This is just NYT trying to justify why it has always been opposed to Trump and why it blatantly supports Biden at all times.
NYT is as biased as anyone can be.
I think that one of the big problems with actual bias or the appearance of bias by print "journalists" is their appearances on television and radio and offering "analysis" instead of black and white facts. Another issue is headline writing: who writes it and who edits the headline. Too often the headlines do not mirror the content t of the article. The definition of "Fake News" is broader than just erroneous facts. It is the tone in which a headline or article is written or the way a question is framed.
1
LOL.
1
I'm a little behind in my reading these days. Finally having caught up with this article, I am glad I missed it. It is so irrelevant and frankly not believable. Everyone has an opinion. As to not voting - well, I don't need to read nor listen to your opinion. I'll be passing from now on.
3
There is always a bias in what to report and what not to report, what narrative to push and what not to push. It always feels to me that the target demographic of this paper is well-off suburban liberals who are performatively PC and "compassionate" (but NIMBY, of course), while at the same time politically moderate or conservative in all other aspects.
This paper is filled with coarse feminist perspectives, for example, but fair critiques of those perspectives are almost non-existent. And if a woman did it, it is celebrated in the most glowing terms. If a man did the same thing... eh, nothing to see here.
The opinion pages are filled with moderates and conservatives, but no true progressives to provide a balanced perspective. You'll find little positive news about Bernie Sanders and his policies and little bad news about Joe Biden and his lack of policies. This overall bias is glaring.
I see the same mistakes going on here that goes on in dubious political campaigns, which is pandering to demographics that you hope to win over, or at least whose criticisms you want to keep at bay, while simultaneously condescending to and rejecting an important base (young people, men, progressives), without which you have no future.
1
The problem with many journalists is that they are in fact not objective in their work. They almost pathologically can not bring themselves to be straightforward and to the point with much egregious Republican behavior, thus enabling that behavior. The idea of the objective journalist above the fray shining unbiased light is too often just a pious and invidious myth that they themselves are blind to, partly because it has cache -- after all, who wouldn't want to be the objective super-conscious god-like witness? This self-serving myth enables Republicans, in particular, to get away with truly awful behavior. Indeed it is as though the job of many journalists is to be played by Republicans, and they do that very well.
4
What's very worrisome about this "avoiding preconceptions" policy is that it can be taken too far:
"Let's see, I used to think truth was important but one of the political parties doesn't believe in truth, so maybe I'm being biased by putting so much stock in what's true."
Reminds me of this immortal Tony Auth cartoon, "Teach both theories:
http://adventistperspective.blogspot.com/2007/09/teach-both-theories.html .
3
I thought I was in two minds about this; but your piece helped me to clarify my own views. Journalists have opinions of their own, and to hide them is itself a political act. I am certain that the authors of this piece agree on some fundamentals: that (most of) the Ten Commandments are worth adhering to; that a promise made should be kept; that all men and women are created (howsoever) equal; and that we don't really care what other people do so long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses.
I have had long and fruitful discussions with friends, some of whom agree with me and some of whom do not. I prefer it if I understand their general view on life because I can take that into account. If my High Tory brother-in-law looks out of the window and tells me it's raining, I believe him. If he tells me that lowering income tax, specifically his income tax, will lead to greater prosperity for all and lowering of the crime rate, I take it with a very large pinch of salt.
I think your readers are smart enough to know the truth and what's more we can handle the truth. (Unlike, say, Tom Cruise in that movie.) Although they have not declared it, I think that I could probably walk into your newsroom and, with something like 90% accuracy, sort the denizens into those who will willingly vote for the Democratic candidate in November; those who will vote D because the alternative is unthinkable; and those who will vote for the incumbent.
2
“Racism and misogyny are wrong” is a “side,” but also a basic element of human decency. So it’s important to me to remember the difference.
Absolutely true. A problem, though: What is one's definition of racism and misogyny? What words or behavior constitute the two? When is it fair, or not, to label one a racist or misogynist?
These are basic problems which the media fails to recognize. With no doubt at all, much of the media errs on the side of the left's views. In fact, there is never any discussion about the questions I have posed; little pushback except in the "conservative" media. That is wrong.
(Disclosure: I am a Democrat but objective enough to see reality.)
3
There are only a few honest Journalists, and fewer still of unbiased ones! Most writers and talkers of the Media today are sensationalists, and the Coronavirus seems to have given each a license to fearmonger as best they can! I wonder when we will require honest and factual journalism?
1
Ironic to see this just as I was debating whether or not to write a letter asking that NYT writers label their articles "editorials" or "opinion pieces". It is very disappointing to see the ratio of facts:opinions by writers these days!
4
Every journalist who claims objectivity is a liar who has problems with facts.
Every journalist who claims they can delude themselves into objectivity, is like the white bigot who says they don't see race, but flesh colored is a rosy tan band-aid.
Every journalist who doesn't identify whether they support a political candidate, or don't, is being dishonest about how their emotions will color their judgement, and that their readers deserve to know that truth. It will affect what topics that journalist will cover, what questions they will ask, and what word choice they will use in interpreting those facts.
To deny one's bias, not address them honestly as one can is dishonest. It is like reporting on a business you have an investment in without mentioning that fact. And bias and emotional connection is as much a investment as any amount of money.
Yes, If you are friends with your sources, that needs to be stated.
Part of the reason many people don't trust journalists is they lie and obfuscate their own background, their own, yes current terms, intersectionality. In doing so, they lie because they are not objective cameras and we would all be poorer if they were.
They are people, people analyzing thing based on a wide variety of experience and connect. If that is a black box, there is no way for a reader to judge effectively. It is a con game of claiming objectivity where none exists.
Part of understanding objectivity, is understanding our place as part of the world.
1
NYTimes? Impartial??? Early April Fool's article?
4
"Perhaps we need a policy on this: On Date 7 you are allowed to express your political perspectives."
For me I wouldn't even meet someone in person if there were the slightest chance they supported the current administration.
4
This is an ongoing paradox - we can either embrace our insignificance and confront life's uncomfortable truths - or we can tell ourselves a story to isolate ourselves from life's uncomfortable truths. These stories don't have to be true to have a utility, if the belief leads to socially constructive behavior, they shouldn't be frowned upon. Regardless, journalists will continue to face this dilemma until they figure out a way to monetize virtuous reporting. The common person often lacks virtue, instead we avoid looking within ourselves and making improvements. Our distractedness is apparent by how we devote too much effort seeking validation and social capital fighting external uncertainties instead. A modern version of Marcus Aurelius would write everyday insights to help him/her improve while ignoring these externalities. These writings wouldn’t be posted on social media; they’d be available only to the author to listen on an app like Voice Dream, an accessible reading tool for mobile and tablet devices. - The same was true of Marcus Aurelius’s ‘Meditations’, whose purpose and application was for personal clarity and not public benefit. This practice allows 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.
Having journalistic integrity is akin to opening a juice bar in your neighborhood - Neighbors see value, but not all the neighbors support your business regularly to keep it open. Offering your community only healthy food options is noble and altruistic. Unfortunately, in order to begin a transparent, well intentioned discussion with journalistic integrity, it’s necessary to agree the resistance we face is either conscious or unconscious. If well meaning citizens insist they have nothing to hide, understand what is involved and have strong motivation, we can only assume the resistance must be unconscious. Part of the goal of journalism should be to bring attention to the things we don’t think we’re bad at and help individuals work through the unconscious resistance. This will involve a great deal of introspection & even then, it’s an extremely difficult job. One doesn’t usually have proper insight into ones own emotional makeup. The owners of the media know most of us spend our time trying to rationalize our behavior as a result of our lack of self awareness. It's more profitable to create content that helps confirm biases than to encourage a world where we accept the idea “becoming” has no goal and that underneath all “becoming” there is no grand unity in which the individual could immerse themselves completely as in an element of supreme value - instead of judging ourselves & others for things we did or didn't do, we all can instead invent a world beyond it, a true world.
I think Peter Baker and all other
journalists should vote. Mr. Baker is a great reporter because of his ability to gather and analyze facts and establish the truth. Seeking the truth is not a partisan project, no matter what Donald Trump says. Of course Mr. Baker knows what his own opinions are. His work is great proof of his objectivity. He can do that fine work without somehow hiding his opinions from himself. And, in any event. you can give up voting and jump through other hoops, but I think it's impossible to stop people from yelling "fake news," if that's what they want to do.
2
I think it is possible to be partial but remain objective in reporting... that won't be me, though. As a leftist, I can't imagine ever being able to write about a right-wing rally without putting my own framing and slant on it.
I do value the neutral reporter and their reporting, which is how fence-sitters are moved from their spots and confirmation bias can be countered. I'd argue that the middle ground is the prized battle turf to be won by either side (biases, usually on extreme ends, are harder to shift to your side and have more ground to cover in comparison).
What's more important? To convert the non-converts or to be able to join them out there?
1
Baker would be relegated strictly to the opinion section at a newspaper that was not entirely opinion.
2
When you don't vote, you are abdicating not just your rights as a citizen, but your RESPONSIBILITIES as a citizen. Sure, a lot of people do it, but that doesn't mean they should. The breakdown of our nation comes from people NOT voting. For whatever reason, no matter HOW high-minded. Not voting IS the problem.
TBH, I don't WANT someone SO "impartial" that they can't do their civic duty, and hold their nose and VOTE.
If you can't vote. If you don't take your choice. You don't GET a voice.
That INCLUDES in the press. Moreover, if you don't exercise your voice writ small, in the voting booth, you should sit down and shut up, when exercising your voice writ large. You are not to be trusted. Period.
I say this as a journalist myself, and as a voting activist. I don't, personally, care who anyone votes *for.* Voting is one of the most important things we do. Short of being a billionaire, it's virtually the only thing we CAN do. If you don't vote, you shouldn't be covering politics, or anything remotely political.
Peter Baker should be "repurposed." Forthwith.
7
Community newspapers for the most part cannot really cover contract and spending decisions as in most cases the local businesses are the ones supporting it by buying advertising. So they are just forced to avoid important conflicts on how to really save town money.
"The New York Times in 1896, its mission has been “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.”
In today's world, a person would have to have the IQ of a broom handle to believe that.
14
If the Times wants to be considered impartial, it should stop making political endorsements. The reporters get tarred with the Editorial Board's views by association.
7
The Times'admiral goal of impartiality has been perverted into its day-to-day practice of both-sides political reporting. The Times reports D said this, and R said that, and leaves it to the reader to winnow truth from falsehood. But facts are facts, and lies are lies, and the Times fails its readers when it abdicate its responsibility to point out the difference.
4
Such self-congratulatory rubbish! Look at your article on Super Tuesday talking about Bloomberg and women. It wasn't until the THIRD paragraph that you mentioned a lot of big companies also settle to avoid litigation. That huge headlin/photo was NOT neutral -- and on Super Tuesday! It was HRC's emails all over again, a drum which you beat to death in 2016. Give me a break. The NYTimes is nowhere near as apolitical, noble or above the fray as it likes to think. You shine -- compared to Fox, but that is the lowest bar possible.
8
Apparently some of the people making comments don’t like that the Times’ reporters don’t take sides. I understand it would be “easier” to just get all your answers from the Times.
They do provide enough facts through good reporting ( and certainly Tumes’ readers have other sources ) to allow you to make your own decisions.
Given all the complaints in these comments, I am surprised that more don’t realize how much worse off we would be without the Times and other good journalistic organizations. In all times, but particularly now, we do need them.
2
Good news that Peter Baker is being so scrupulously impartial these days in his coverage of the White House and events taking place in DC.
But now we need to investigate to determine who's been hacking into Baker's computer at night, slipping in those sly, pejorative little adjectives when he's referencing Trump or Pence or McConnell. Could it be Haberman? Goldberg?
Maybe even Baquet himself who's influencing Baker's reportage, demeaning virtually anyone who's right of center?
7
Then why are the Times’ political articles so slanted, some obviously, others stealthily?
It’s all Democratic, left-leaning, anti-Trump. It was all hagiography for Obama.
Such self-serving hypocrisy by the reporters.
11
Ahem....will any of your never Trumper opinion essay folks be roasting Sen. Schumer today on threatening Justice Kavanaugh or will any tour Biden’s multiple strange verbal moments? I’ll be delighted if they are so balanced in the coming day and months.
7
I was trained as a librarian, a profession committed to objectivity and to free access to information of all types. To that end, all librarians regularly order, display, and help people find books and other materials they may personally dislike.
However, both librarians and journalists do have a point of view about the value of curiosity, openness and free access to information. Supporting access to a variety of perspectives is in itself a specific value with which others disagree.
It's not the fault of either librarians or journalists that providing access to all points of view is currently viewed as some kind of liberal conspiracy. Access to a wide variety of views on any given topic should instead simply be considered the fundamental right of all Americans.
5
Listen Journalists, you're the 4th Estate, those who work under the safeguards of the first amendment to the U.S. constitution that served to outline to what was formed as a DEMOCRATIC union/republic/country. To NOT call out the subversiveness of the present Executive and it's congressional R minions, nor the 'in-concert' political lean of SCOTUS is tantamount to helping to destroy the democracy under which you can purposefully serve and work as writers of the (now) so-called free press. Seriously.
3
Voting is a citizen's duty. Doesn't matter what your occupation.
8
Peter Baker doesn't vote? He goes too far in his attempts at impartiality. The vote has been given to all and each one must take this responsibility.
6
@Cheryl Glasgow he votes. He will vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary and when that fails he'll vote for Joe Biden in the general election
Is this a humor piece? The NYT has been openly hostile to men for some time and has been doing backflips to promote women candidates and feminist causes in general. It's hard to imagine how the NYT expects readers to take this seriously.
9
I work for the federal government and we have a lot of restrictions on what we can do politically - not as harsh as NYT though. Jeesh.
“We should not wear campaign buttons or display any other insignia of partisan politics, such as bumper stickers or lawn signs.”
The Times has become a lawn sign.
I’ve been reading the NYT my entire adult life: from high-school years when my views aligned with those of my Republican parents, through college when an expanded worldview led me to register as a Democrat, to now middle age, in which disillusionment with the establishment has left me without a party alliance but with an unchanged desire to be informed about the world in general, and our elected representatives in particular, so that I can make the wisest decision possible at the polls.
My faith in the NYT’s ability — and willingness — to report the news while keeping its political bias confined to the opinion section has come to an end. I’ve had enough: the daily screeds on the cruelty of enforcing immigration laws; the lamentations on the inherent racism of those born white or in flyover country; the photos of the president as a sinister, shadowy harbinger of the apocalypse; the endless stories on the rise of right-wing extremism in Israel and Europe while crime and/or terrorist attacks there that are at least partially to blame for it go unreported.
It’s not fringe news the NYT omits: it’s news stories I come across via my subscriptions to the WSJ, Le Monde, and the Guardian. This self-congratulatory piece just shows that all vestiges of critical introspection are gone.
11
Yikes. There's such a thing as too much sharing:
1) Elizabeth Dias' opinion re: political marches seems cynical and rather snide.
2) Peter Baker's notion that not voting helps him not form conclusions is a bit loopy. It doesn't even make sense--who can prevent themselves from forming opinions about others. And so what if we do?
I usually appreciate these articles that try to explain process. This one is disconcerting.
8
I was a community-newspaper journalist for approximately 50 years, participating in community organizations, and voted in nearly every election. By being an active member of the community, I earned the respect of decision-makers within the community who previously refused to grant interviews to members of the press. It didn't matter what THEIR political perspective may be, I was representing a free press and MY obligation was to make sure my reporting was accurate and fair. I have been criticized for slanting my articles towards Republicans as well as toward Democrats -- often with the same article. Neutering journalists from the community isolates journalists from the beat they are covering and thus deprives the community of insight from well-trained journalists covering those beats.
Participating in the community as a journalist also gave me a chance to speak to community organizations about the importance of understanding the role of journalism in their community.
But alas, the last community newspaper I worked for is now an advertising wrapper. Citizens of my community are forced to rely on talk shows and social media to provide "information" about upcoming elections and actions by our local government. We have lost the ability for local journalists to participate in our communities and put a face on what is now described as faceless "enemies of the people."
3
I couldn't believe when I learned on the 1st date that the woman was an ardent Trump supporter. I thought she was joking.
Since then, when I meet someone, I have to know very quickly. Not interested in a Trump supporter, except how she got that way.
3
I do vote but when asked who I voted for I simply answer we have secret ballots in the US for a reason. I have no enemies and I don't want any.
4
Thank you, all, for these thoughtful comments (in the article) and responses here. Because of the nature of my work, I share the approach of Peter Baker to remain politically impartial, except for one thing. I vote. My forebears risked their lives in the 1770s to ensure that Americans could determine their political futures. It is unthinkable to me not to exercise our greatest civic duty as citizens: to vote. African Americans have died in untold numbers fighting for the vote. Women could not vote in this country until after WWI. Voting has been a sacred rite of democracy going back to the Athenian Golden Age that we regard as the cradle of our democracy. 1 person, 1 vote is the pillar of democracy.
One does not need to explain or disclose one’s vote. I have listened to many people try to explain to me why they have not voted, do not vote, and will not vote. None of their arguments make sense to me. Laziness or stroppiness are not reasonable explanations. Protest is not a reasonable explanation. One young man, in Nevada, finally snapped at me: “you can’t make me vote! So why are you even asking me this?” That was a low point in this lifelong series of conversations I’ve been lucky to have with strangers all over this country.
Peter Baker, if you are reading, could you please explain further your rationale for not voting? Thank you.
Editors, could you please develop a piece or a series that explores aspects of impartiality and civic duty in greater detail. Thank you.
12
I agree that you should be impartial in reporting on politics but often that reporting tends to not call out direct falsehoods for the sake of appearing to be impartial.
Re: Peter Baker, I respect your impartiality in reporting but to not vote is an avoidance of your duty as a citizen. You may possibly be better informed than any other voter and to shirk that duty is a shame.
10
If it's impossible to be completely neutral, I still think your reporters do better than most, and I commend you for it. You tend to ask questions and publicize information some people don't want to hear. That's the job of the press. Sometimes it means saying out loud that the emperor has no clothes, whether the emperor or his minions like it or not. You help us pay attention and make up our minds. thank you.
4
I started a 40-year career in journalism on a daily newspaper and tried hard to maintain impartiality. I covered a heavily racially-oriented school busing story and gave the comments from both sides as completely as I could. I had the impression that the leader of the quasi-racist anti-busing side wasn't sure where I stood, which I took as a professional compliment and a personal regret
2
Reading the journalists statements actually impressed me with their effort to be fair and balanced.
Just recently Trump castigated two Supreme Court justices because they had disagreed with him, so I can appreciate journalists' efforts to publicly stay neutral.
Reading the comment section here the negativity really surprised me.
1
The credibility of the Times is what keeps it alive. Lose it and the paper goes with it. Credibility comes from reporting the news without a perceptible slant.
I for one believe that the Times, which I read in print as well as here, makes a heroic effort to do just that.
Bravo to your staff for upholding a set of standards. While I applaud the strong line taken by Peter Baker, I think that he can and should vote, then keep his choice to himself.
Bottom line: only by being very by the book, by keeping your reporters opinions to themselves and thus preserving some measure of integrity can the New York Times keep coming to my driveway....literally and figuratively.
3
I remember hearing Katy Tur say she doesn't vote because she is a journalist. That is a cop out and a shirking of your civic duty. If you can't separate then find another profession.
5
I'd like to see a poll among Times journalists and employees on how many are Republicans, and in particular, how many support Trump. That's going to be a lot more revealing than these confessions to objectivity.
8
@ett I don't think we need to see a poll to know the answer to that. it is blatantly obvious in all their editorial "news."
I was a reporter at a local newspaper in Arizona for 10 years. It was, and still is, a deeply red area. I would have to "hold my nose" when I covered Republican events.
They knew I was not a supporter because of the size of the city. But that didn't stop me from writing an impartial story. I would get phone calls from party officials praising my accuracy. I was shocked that Peter Baker doesn't vote. That's beyond the pale of impartiality.
6
So sorry Peter Baker - it is unconscionable that you don't vote. I applaud the steps you take to remain impartial but not voting is taking it too far!
8
It's astonishing to read that the New York Times, the Bible of the Left, considers itself impartial. I particularly enjoyed the claim that it is impartial to claim the climate change is real because it is the truth. I'd be interested to see the falsifiable proposition that proves climate change is scientifically true. I'm sure you have some of those laying about your impartial newsroom.
8
I'm no physicist, of course. But I think Zinn was right: You can't be neutral on a moving train.
Objective, eh? Well, sure. You could call it that--but only if you were shooting for Lenny Bruce-grade irony.
Never mind Lauren Leff's BURIED BY THE TIMES., what about Ellsberg and "Pentagon papers"? The Times never stops patting its own back for betting the ranch on publishing Ellsberg's trove. But in classic Times fashion, they completely missed the point: Ellsberg proved that The Times missed the story on Vietnam for more than TWO DECADES. Sure, everyone else was misled by the government on Vietnam (From Truman to Nixon), but that's hardly an excuse.
The go-along-get-along centrist middlewit thinking that pervades The Times is--I'm just guessing here--probably why 99% of the USA says No Thank You every single day to subscribing to the Times.
The crossword isn't that good any more, either...
And moving out of Times Square over to the bus station was pretty telling, too, no?
o well. It's only $25 a month. What can we expect?
2
Although tangential, I often wonder how any publication can be considered impartial, including its journalists, when during election time, it endorses a candidate.
3
@kb
Or two.
1
Back in the dark ages, my eighth grade teacher taught me a lesson in objectivity I’ve never forgotten, and one we would all do well to learn. It was an election year, and we were assigned to research and give an oral report advocating for a candidate.
I came from a republican household, and much to my chagrin, I was assigned a democrat. When I protested, my teacher turned a deaf ear. “ Do the research,” she said.
To my amazement, when I checked the Congressional Record and other sources and compared my “candidate” with his republican opponent, I discovered that the latter rarely voted or even showed up, among other transgressions. I ended up convincing my parents to split their tickets and vote for this particular democrat.
To this day, although I eventually became a democrat myself, l’ve always done my homework before voting, and had no qualms about splitting my ticket. The moral of the story: Keep an open mind and do your homework!
5
THANK you!!!
This is long over due. The public needs to hear from journalists! Evil people have been denigrating your profession, and your personal integrity for far too long. It hurts me (not a journalist) to hear it. Please make this type of article a regular series!
2
Someone should point out to Mr. Baker that impartiality does not require one to become a formless absorbent mass.
Doctors and lawyers don’t abstain from meeting other human beings or from maintaining friendships and relationships — they don’t fear that by participating in society they may appear contaminated with human feeling and therefore incapable of treating their clients professionally.
Someone should also point out to several of your readers that impartiality does not mean never reaching conclusions, never reporting a statement’s truth or falsity, always portraying a false equivalence between wildly inequivalent things, or basically acting as stenographer to whoever holds power.
Science draws conclusions, determines truth or falsity, makes judgments regarding equivalence… and does so by relying on verifiability, reproducibility, and falsifiability, and not on some central truth-dictating power.
Impartiality simply means stepping outside of oneself to examine the facts, and then doing one’s job according to those facts… as good journalists do! But if this article gives citizens around the world the impression that journalists — or other impartial arbiters — cannot make judgments or participate in society, then it is doing a terrible disservice to those citizens.
Ms. Astor’s take on things was spot-on. And more often then not, your outlet does a credible job of reporting on the fray from beyond it. But golly, do Mr. Baker and some of your readers get it dead wrong!
7
In fact, much of NYT journalism as well as that of CNN, etc., is decidedly partisan - usually left oriented!
20
@JePense
I'd say nothing left-oriented about NYT or CNN. They are oriented towards where the mammon is. They are market libertarian, economic conservatives and cultural progressives leading with the latest woke thing. Which makes them nothing close to progressive.
1
@JePense
Of course the press is biased, and especially the NYT. When 92% of the newspapers are anti-trump and about half the general public supports Trump, that is the very definition of bias. Read the NYT any morning and see if you can find a single story that says anything favorable about Trump.
7
@JePense yes they are left leaning especially in what is chosen to be reported. But most journalists do not outright lie. Sure, there are bad actors, but overall, they are good people just like you and me.
The Times editorial policy, described here, is based on false beliefs about human decision-making. John Stuart Mills was wrong about a marketplace of ideas in which the best ultimately gain market share. The advertising business is built on the observable fact that he was wrong.
.
7
The paper has expanded what it is calling the "opinion" section to include a lot of "journalists" who will most definitely be writing vry biased "news' stories. This has been happening over time and it's upsetting that no one seems to notice they are reading hard core news written in a totally biased fashion and blatantly published under "opinion" when it is news. The straight news department has also obviously become full of OPINIONS and florid, inflammatory language.
As of this month an official "drop" of this hybrid of journalism which is indeed totally biased but written by people called opinion writers is starting.
This is a horrible development for the newspaper of record for the United States. BUT it is DEMANDED by majority of readers who ONLY want biased news.
Kiss democracy goodbye but console yourself that someone is telling you what you think. This is a horrible situation and the deepest scar Trump will leave on democracy long term -- no more fourth estate as the founding fathers called it. SAD.
16
@ck Well you are incorrect about the OpEd pages. They are most certainly someones opinions about a news item, not just "hard news" itself. But, the overall sense of the NYTimes is left of center. I don't know if this is just because of what is in the WH, but I suspect that telling the truth about the WH's lies must, by its very nature, be left of center.
1
@LesISmore What is center anyway? In every other industrialized democracy, there's some form of national health care and the conservative party supports it. In this and many other ways, the conservative parties of Canada, the UK and Germany among many others are politically similar to, or even to the left of, the Democratic Party of the United States.
Was hoping for tips on social interaction when it comes to politics tbh, so, disappointed on several levels. False claims to objectivity feel manipulative. The idea that there can be observation without participation I can't believe intelligent people would hold. The best anyone can do is include their participation in their observation.
As much as an unwillingness to 'pick a side' (as though that's not a side itself, by the way) feels lazy, ignorantly privileged, and dishonest... I'd rather have news frustratingly neutral-sounding vs sneakily closer to my own views. I do think strong but clear biases can end up giving better information than the watered-down but concealed, as long as you take in a lot of different ones.
I want the facts to help me decide for myself what actions are best for my own ideals in the real world, and this reminds me that there is simply no alternative to taking in multiple sources and not relying on only a couple. I guess there's something useful in here after all!
5
@MH It's why I tune in to Fox every so often. I want to know what other people are thinking.
Usually gives me a headache.
2
This is interesting, and good to know. It also brings up many questions about how much control an employer can or should have over the lives and minds of their employees. I have strong opinions on that subject. The song playing in my head right now is, “You Don’t Own Me.”
While it may be true that Times reporters are mandated to keep personal political advocacy out of their reporting, the paper does engage in advocacy reporting of a sociopolitical nature. In my opinion, that amounts to political advocacy.
1
About this: “Racism and misogyny are wrong” is a “side,” but also a basic element of human decency.”
No, it is not choosing a “side” to speak or report against racism and misogyny. What is taking a side, though, is something the Times does almost daily, and that is tortuously skewing too many stories to make them about race. That amounts to an agenda. That is not neutral reporting.
And do not combine “racism and misogyny” as if they were one and the same. They are not.
3
Back in the seventies - when I was a student at one of the major music conservatories here in New York City - I read a column in New York Magazine written by the magazine's music critic at the time -- a person who's opinion I often admired --
In this particular column - the critic offered a point of view which I've never forgotten --
Basically - he said -- "Over the past few seasons, I've had the opportunity to review performances of 'Mr. Famous Tenor' sing leading roles at the opera, and I've never like his singing. -
Next week I'm scheduled to attend a performance of 'Famous Italian Opera" in which 'Mr. Famous Tenor' will be singing the lead role -
Chances are very high that I will give that performance a bad review" --
For the record - I also was nver a fan of the "Mr. Famous Tenor" to which the critic was referring - so I already agreed with him -
However - what is even more important in this case was that I found the critic;s candor and honesty - brutal as it may have been - to be exceptionally refreshing -- so much so, that I still recall it fifty years later - and am reminded of it by this article...
5
I am a former, long-time newspaper copy editor, so this is very familiar. I may have had a preference for a candidate, but I never talked about it. I didn't give money to any political party. I always voted. I became a newspaperman because I wanted to contribute to society, so it didn't make sense to give up all responsibility to participate in that society. Everyone I worked with at different papers did their best to keep their biases in mind when reporting or editing the news. Did we succeed? If folks on all parts of the political spectrum thought we were biased, I'd say we probably did.
14
@HEK If American don't vote, America will cease to be America. Voting should be MANDATORY.
2
"As reporters, our job is to observe, not participate, and so to that end, I don’t belong to any political party, I don’t belong to any non-journalism organization, I don’t support any candidate, I don’t give money to interest groups and I don’t vote."
Yikes.
20
@Colleen, not voting is not a statement or a stance, it is a cop out. It’s lazy. It indicates a lack of commitment and intellectual vigor. Yikes times a thousand.
13
@Passion for Peaches It's not lazy or a cop out. Please don't assume that it is. Sometimes people have legitimate reasons for not voting, and that comes after hard and careful consideration of all the issues.
In journalism, it's not always about your impartiality, it's about public perception. Your opinions certainly matter, and yes, we all have them ... but what your readers think about your biases is also important, and it's not always accurate. Mr. Baker clearly feels this the best way to maintain public trust. I have no doubt he has come to that conclusion after careful thought. Perhaps he's right; perhaps if he isn't actively trying to form his own personal opinions, it is easier for him to listen objectively to all candidates. But that's entirely up to him to decide, not us, and it certainly doesn't make him lazy.
1
@Passion for Peaches
I disagree with Peter Baker's decision about voting but it's certainly not a cop out.
It's a principled choice. He may be wrong in his conclusion but he's spent more time considering whether to do so or not than 99% who do vote and a 100% more than those too lazy to bother.
2
I'm sorry, but this is deeply insufficient and disappointing.
How you identify "sides" is also an ideological decision. If your assumption is "there are Republicans and there are Democrats, and those are the sides we have to calibrate between" that's missing a ton of nuance, not to mention perspectives from outside the US. And where it leads time and again is, because most Times journalists are technocratic/institutionalist Democrats, you feel you have to be "fair" to right-wingers, and thus write conservative (or worse) content.
This is absolutely a form of bias. It's not the absence of bias at all. You are 100% putting a finger on the scale just as much as anyone at Fox News; in your case, you're prioritizing "balance" over truth. The Times, along with other major media actors who often follow your lead, are just like the Greek mythological ogre Procrustes, who would invite travelers to spend the night, measure them against the length of the bed, and then either cut parts off or stretch them out until they were the same size. The Times's dogma is that you cannot be seen to imply that no reasonable person could vote Republican. Hence, you apply a Procrustean framing: you shrink the Democrat and stretch the Republican until they are the same size.
And that's why voters thought Hillary Clinton was corrupt, and why the word most mentioned in coverage of her was "emails". You did this.
43
@Eli Clinton was felt to be corrupt because the biased right media painted her that way; and everyone HAD to comment on it. (FWIW I know more than a few Republicans who were biased against her even when she was first lady, they remarked about her "fat ankles" and after WJC's sex scandal broke, called her a lesbian, and that was used pejoratively.) Talk about her emails, and now once again we'll see the focus on "her server", is coming from the actions of the Right, not the NYTimes; which must only report on it.
Any reporter, like Mr. Peter Baker, who says "for me, it’s easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong", in a time of rising authoritarianism, such as is occurring in America today, should be fired. If that's the approach the Times endorses, you should simply hire stenographers to repeat what politicians, including knaves and fools, say.
32
@LWF
They have Maggie Haberman for that.
4
It also speaks loud and clear to his privilege.
2
This article cites Bill Keller's remark: "one of the most important things for reporters to do is to report against their own preconceptions, to actively seek out perspectives that might be contrary to their own."
The Times has always been a liberal publication, but Keller's guidance once held true. Today I don't find that to be the case. Headlines and a politicized framing of news developments almost always reveal an implicit and predictable bias. I now read the Times' political coverage to understand and prepare for emerging Democrat/progressive talking points. Meanwhile, opposing
arguments and information that sheds light on Republican or social conservative positions are often buried deep in the story. I miss the old Times. It was a lot more interesting.
13
@Joan Desmond
As a conservative, I don't see this at all outside of the Opinion page.
The simple fact of 21st century US politics is that the truth has a bias towards the Democratic Party because Republicans have chosen to ignore it (when they're not actively fighting against it).
Rejecting science and facts has never been a conservative or liberal stance, but it's become the entire platform of the Republican Party.
Therefore, it's impossible to accurately report the news without appearing to lean towards Democrat viewpoints.
I wish that this were not the case.
29
@Michael-in-Vegas So, then, there was Russian Collusion, just like the Times and Democrats said?
To these journalists working at The New York Times (a private multinational corporation tied for its existence to a global network of private multinational corporations), and to the journalists working in other privately-owned corporations that are running this nation's "free press," Noam Chomsky had this to say about journalists when he was being interviewed by journalist, Andrew Marr, himself a British counterpart to our corporate-employed journalists here in the U.S.:
"I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
His statement on journalists also helps to explain why Chomsky, the most frequently cited living intellectual and the most prominent social/political analyst and critic in our world today, is next-to-never found in the corporate-owned media here in the U.S., where The New York Times defines itself as "our free press" and advertises itself with the slogan, "Support independent journalism."
So naturally, we read in this piece that "Independence remains the bedrock of our journalism."
And I'm sure that if I were working for The New York Times, I too would say that I'm truly an independent journalist—because if I truly believed something different, I wouldn't be a journalist at The New York Times.
In short, this piece here is another necessary dose of indoctrination for the educated classes.
11
The opinion section of the paper has been greatly expanded and has already published hard news stories but with the flavor you can only put into the opinion section. This month they are rolling out an official new program of putting news regularly in the opinion section but written by opinion writers, not unbiased journalists. Then a piece by a guy from Buzzfeed the other day saying that he is now working for the Times in what I understood to be some sort of internal watchdog position to separate opinion from fact. Self policing I guess. Now this offensive piece. The news articles have become so biased and so opinionated since Trump that I often have to check to see what section I am reading. I guess this is to make it official. Interesting I see many commenters want the news to be even more biased. I don't like people telling me what I think but I have read that is by far the biggest reason people even look at the news so go figure . . .Trump has completely changed journalism apparently forever. In the end that may be the biggest scar he leaves on America long term.
10
I appreciate this article explaining the lengths to which reporters go to remain impartial in their reporting. It's an excellent illustration of why an independent (and impartial) press is so important in a polarized U.S.
7
Hello, Charles~
I think my posted comment (slightly edited here) would fit better as a reply to yours:
To the journalists at The New York Times (a private multinational corporation tied for its existence to a global network of private multinational corporations), and to the journalists in other privately-owned corporations running this nation's "free press," Noam Chomsky had this to say about you when he was being interviewed by BBC journalist, Andrew Marr, himself a British counterpart to our corporate-employed journalists here in the U.S.:
"I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
His statement on journalists also helps to explain why Chomsky, the most frequently cited living intellectual and the most prominent social/political analyst and critic in our world today, is next-to-never found in the corporate-owned media here in the U.S., where the NYT defines itself as "our free press" and advertises itself with its slogan, "Support independent journalism."
So naturally, we read in this piece that "Independence remains the bedrock of our journalism."
And I'm sure that if I were working for The New York Times, I too would say that I'm truly an independent journalist—because if I truly believed something different, I would not be a journalist at The New York Times.
In short, this piece is another necessary dose of indoctrination for the educated classes.
You don't have to be a journalist to be dealing with the politics mess in dating. I automatically swipe left on anyone overly passionate about either side.
5
I would think the appropriate behavior for journalists is similar to that of divil servants and the military: You may vote but not engage in partisan politics. I have a question, though, about journalists who go on television and give political opinions. There is a distinction between opinion columnists and journalists, but this distinction does get blurred and leaves the media open to charges of bias.
6
I really can't believe this. The Times may have the structure described and, to some degree, a culture that tries to pursue impartiality, but it's pretty unrealistic to think you're anywhere close to achieving it.
And this is coming from someone who, in contrast to what I read in various fields, hasn't totally given up on at least the pursuit of objectivity.
First, I assume that while the article doesn't say it, this doesn't apply at all to editorialists and op-ed writers.
Second, of course some of your reporters have narratives and assumptions that inform how they approach stories. These are not impartial. Three examples: anytime a decrease in population or its growth rate comes up, no matter who wrote it, it's always described as negative. The now-many articles on women's rights often, and unnecessarily, over-generalize older white men along the way. We're all privileged, we don't count when it comes to "diversity" as, apparently, we're all the same. People are now their boxes. As another, you've gotten better recently, but you still won't consider sustainability as a comprehensive framework effecting many issues.
Third, even when I usually agree with them, it's pretty clear who your climate change reporters don't support.
Also, even if the intent is good, paradoxically, you're going too far in the other direction in your personal lives. Certainly, you can express views.
You need to think more critically and deeply about this if you really want to practice impartiality.
7
In a society that depends on spin-free and neutrally-delivered information, the Times' restatement of principle is welcome indeed.
The challenge we face is that fewer and fewer in an ownership position are willing to back that principle in deed (though always lip-synching the words). I don't know what the future holds for a profession I hold in very high honor: that of the journalist and reporters'/editors' commitment to a function that the public may only vaguely understand.
The free press is perilously close to becoming just a realm of ideologically-aligned media outlets (whether print, broadcast media, or individuals who have no professional training or commitment to the trade). Restatements of the kind in this article are therefore welcome, needed, and vitally important as reminders of the care and thought that go into 'just delivering the news' every day.
7
@Robert You are spot on. It may sound simplistic, but I think stylistic rules need to be set in place. In other words, no adjectives or adverbs should be used to describe actions or statements in a news story. This may be unrealistic and not 100% possible to do, however, it seems to me the spin in a story comes mainly from these parts of speech. The facts, ma'am, just the facts.
1
This may be true, arguably, with regard for general reporting, however it seems clear the opinion columnists are highly left leaning. Similarly the WST leans right. I read both and understand it is just how both papers have been engineered.
Not complaining, it just seems to be reality.
2
I wonder about the reporters who have outstanding Student Loan Debt, thus wha may be actively or subliminally capable of being swayed by candidates, especially Bernie Sanders, who blatantly promise to secure Student Loan Debt forgiveness when elected.
1
"For me, it’s easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong."
What a terrible, privileged, clueless, dictatorship-enabling take.
50
Journalists are not impartial, their ridiculous attempts to enforce impartiality only aid the right. The right plays a double game, being as biased as it wants with their media infrastructure, and then constantly badgering other outlets into being more right wing. The mainstream media constantly gives in and grants a hecklers veto to the rightists. A liberal media would be a nice thing to have!
30
@Anthony So the way to combat the right wing bloviators who attack the truth is to be more like them? That explains why we're all in opposite trenches lobbing rhetorical ordnance at each other. No, I admire the Times reporters for at least having the self-awareness to make the effort. Human beings will never reach 100 percent objectivity, we all know that, but trying to walk that line is worth the effort. And if anybody thinks it's easy, they're welcome to try.
10
@Anthony Nonsense. The right doesn't read newspapers. The way, far right looks at Brietbart, otherwise there is that screaming mess Fox and for the left the ever biased CNN. MSNBC has shows biased in both directions but primarily left. What happens in the internet I wouldn't even care to comment on. For Republicans who read there is Wall Street Journal.
Please try to think big picture. A free and UNBIASED press was declared the fourth estate by or founding fathers. You have facebook, twitter and whatnot to hear your echo chamber - why do you need to hear what you already think anyway? Because one relies on sources to TELL them what they think. Oatherwise you can think for yourself and make your own decisions. It's imperative for any democracy to have a free press. I wish people understood and demanded it from the newspaper of "record" (used to be) in the US.
3
@ck The founding fathers never declared the press to be unbiased.
A sense of proportion can easily be achieved between the extremes of reputable journalists blaring their opinions to the world through Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, cable TV gigs and various other ego enhancers, and not even voting.
How? Keeping their political views to themselves. As in defining a zone of personal privacy. All it requires is a little self-control.
Wearing "I Don't Vote" as a self-styled badge of neutrality violates common sense. It's the civic duty of every eligible
citizen to vote, and to do otherwise sets a bad example.
25
Truer words were never spoken, Civic duty is an obligation, and I feel that to preform that duty one should stay informed, and then there's ones values, necessity's, and ethics. I love the process of democracy with healthy debate. I think the Times is unbiased, however every once in awhile I see some leaning one way or another,but by far the best reporting anywhere. Oh I forgot to mention that voting is a right the people have fought and died for, we owe to those who fought for the right, and never forget.
6
Impartiality as a journalist is an interesting concept, namely because what journalists choose to write stories about is inherently political. What sources do you listen to and where do their interests lie? Praising certain leaders or discussing certain topics could be considered political, unless these views are considered within the margins of acceptable opinions. All humans, even journalists, will always have opinions and biases and pretending that they don’t will not actually make them go away.
17
Peter Baker doesn't vote? In order to be an impartial journalist?
How does abdicating your basic civic responsibility uphold the 5th estate, exactly? Don't join a party, march, advocate, or donate-- sure, that makes sense; but to forgo even an absentee ballot cast in private strikes me as a very strange affectation.
And infuriating since falling for the illusion of aloofness; he says himself that for him it's "easier" to stay out of the fray if never make a personal decision. Doesn't that imply the metaphysical impossibility of actually being truly out of/above the fray? So if absolute impartiality is impossible -- how does rejecting a secret ballot that only he would be aware of add much to "impartiality"? And what is lost, when don't participate in the civic body?
I get he says "for me" - so perhaps he means that if he started making decisions a la voting, that he fears his approach as a journalist could be altered. But every vote naturally effects his existence, his life, his work; there's no opting out of being part of society and what it chooses to do. In that regard, his not voting seems almost a superstition.
Of course in the end, what's one less vote? It's his franchise to exercise or not. But the flawed logic that implies journalists simply cannot do otherwise is plain irksome.
29
@Winky
What Baker, who regularly opines on Twitter, is really saying is that he's rich enough to be immune from public policy decisions, on a day to day basis.
No journalist who struggled to pay the bills, and who experienced the stresses of people who actually work for a living, or had any sympathy for the difficulties of others, would decline to vote.
These people live in their own little world.
22
@jrd
Bingo!
4
@jrd
Exactly. Privileged, straight white male. He knows nothing the current administration does will inconvenience him.
1
Wow, these responses raise a lot of questions. I'm married to a journalist so I'm familiar with refraining from openly endorsing a candidate or position.
But Elizabeth Dias is too neutral to go on marches, yet not too neutral to dismiss marching in general as a "hobby du jour"?
And Peter Baker can't even allow himself to have an opinion in the privacy of his own thoughts?
How is that even possible? I imagine only by pursuing a studied superficiality, a willful non-grasping of issues. Which can't possibly be good for journalism.
Glad you're taking the trouble to be explicit, hope this leads to further reflection and growth by your writers.
41