“All the News that’s Fit to Print”…
Conservatives read the Wall Street Journal, progressives the NY Times—that’s an old cliché that doesn’t have much basis in fact. Progressives also read the Journal—one had to be stupid not to do so in the events leading up to and during the 2008-2009 financial implosion, even if it was just to see how much money your IRA or 401(k) was losing (or the money wonks were stealing, depending on your interpretation). Today’s markets bring similar woes, thanks to China’s imploding economy and its decreased demand for oil killing the oil prices and tumbling markets everywhere, not to mention Greece, Spain, and other spending economies dragging the markets down.
This article is about journalistic integrity or the lack thereof, but I only will have bad things to say about the NY Times because we know where the Journal stands—it’s conservative, of course, reflecting its name. The Times, on the other hand, is far from being the progressive bastion conservatives love to attack. Consider it a sophisticated and arrogant example of yellow journalism, sort of like bile in color and use, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but never impartial. Let me consider some examples.
First, a general comment: the Times’ reporters and editors decide what news is fit to print (probably mostly editors, of course—the worker bees generally don’t have much say in any big corporation). This isn’t new journalistic practice, of course. What’s egregious here is that the Times pretends to cover all sides of an issue but slants the news following an agenda that’s neither conservative nor progressive—their number one goal is the same as the Daily News and other rags, that is, to sell more papers (the Daily News covers are often classics). The Times criticizes those other NYC rags, for example, if it even bothers to acknowledge them, but their brand of journalism is still yellow. Sgt. Friday’s dictum, “Just the facts, ma’am,” is unheard of in many Times’ articles. I can stomach that when the article is op-ed, opinions don’t have to be based in facts and op-eds are often slanted because they’re opinions. I’m talking about what the Times calls news.
They censor or embellish the facts too often, often hiding sources under the cloak of freedom of the press, that old constitutional favorite the Founding Fathers never imagined would lead to so many lies and deceit. Those “unnamed sources” or “sources close to X” are frustrating for concerned citizens who want to check facts. (Maybe the Times doesn’t worry because there are so few left?) If you believe for a moment that a reporter or editor is always truthful, you don’t understand journalistic legerdemain (this is one reason why I say a journalism degree is better than an MFA as prep for a fiction writer). What reporters write and editors approve are always designed first and foremost to sell newspapers, no matter the official orientation of the paper or whether it’s op-ed or news. My motto is always trust but verify, or maybe distrust and verify, but how can you verify when the facts can’t be checked?
Second, while the Journal unabashedly supports Wall Street and big banks, and is a strong supporter of financial interests and big business in general, the Times does it on the sly. That’s an important part of the slant mentioned above. The columnist who warned about Wall Street’s excesses before 2008-2009 was a member of the Boston Globe’s staff when the Times didn’t own that paper; he would never have been allowed to write about that in the NY Times, then or now, because Times’ owners are part of the Wall Street crowd. Almost any big newspaper is—newspaper owners are all one-percenters, after all—but at least the Journal is open about it. I hate these hidden agendas because they’re often sneakily conservative—platitudes are offered about protecting the poor and middle class (sounds like Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton?) only because the poor and middle class are the majority of readers reading the paper’s BS and often have low-paying jobs in the organizations.
Third, the Times’ political coverage, like much of the Democratic Party, caves to special interests and the establishment candidate du jour. In particular, they now unabashedly support the Clintons. Not surprisingly, the Times just endorsed Hillary Clinton, Wall Street’s darling and flagrant violator of established national security rules. Only recently, when Sanders began closing in on Hillary, have they begun to cover his campaign a little bit more—they’ll brown-nose anyone if they think she or he will win. Want proof besides the Clinton endorsement? O’Malley gets no coverage at all.
Don’t look for ads about the movie 13 Hours either—that could be misconstrued as being critical of Hillary, don’t you know. Even Trump gets better coverage because he’s a true New Yorker who the Times figures will treat them well after he’s elected. Wall Street is part of that political mix, of course, and, as I said, Hillary is their acceptable candidate on the Dem side. Moreover, the Times is NYC-centric. Want to know what’s really going on in NJ or Connecticut? Want an in-depth analysis of Asian politics? Exposés about Dow and Monsanto? Knowledge of Latin American affairs? You won’t find them in the Times. You won’t find them in most American newspapers, of course, but it’s the Times’ pretension that you’ll find all the news that’s fit to print that irks me.
Fourth, with its weekly book review and many articles attacking Amazon and indie writers, the Times supports traditional publishing and ignores the digital and indie revolutions. (Sunday’s article in the business section featured an indie erotica writer only because she’s started her own imprint. Her books now can be placed in bookstores–in brown paper wrappings?) Do you recall how long it took them to even recognize ebooks? It took them forever to offer digital versions of the newspaper too. And forget the book reviews—they are so biased toward traditional publishing, I don’t even read them anymore. The definition of NY Times bestseller? They use a secret formula more closely guarded than CocaCola’s that uses information provided by traditional publishers and their sycophants, the book barns—no one knows what their definition really is, so it’s just more information hidden from readers. And, even when he got his hands slapped by his editor for his biased articles attacking Amazon, that journalist continues to write them and support traditional publishing and its lackeys like Authors Guild. This all makes sense, of course—the Times IS a traditional publisher!
Even the Times’ sports writing is biased. I was surprised to read one article (the only one?) that lauded the New England Patriots’ work ethic. Why? Because all NYC-area media is biased toward NYC-area teams and enemy of any other successful team, the Times included, so I read the article. Buried in it was a statement to the fact that the deflated footballs illustrate how far the Pats will go to win and that the judge never actually declared Tom Brady innocent. No mention that there wasn’t any evidence to support the NFL’s claims. And consider the spin: no judge ever found him guilty either! And no mention that many scientists came down on the NFL hard for not knowing elementary physics. Also no mention that the same judge told Goodell to stick it where the sun don’t shine. Biased, brown-nosed reporting at its best.
The Times has collaborated with the NFL on going after the movie Concussion too—the newspaper is clearly in the pocket of NFL owners, with the possible exception of Robert Kraft. The movie attacks Goodell and the man who preceded him, so don’t look for ads for this movie in the newspaper either—that would dissatisfy the one-percenters who own NFL teams who don’t give a rat’s ass about the concussions. I’m not sure the movie was even mentioned in their reporting about the Golden Globes, but I saw one list of the top five movies in 2015 (not in the Times, of course), and Concussion was on it—Will Smith’s performance is the best of his career. The Academy, in handing out Oscar nominations, also excluded the movie. The Times reported on the general lack of blacks among the Academy’s nominees and probably felt they’d weaseled out of mentioning the movie. They don’t give a rat’s ass, but they cover their own.
Why do I subscribe to the Times then? (I might not be allowed to if the Times’ editors ever read this.) It’s the only game in town besides the Journal. Between the two, you have all the press you need, as far as NYC goes (probably more than you need). The rags in New Jersey are much worse, even more intent on selling ads and papers than doing any honest journalism. I get most of my information online these days (and not from the Times), so I really don’t need any of them. (OK, I get the Star Ledger because I like the Sunday comics—the snobbish Times doesn’t have them). By applying my motto, (dis)trust but verify, I can easily seek out multiple sources with point-and-click and sometimes, just sometimes, I can find the relevant facts (the government, Google, and so forth, are good at hiding them too).
The Times is a dinosaur doomed to extinction. I guess they aren’t going quietly into that good night, though. They could change peoples’ perceptions and improve their chances of survival if they become a wee bit more honest and less biased in their reporting. Yeah, like that’s going to happen!
And so it goes….
