dayton (there were like 85 people) front page when he visits looking like thousands were there, always poor women and kids when it’s border issues (when it’s usually single men); it’s a predictable trend.
A.G. needs to take a hard look at the newsroom and ask why a lot of people do not hold the NYT in such high regard, besides its highly educated liberal audience. Mueller Report every day before its release, Trump win in 2016, Kavanaugh story butchering, etc.
Fake news isn't really true, but biased and pushing a narrative, yes.
11
@Scott - Trump IS bad and IS a racist. He lies incessantly. You have Fox, Sinclair, Newsmax, the Wall Street Journal and talk radio to tell you otherwise. I expect the Times to report what he says and does, and that's exactly what they do. If you want the glossed over, prettied up version, you have the above.
Thank goodness for the NY Times, they've kept me sane and informed for over twenty years. Are they perfect? No, but they try and when they mess up, they own up and correct.
Too many journalists have a liberal bias. Physician heal thyself.
12
Why did you wait so long to write this column?! Too little, too late.
1
I'll have a subscription to the NYT until I'm in my grave.
9
It was a privilege to grow up when people read newspapers. I’m even more grateful for the times people could discuss what they had read.
9
Thanks to our journalists we have elected Obama and Trump as the presidents.
You still don’t know they have lied everything they told you?
Who was supposed to inform you about that? The journalists?!
Allegedly they were fighting on your behalf but ended up personally wealthier multiple times.
When the troops fight for you, they lose their lives, limbs and minds…
You still cannot recognize the bare truth?
@Kenan Porobic
By NOT reporting the NSA surveillance being carried out under the Bush administration, the NYT contributed greatly to W's re-election in 2004.
It is difficult to believe that this nation would not have been better off if Bush II remained a one term president, having achieved that under most questionable circumstances.
5
The passion against bias often comes to a head in our thinking about news organizations. In certain circles, there is a particular loathing for what is termed biased news – and a belief in the option of decent news organizations which are going to always and inherently be unbiased. Unfortunately, there is simply no way of providing factual, ‘unbiased’ answers to the really big issues facing societies. News organizations that vaunt their neutrality forget that neutrality is simply impossible vis a vis the really urgent questions confronting our civilization. The word ‘bias’ ultimately simply alludes to the business of having a ‘take’ on existence. One may have a better or worse take, but one needs a take. One needs eventually to tackle the question of what is important, just, worth striving for. If news or information or even philosophy are to matter to us, really matter, they will have to be presented to us by organizations that have tried to think through the ends of human life, that have a vision of where we are trying to go as a species, and that have somewhere articulated their answers to their audiences. The issue is not – therefore – the illusory and timid one between bias and fact but between better and worse varieties of bias.
A presumption among many thoughtful people is that the great enemy of a good life and a decent world is something called ‘bias’. By bias, people have come to understand a twisting of the facts towards dark & entirely nefarious ends. According to this interpretation, bias is invariably & necessarily bad. In some quarters, the word has simply grown synonymous with evil. In order to hate bias so much, one has to love the idea of something else with equal passion: ‘the facts’. People hate bias because they ultimately believe in the redemptive possibility of something completely objective, & scientifically verifiable. Loathing of bias is the flip side of faith in facts. Facts evidently exist in many areas of life. Science and many of the human sciences are beautifully based on evidence-based, fact-yielding work. The problem is that in many of the most important aspects of existence, there simply are no ‘facts’ available. The big questions that bedevil us, individually & collectively, have no facts to appeal to. – How should we live? – What is the right economic system to institute? – What sort of relationships should we have? – What choices should we make? – Who are we & what do we want and need? In the face of such dilemmas, we may well long for facts – by which we really mean, answers we can be assured will be indisputably correct. But we invariably face ambiguity &, whatever answers we formulate, a degree of loss, & the risk of blindness and error.
2
The real threat to journalism is not bullets or political repression, but the shrinking demand for traditional news outlets. To counteract this newspapers have ratcheted up the aggressiveness of their reporting to stimulate more reader interest, subscription sales, publicity and thus, hopefully, advertising revenues. As a practical matter what this has meant is becoming more politicized, less objective, and moving further to the left, and actively, though not admitting it, shading their reporting toward party-tinged sensationalism. At what point news organizations cross the line between aggressive reporting and leftist political flag-waving becomes hard to discern and the perceived objectivity of even the most prestigious news organizations becomes suspect--but the readership base does not stop shrinking. What is the future of journalism beyond entertainment, scandal-mongering, political incitement and, dare I say it, fake news? It's hard to see a future for traditional newspapers. What new medium will fill the gap (if it is even to be filled) is not yet very clear.
12
It’s very clear twitter lies, FB lies and WhatsApp lies are gathered future of NEWS media.
6
Of all the important work to come out of the Times every day during this wretched political chapter in American life, this is one of the most vital.
I wonder if this might become a new and regular column or section: to shine a sustained and detailed spotlight on the abuses of journalists and journalism happening around the globe. It’s not just democracy that dies in darkness (thank you WP) but also people and dignity and justice. This is a project worthy of funding and muscle and column inches.
41
If our journalists were free and independent, their reporting would be identical too.
In that case, the foodball and the basketball games would have been commercial free, without any unnecessary interruption, as well as the movies, sitcoms, dramas and everything else.
The TV channels, the cable outlets and the newspapers wouldn’t live on the advertisement income but would be selling the information and entertainment directly to the customers (reader, viewers, listeners) through the paid subscriptions.
Ther would be no massive brainwashing of the most vulnerable segments of the population like the toddlers, children and teenagers.
There would be no epidemic drug addictions, being drinking, obesity or blue-screen addictions.
That would be some completely different world, full of honesty, personal integrity and above all, the truth…
There would be no lying politicians willing to promise anything to get elected.
Do you know what would be the prerequisite for such a world?
The free and independent journalism critical of each and every social injustice or harmful practices…
2
People are reading and writing more than ever... yet, there are fewer newspapers. I receive my news online, and spend very little of my time watching evening news on television.
I am very grateful for having access to the New York Times. The reporting is excellent and the opinion pieces are insightful and fun to read. I don’t know where I’d go for news if I did not have my Times subscription.
(I very much enjoy reading the Times and listening to The Daily podcast, great journalism for the modern age!)
18
Try The Guardian. It is actually even free.
Much more objective than the Times which is clearly a status quo paper who went out of its way to endorse the flawed Hillary Clinton while slamming unfairly her opponent, an honest man.
4
@Boethius I'm sticking to my NY Times subscription too. The idea of free information is extremely dangerous when it comes to the news industry. If there’s so much free information out there, how do you get people’s attention? This becomes the real commodity. At present there is an incentive in order to get your attention – and then sell it to advertisers and politicians and so forth – to create more and more sensational stories, irrespective of truth or relevance. Some of the fake news comes from manipulation by Russian hackers but much of it is simply because of the wrong incentive structure. There is no penalty for creating a sensational story that is not true. We’re willing to pay for high quality food and clothes and cars, so why not high quality information? @blunt enough?
1
The First Amendment to The United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
20
Put INDIA at the top of the list where journalism is threatened/practically non-existent as we know it.
We know the US is going through its own mini-crisis; but spare a thought (or better, thoroughly investigate and report) for sensible Indians who lack sources (except NDTV) that question/criticize the Nazi-wannabe Modi government.
Once you look into India, you will get a better appreciation of the real meaning of LAPDOGS. You will be amazed at the disposition of many Indians to docilely and apathetically accept (and even embrace) this state of affairs.
19
One way to eliminate at least some "fake news" is to stop reporting the Twitter feed of Individual 1. These "dispatches" are carefully timed to constantly disrupt the news cycle and distract from what is really going on. Focus on the "really going on" part.
Don't even bother trying to bring back the 82% of Republicans who believe (46-1)* more than the news media. They're lost, maybe not forever, but for a sufficiently long time.
*This presumes that the 22nd Amendment will not be repealed and there will actually be a 46th President of the United States.
41
@The View From Downriver Explain how to avoid reporting on trump's twitter feed when he is using it to make policy. Would it be any different if he was standing at a podium saying the same things? He's the president, it's awful, but that's the way it is right now.
6
@Dave Wilcox
Yes, it would be very different from a podium than hiding behind whatever device is being used to post on Twitter.
He would have to be in public, in front of cameras for people to see and hear the delivery of the words.
He would have to at least have a modicum of being in the highest office in the land (I hesitate to say "Presidential").
His mannerisms, tone and emotion would be on display for all to see, and, frankly, preserved for use later.
There is at least a small chance that someone could respond, or ask questions, or more likely, it would be demonstrated once again that queries and follow ups are not taken, not responded to, or treated with derision, as if we have no right to question or challenge.
And there would likely be additional words beyond the whatever number of characters there are, probably delivered in anger and possibly providing more evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
In short, there could be more accountability.
3
In many countries, journalists are being targeted because of the role they play in ensuring a free and informed society...
Yes, and the clergy is allegedly working for God...
The journalists are the employees of the for-profit companies, like the tellers, cashiers and laborers.
All of the above work for those who pay them...
1
Ken, don’t indulge in reductionist what-aboutism. Of course journalists work for pay, they live in a wage economy in which everyone works for pay. So do social workers, brain surgeons and, oh, heavens, philosophers, dramatists and even poets— although the poets are usually paid by university writing departments. Assuming that accepting pay means that conscience has been sold is equally reductionist. It does a disservice to the 1,352 reporters, photographers and editors who since 1992 have been bombed, machine gunned, beaten to death, had their throats cut, mysteriously fallen off buildings and simply disappeared — all so that folks like you have some inkling of what’s going on and have the freedom to mock them in the New York Times.
22
This is a ringing clarion call to pay heed to the incredibly high stakes we are facing, both here in the US and around the “free world.” Your account of our government’s failure to protect a New York Times journalist is telling and horrifying. Our country’s leadership has been infected by a virus that targets democracy and seeks, by undoing ours, to undo the liberal world order. Your voice lends grave emphasis to the imminence of the threat. Thank you for reminding us of our ideals and of how hard your dedicated journalists work to defend and promote them around the world.
138
It’s a true shame that we live in a country and a time where you had to even write this. God help us.
35
I challenge Fox News to read this aloud, on camera, with no other comment whatsoever, during a prime-time "news"cast, as Fox's acknowledgement that free, open, and unbiased journalistic coverage is vital to a free and open society.
15
I currently subscribe to three newspapers despite barely having enough time to read all that I want to read. But it’s so important to support the free press. I hate what Trump has done with his “fake news” utterances. We must fight back.
35
They are being targeted in many countries. It's an outrage.
But they are free to peddle nonsense in this country. As was the case in this newspaper just 8 days ago. Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly stretched the truth while ignoring facts because a story "rang true."
We need a free and informed society in the USA, too.
7
I agree journalism is under threat.
I read the Times daily.
It’s “news analysis”
It’s both sidism
It’s press releases of the fascists passed off as reporting
It’s access journalism, meaning trading inside gossip for press releases
Has me convinced journalism is dead. And this is the best out there.
8
Fair and responsible journalism is tremendously valuable as Sulzberger explains.
Fair and responsible journalism cannot coexist in an organization with strongly partisan views, such as the Times.
Sulzberger and the Times must choose whether the priority of the Times is responsible journalism or a tool for strongly partisan views.
It cannot be both.
16
An excellent piece by Mr. Sulzberger.
With some luck maybe it will become an “editors pick” and get huge real estate on the home page of the website and edge out that hard hitting piece about how to boil an egg.
5
@D. L.
The egg boiling piece is excellent. Fact based. Tested.
1
Tyrannies, classically speaking, are established through popular consent when the status quo is perceived to be ineffectual and operating solely out of self-interest. The “election” of Donald Trump shows that we are teetering on the edge of such a change in government, because of the increasing inability of our elected leaders to act in the best interests of the country, rather then the best interests of the monied class who fund their campaigns.
6
When I read a particularly good New York Times opinion piece I'll spread it around through social media after having islolated a great quote or paragraph as the lead to the post.
I thought I'd be able to do it with this column. Not a chance. I wouldn't know where to begin.
This is the best column I've read this year. Nicely done, Mr. Sulztberger! Nicely done!
24
@david
Perhaps the media should understand their part in sowing the anger and mistrust in the world of information.
I would highly recommend “do we really understand ‘fake news’ “ by Michael Lynch, a professor of psychology at UConn.
It is an intelligent analysis of what really goes on in the minds of readers today— and the relationship to current editorial practice. It’s published in this very paper but unfortunately was buried soon after it appeared.
For an intelligent and enlightening analysis on our consumption and production of media today, read the article by Michael P. Lynch, PhD in psychology at UConn, in this very paper. It’s the kind of writing that is highly relevant to this specific article. I wish there was more like it of in papers like the NYT.
1
Just wondering why Julian Assange hasn't been mentioned as one of the current journalist who is suffering, that he published the truth about the wrongdoings of our governments.
what about whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden? Without these whistleblowers, the NYT would have fewer sources to uncover the truth...
6
And then we have Trump favoring Fox "News"...an oxymoron if there ever is one!...and calling everyone else "fake". Ridiculous but true, and scary!
12
It’s commendable to hear from the publisher that the company values journalists and the truth. Trump’s success is partially the result of the press’ soft coverage of his administration and personal shenanigans. Although the Times has published great reporting, the stories are soon forgotten. A good editor would find a creative ways to keep readers abreast of follow-ups or new developments. We don’t see enough of this. The paper may beg to differ, still... you should be screaming: “where are my Woodwards and Bernstein’s”. Indeed, where?
To advance democracy, however, the paper has to have better journalist representation. That means, more diversity by all categories, regionally, by gender, ethnicity and orientation. The Times editorial page is too parochial, composed of people from NY or from a single ethnic group - don’t mean race - with specific interests and agenda.
In this election cycle, for instance, there’s an aggressive push to advance the notion that “centrism” is trending in the country. However, as the GM strike illustrates, and miners who’re still waiting for Godot to bring them goodies, this is not the case. That’s why Trump got elected and Sec. Clinton is making a mint giving speeches. A second Trump term would be sinful: great for Jared, not for working families or world peace -placing the global economy in that bucket. So, please ask your Editors to expand the talent pool - send a note to editor Bennet.
6
As Philip K. Dick once said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Finding that reality, that truth, is the journalists' job. It is the publisher's job to ensure it is disseminated. It is the readers' job to overcome personal experience, bias & preference to accept truth and act accordingly.
Thank you, Mr. Sulzberger, for making this clear to your audiences.
25
The people of the United States have all sorts of erroneous beliefs. A free press is powerless against willful ignorance, but we need one anyway. Where would we be without the news casts depicting extreme weather events? But as we know, even college educated people ignore the warnings about Climate Change and the current administration has tried to ban the subject. This administration would even alter weather reports for political purposes.
Current and future generations depend on us using our best science in making decisions.
The free press is about more than politics.
9
@Greta
"A free press is powerless against willful ignorance, but we need one anyway."
This is the most astute statement of all the comments I've read here.
"Willful ignorance" is truly the reason for Trump's election in 2016 - and it's a sad but objective description of the average American.
It explains the anti-vaxxers for sure.
It also explains the rise of evangelical Christians and their brainwashing of children and women.
It also explains the anti-science trend in government.
Willful ignorance will cause the downfall of America.
2
I'm not so sure as Sulzberger claims that journalist are working to ensure free and informed societies. People with a penchant for reporting in the media what's happening all contribute to the imagining of human experience on the earth. Naturally, all reporting is something of a fiction, a personal interpretation. I always TRUST video journalism, preferably with sound, in the hands of greatness. Not much of that these days!
2
Thank you Mr. Sulzberger. Never thought I'd read an article like this in any U.S. news outlet. It's just tragic that our President has spawned so much of this hateful rhetoric aimed at our journalists.
But more so, our Republican Congress has by its silence condoned this behavior. They then are just as culpable as the President and his Administration.
I subscribe to the Times and Post, and now will support the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.
191
@cherrylog754 I also subscribe to the NYT and WaPo & your statements remind me that I am derelict in not supporting CPJ & RWB. I will fix that soon. I also support The Guardian as another beacon of truth and light.
All the Dem POTUS candidates should issue statements of support for the Free Press and journalists across the planet.
4
Thank you for your insightful and strong piece Arthur! The NYT has become my go-to since my local paper, (The Oregonian, remember them?) stopped speaking for the people and began speaking for the Republican Party, which in losing its own identify, stands behind an incompetent White House occupant. Democracy is defined by truth, keep telling it please!
10
This piece is both inspiring and a little annoying.
A free press is indeed essential to democracy on a national and international scale. And local press is essential to my community. I am grateful for high quality news gathering and (as Sulzberger rather crassly requested) I am a prolific subscriber to various outlets.
But journalists are sometimes a little too eager to remind anyone who will listen that their profession is the noblest. They can be loathe to admit mistakes, misjudgments and bias. Yes, even the NYT.
Sulzberger is running a really good paper. Even with its faults the NYT deserves to be considered America’s best. But a little humility goes a long way.
9
@Cousy
Fast retractions are common in the media. Still waiting for any from the white house. Ditto humility.
1
Journalists as Enemies of the People?
Fake news?
Media, social media and the absolute explosion and myriad of junk content?
I also have been thinking of Orwell’s 1984.
Put your money where your mouth is - full paid subscriptions to NYT, other respected press, importantly including local press. Other respected print media.
We have a role on the world stage. But we’re also a big country ourselves. How to get to the narratives, stories and issues that will engage the heartland? And more so, to get the heartland to read and believe these journalists?
We need these readers and we need these voters, desperately.
9
From where the Times' Chairman sits (or stands) it may not be easy to maintain that the Times is the last bastion of a free press, but it certainly is not impossible, as this speech indicates. Over the years, perhaps, there have been many many instances where and when this role has been called into question by the most illustrious and eminent sources. Objective reporting is a red herring, especially where truth, in its essence, is concerned. Let us take the statement: "The CIA's fifth column in Guatemala in June of 1954 was a failure." Well, from the standpoint of its undermining the Guatemalan army's resolve to support President Arbenz, it certainly was not--whatever military failures it endured notwithstanding. Prior to this, the Times' reporter Sidney Gruson, who was expelled twice from the country, sought to play both sides of a situation which was fraught with paranoiac reactions. He seemed biased in favor of United Fruit being characterized as an American business which was being persecuted by the Communist inspired Guatemalan government. This was more or less the State Department Line. But the bottom line is, such a bias only contributed to the general malaise, which the CIA sought to create so as to overthrow the government, and in the process unleash forces which resulted in the murder of over 200,000 people in the years hence, by a dictatorial government backed by the U.S. This failure to heed the consequences of action needs to be redressed, not only on the ground.
3
Unfortunately today media is controlled by 6 corporations. These corporations cater to their wealthy owners rather than to the subscriber of their media. The journalists at these media corporations are hired precisely because they share a similar worldview and will not shake thing up by reporting anything not supported by their bosses( they don’t want to get fired - jobs are hard to get). A lot of journalists depend on access to for example person inside government or the military - so this slants the coverage.
The NYTimes has supported every war since WWII. The foreign news coverage seems like it is taken straight from the State Department or from the military. On domestic coverage of for example the 2020 election they have assigned Sydney Ember having worked for the financial industry and BlackRock the largest investor in coal. Since 2016 it has been continuous anti-Bernie, including Opinion writers. It is also anti-Medicare for All, since all the Opinion writers and articles vigorously are against it. This does not align with their readers.
There are many good writers and articles written by journalist buried in this paper, but are overshadowed by the owners control.
47
@steve
Bravo. When the most believable part of the paper is the food section, you know there's an issue.
What Sulzberger writes is true, but he has no license, really, to write it. Bring back the public editor and make sure it's someone like Margaret Sullivan, who apparently scared NYT powers that be so much that the position was abolished.
The paper can afford bulletproof vests and armored cars and lawyers and too many other things to mention. But it pleads poverty when it comes to employing an objective ombudsman to look out for readers' interests and keep the paper honest?
Please.
13
@steve I absolutely agree, especially with everything anti-Bernie. During this election cycle, I've found most information about his campaign through his Facebook and Facebook meme pages--admittedly not the best and most reliable sources, but where else am I meant to go when my favorite candidate receives so little media coverage, especially in comparison to 2016?
2
And that is why you should also support other news organizations and not merely the Times. No single source should be taken as the end-all be-all for your news; seek out multiple high quality sources to inform you instead.
2
This is not just a perilous time for journalists, but for our country. Words matter, especially those that come from the President of the United States. The continued repetition of the phrases "fake news" and "enemy of the people" is dangerous. We have to assume responsibility since we elect our leaders- including those who can, rather than enable, be a check and balance to concerning behaviors of the president.
34
The current Man in Office is truly two moves away from checkmate. All he needs to do is to pass a law making fake news illegal, and then set up an Office of Journalistic Integrity, under his control. Goodbye all real news. Goodbye First Amendment.
No, of course, it could never happen here. Of course. Never. Preposterous. Of course. But if you look at it, he’s really, really close. One bad mistake on the part of the press, one major national emergency, and it can be done. With a Republican controlled Congress, it could be done by Executive Order. It could also pass the Supreme Court. And he’d have the support of news organizations themselves - Fox News, Limbaugh, etc would probably be all for it. And of course, of his base, even the educated among whom believe mainstream media to be in the control of a shadow government. (Forbiddenknowledge.com and many others).
Stuff of 1930s novels? Probably, at the moment. But people in power want to hide as much as possible from the citizenry. Given the right opportunity, they will seize it. They always have, and they always will.
18
NYT is the greatest source of news and in-depth reporting ever. It informs better than all others. US media in general is not so great. As younger generations shifted to internet news sources with inaccurate and incomplete information, knowledge and perspectives have skewed sharply to less understanding of critical events and how they impact life and liberty.
This shift has had ramifications on the TV news networks of Cronkite, Jennings and the many other great news broadcasters. The mainstream networks are all about audience and not information. They devote 50% of their meager 30 minutes less 12 to 13 minutes for commercial breaks to entertainment. It leaves less than 14 minutes to actual news. Their words per minute have increased to a rate that many would have trouble comprehending. There is NO in-depth reporting except on PBS.
For the life of me, I cannot understand as generalized info-entertainment sources, when anyone can access the same info on social media, how these so-called national news desks will be able to survive. They highlight, but do not report.
5
The growing threat to journalism is that it has become so politically motivated, people stop believing that the information is even true
10
Well done! Beautifully written! It is one of the lessons Timothy Snyder writes of in his book "Tyranny" - Defend Institutions - the free press/journalism.
21
Nobody said being a journalist wasn’t hard or without peril but that itself doesn’t excuse the constant shaping of narratives and propaganda spreading of certain political slants. In this country the news media is it’s on worst enemy not Trump.
6
AG,
Bravo. Please write more often in addition to performing your job as "Publisher" of this esteemed GLOBAL newspaper. Thank you for your service to the nation and humanity at large.
48
Ha! I thought this piece would be about Google and Facebook - the REAL greatest threats to journalism worldwide. Hey Art - you're looking in the wrong direction!!!
5
Mr. Sulzberger's opinion piece is a masterful understatement concerning the threat to democracy posed by Trump and his supporters. If the public does not have confidence in our free press, truth becomes irrelevant and democracy is doomed.
We can't leave the defense of democracy solely in the hands of the elite and powerful. All of us ordinary folks must participate in the solution. And between now and 2020, that means defeating every single Trump supporter running an off year election, supporting papers like the Times and the Washington Post, and forwarding to all our friends and family copies of opinion pieces like Mr. Sullzbrger's.
35
I just finished rereading Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and was reeling throughout from the resonance with what Trump and others around the world are perpetrating on free and democratic peoples. The vilification of the press--which appears in such apparently middle-of-the-road, benign depictions such as "Blue Boods" and movies as well--and protestors as somehow unAmerican used to be the stuff of dystopian novels; it is increasingly our shared global reality. The House Democrats are already guilty of enabling this lawless, would-be dictator by refusing to file articles of impeachment because they're afraid for their own reelections. I fear that this sort of inaction is the beginning of the end of our Great Experiment.
8
@J Young
Trump and his administration is lawless and criminal. The Republicans are his enablers and will forever go down in history as such.
6
Brilliant. These are indeed scary times for the truth. The subversion of the press by the president of the United States is something I never thought I’d witness. He is anathema to everything this country stands for.
Long live the Free Press. Long live the New York Times! PB
295
@pbilsky
In Sulzberger's extended clarion call for “press freedom,” however, and his lengthy condemnations of Trump, Sulzberger did not so much as mention the only journalist and publisher currently facing criminal prosecution at the hands of the US government:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
The omission was all the more striking, given that Sulzberger’s speech was delivered the day after Assange’s custodial sentence on bogus British bail charges ended. A British judge has decreed that Assange must remain jailed indefinitely in a maximum-security prison ahead of and during proceedings for his extradition from Britain to the US, which begin on February 25, 2020.
In other words, the various pseudo-legal pretexts for Assange’s arbitrary detention have fallen away. He is now being explicitly held as a political prisoner, at the behest of the Trump administration.
To safe guard the free press the best defense is by having a newspaper as the Times used to be.The focus of the paper needs be unbiased, truthful .You need to get back to your roots.The Editorial Board is knee-jerk anti-Trump.You need balance.
27
@Gdk
No, it's knee-jerk anti-LIE.
26
@Gdk I don’t believe it’s “knee jerk ant Trump”. I believe they speak the truth about this abhorrent president, his supporters and the vile things they are foisting on the country and the world. PB
55
@Gdk what’s not truthful in the editorial? Trump attacks the press every chance he gets except of course for his very own state run channel, Fox “News.”
27
I'm sorry to say, but you are 100% correct. The age of enlightenment is ending and we are now entering the second dark age!
13
Thank you for sharing the truths as you know them. It is shocking we have come to this precipice where American leadership in Washington DC is not defending a free press and hard working journalists here and around the world. This demonization of the free press and journalists by President Trump and his administration harm all Americans here and abroad. It makes all Americans and our allies less safe.
23
Here here! I don’t know what else to say, except thank you to all the journalists and photographers who take risks to keep me in the know. I subscribe to the NYT, the WaPo and the Atlantic, and I’ll keep that up as long as you’re fighting the good fight.
73
@Steve: Please cancel your subscription to The Atlantic, which has terrible labor practices -- my cousin worked there and saw the demoralizing treatment of employees up close and often -- and instead subscribe to Slate or The New Yorker.
@Steve
Hear! Hear!
1
Thank you, Mr Sulzberger, for this important piece. So much is at stake, and we all need to be awake to what's happening. Thank you for calling it out, and for the ways the Times tries to and succeeds in living up to its mission.
195