NYT Public Editor Charges Liberal Bias
NYT executive editor Jill Abramson is shocked that her outgoing public editor thinks her paper "virtually bleeds" a "kind of political and cultural progressivism."
A second consecutive New York Times public editor admits that the paper has a liberal bias. The paper’s editor doesn’t see it.
In his final column, Arthur Brisbane marvels at the NYT’s investment in quality journalism despite the fact that it’s losing money at an alarming rate. But he worries about the paper’s worldview.
I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
Stepping back, I can see that as the digital transformation proceeds, as The Times disaggregates and as an empowered staff finds new ways to express itself, a kind of Times Nation has formed around the paper’s political-cultural worldview, an audience unbound by geography (as distinct from the old days of print) and one that self-selects in digital space.
Jill Abramson, the executive editor, vehemently disagrees.
“In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions,” Abramson told POLITICO Saturday night.
“I agree with another past public editor, Dan Okrent, and my predecessor as executive editor, Bill Keller, that in covering some social and cultural issues, the Times sometimes reflects its urban and cosmopolitan base,” she continued. “But I also often quote, including in talks with Mr. Brisbane, another executive editor, Abe Rosenthal, who wanted to be remembered for keeping ‘the paper straight.’ That’s essential.”
But it’s precisely that reflection of its “urban and cosmopolitan base” that’s at issue. Indeed, Okrent, Brisbane’s predecessor, talked about this way back in 2004, answering a reader question “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”
OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left — and there are plenty — generally confine their complaints to the paper’s coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I’ll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
But if you’re examining the paper’s coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn’t wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you’re traveling in a strange and forbidding world.
Blogging about this at the time, I wrote,
Frankly, as Okrent himself notes, this is all rather obvious. It’s also perfectly legitimate. All newspapers, anywhere, are biased in their coverage. The idea that papers should be “objective” is a relatively new one, going back a century or so and, ironically, associated with the New York Times. The earliest papers in the Republic, though, were unabashedly partisan. Further, they didn’t even pretend to be fair in their coverage.
Aside from ideology and partisanship, reportage is filtered through the lens of publishers and editors with worldviews who, even if not particularly political, have to make judgments about what is important (what to cover and not cover) as well as how important the things important enough to cover are (how much space they get, where they are positioned in the paper, how often they’re covered, etc.). My only problem is when the paper pretends otherwise.
None of this is to say that the NYT is a partisan political rag or consciously biased. It remains a great paper. It pioneered the concept of a newspaper as a “straight news” outlet rather than a mouthpiece for the views of the owner and I’m sure that Abramson and Rosenthal are right that the paper’s ethic is one of trying to be fair and straight.
But the very nature of the enterprise is one that’s going to fill it with a certain bias. Working at the Times is considered by most aspiring American journalists as the pinnacle of success; the gold standard of the business. As such, it can attract the best of the best. Alas, that tends to mean that the paper’s young hires are graduates of a handful of elite universities and/or the journalism schools at Columbia and Northwestern. This tends to produce a certain worldview.
The bottom line is that Brisbane is right: the NYT is aimed mostly at a bicoastal elite who share certain prejudices about the way the world works with the paper’s reporters and management. There are, naturally, outliers in both the readership and the staff. But they’re just that.
Aluminum tubes? Wen Ho Lee? David Sanger?
Buh-bye, Arthur Brisbane. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
@Cheryl Rofer: You’re citing examples from 2003? In foreign policy?
There has been, since the early 1990s, a weird coalition between liberal interventionists and neoconservatives that supports the use of military force to fix the ills of the world. But that Brisbane is clearly talking about domestic politics coverage.
mistermix quoted this from Brisbane’s piece:
(my emphasis)
Let me just answer his question: Considering the deluded state of the vast majority of Fox News viewers….
Yes.
Well, facts do have a liberal bias.
Also, Arthur Brisbane once pondered if it was the responsibility of the newspaper to alert the public if politicians were lying. Discussion was closed after 700 commenters said “Of course it is, you idiot.”
After that, I really haven’t anything he’s said seriously.
I fell like I should contrast this:
With this:
The gulf is going to appear that much more wide, for THAT reason.
The Times is Whiggish. It believes in civil liberties and civil rights, a tolerant attitude towards social change, the acceptance of new scientific discoveries if supported by objective research, the importance of literature and the other fine arts, and, in foreign policy, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. In other words, it believes in enlightenment values. This makes it radical and un-American in the view of today’s Republican party.
We need another Sputnik Shock. I’m wondering what would be outrageous enough to get the Republicans off their asses and realize that we’re slipping down the curve of technological achievement.
Maybe when China builds a Space Elevator and claims dominion over all outer space. Of course, by that time, it will be too late.
I’m starting to think that electing a Republican president at this stage of their idiocy will end up being as game-changing as the Chinese turning their back on exploration in the 16th and 17th centuries.
I welcome our Chinese overlords….
@James Joyner: Yes, I recognize some of that is old. But David Sanger has carried on the Judy Miller tradition with scary stories. I also recognize that he seems to have stopped doing “enough enriched uranium for a bomb” and puts that more accurately. The Times stories on Iran and the Middle East frequently tilt toward the warlike and leave a great deal out.
Brisbane’s article, overall, focuses on what he sees as the miracle of the Times adopting these newfangled Twitters and stuff. The observations on liberalism come toward the end and seem focused mainly on the cultural. Did he read all the Times’s stories? Some foreign reporting?
@this:
Dear idiot downvoter, a book length treatment is here.
@this:
You know donvoter, when that book came out, Republicans were “oh no, not us” or “liberals are worse.”
But things have gotten much worse since then.
Kind of reminds me of the ‘culture’ of like-mindedness seen in clumps of posters at OTB.
The bottom line is that political/social movements, matching the ideology of people in the newsroom, get either a pass or a softer look than those that don’t. There is relatively little objectivity in most of these liberal news organizations. And if you don’t go along with the group-think, breaking out of the pack, like Brisbane has done, or recently Jake Tapper or Halperin, in voicing the news bias towards Obama, then you are instantly maligned and thrown under the disapproval bus.
Most here, though, will not even spend a minute’s time considering what if anything these ‘insiders’ are saying has a grain of truth. Instead, you already have gone into immediate defensive mode, personally attacking not only the credibility of the person making these observations, but also throwing in added insults to the nameless, faceless people out there with opposing ideas to your’s.
Talk about a insulated closed society inhabited by the typical social progressive……..people on the outside can see it. But, with all the self validation that goes on in the inside, it becomes lost in snide, back-slapping rhetoric, basically saying, “I’m right. You’re wrong.”
@jan:
I’d like to respond, but reading carefully, I find no content. Sorry.
Here is a democrat men for Romney ad (spoof) made in the same flavor as the republican women for Obama ad was generated, demonstrating how much BS rules in campaigns.
The idiot downvoters are piling up. For them:
Why Do Republicans Hate Science?
If you won’t fix it in your party, you have to wear it.
NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN: all the same. Controlled, manipulated news media that will never address the real issues, just things like Rep. Aiken, Prince Harry’s photos, tax forms, birth certificates.
The gay marriage thing is just a joke. I’m guessing Brisbane envisions light-weight fluff pieces about two married men who bought a farmhouse in a ‘trendy’ section of upstate New York ending with a nice quote from Maggie Gallagher, just for the sake of balance.
@jan:
Jan, all you’ve offered in this thread are feelings. Feelings that the Times isn’t fair. Feelings that liberals aren’t fair. Feelings that you ad is payback.
Feelings can’t be answered because they aren’t rooted. You don’t name a concrete philosophy of government or economics that can be discussed rationally.
I hate to say it, but that ties to my anti-science bits. Your meta-argument is that unrooted views and feelings should be just as valid as something developed more rigorously.
Kentucky Lawmakers Shocked To Find Evolution In Biology Tests
I’m sure every one of those (GOP) Lawmakers hates the times, as a liberal rag.
Who cares about the opinion of Arthur Brisbane? The solution? A conservative company like Fox can buy the times, and change the bias to obviously conservative while marketing the bias as “fair and balanced.”
@jan:
The stress of being a parent who drops 40K a year on the education of their children, starting in kindergarten. Overtaken summer spots in East Hampton. Allegedly fascinating profiles of social climbers. Etc. The Times is all about privilege, but it carries with it a bit of noblesse oblige about the world.
It would be hard to encounter someone less ashamed of her incuriosity than you, so I get why you find the small bit of curiosity and empathy to be a deal-breaker but trust me, you are very happy with the status quo.
@jan:
Yes, conservatives are like that.
@jan:
BS. Tapper is widely respected among his peers and both he, Norah O´Donnel and Chuck Todd are close personal friends.
You know what springs to mind? That Al Gore titled his book “An Inconvenient Truth.” I think a lot of Times-hate centers in its telling of inconvenient truths.
Republicans have fought a pretty good war against truths they just didn’t like. How did they disprove climate change? Al gore is fat, of course, and lives in a big house.
Within the tribe, that logic works just fine.
As with all media, the truth about the New York Times lies in the advertiser roster. The Times is biased towards those who shop at least sometimes at upscale Manhattan retailers, have or at least aspire to second homes 90 minutes from Manhattan, see Broadway shows before the tickets go half-price at TKTS, and view Staten Island as that place between the Verrazano and the Goethals.
They are socially and culturally progressive, respectful of the corporations that pay their readers’ salaries, and generally Democratic but yet conservative in the things-look-ok-to-me-why-are-you-getting-all-worked-up sense.
That said, it’s still overall the best newspaper in the land, even more so now when so many other formerly good papers have abandoned journalism as a end in itself.
Whenever claims of liberal media bias come up two things spring to my mind.
First, in a world where a conservative, nationalist bias has produced two of the most successful news media organizations out there (Fox News and Al Jazeera) complaints of liberal media bias are pretty damned hard to take seriously. Along those same lines I also find myself asking why conservatives are all right with railing against the free market. After all, if your ideas and opinions aren’t valued enough by the marketplace then isn’t the problem your ideas rather than the market?
Second, complaints of liberal media bias come off as whiny to me. If you want to whine then go right ahead but don’t expect me to be impressed with either your rhetoric or your leadership.
I remember the good old days when the Times’ op-ed columnists all had a degree of intelligence and wit, on both sides of the aisle. Now, instead of William Safire, they have given us David Brooks and Ross Douthat.
@Lomax:
The views of Aiken (sic) are REAL ISSUES. He is running for a Senate seat. The lack of disclosure of Romney’s tax forms is a REAL ISSUE. He’s running for President (for Pete’s sake). The birth certificate “issue” is a NON-ISSUE; it’s merely a racist dog-whistle that has gotten so loud that our new puppy covers his ears. I will agree that Prince Harry’s photos deserve to be left in the TMZ world.
@bk: Obama’s forged birth cert is a real issue as well, unless you’re going to at last advise us when Obama was lying… then, when he wrote it in his auto biography, (one of several such) or now… and why we should believe him, either way., on much of anything.
And why, if Akin’s gaffe said is so damnable, Joe Biden still has a job.
And a certain willingness to bend the truth to meet that agenda. See also, Jayson Blair. That the little Paragraph factory off I-678 in Queens has been turning out biased work for the last few decades at least is not news to anyone… except apparently those within it’s own walls.
I suppose that at some point, the level of BS needed to support an agenda turns even the stomachs of leftist journalists, posing as unbiased voices. Interesting, though, the extremely high the level of untruth that needs be printed before even a supposedly unbiased voice cries “enough”. It apparently took Obama to do that.
@john personna:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
― Isaac Asimov
He said it best 🙂
So, your claim is that to be against the lies being printed as a matter of routine in such as the Times, is to be “Anti-intellectual”?
Pffffttt. You and your horse, too.
@Eric Florack:
Coming from you, that’s a complement.
And yet the complaints are about liberal bias. Brisbane isn’t complaining about the annoying “after mortgage, private school tuition, car payments, and retirement savings, 300K a year just isn’t a lot of money” pieces that the Times routinely does.
It’s problematic to try to take everything as a binary right-left split. The world doesn’t really work like that. And to take such a shallow view and try to find balance is simple asinine. If the question you ask yourself in all of this is whether or not some political group finds you believable, instead of whether or not your audience is being well-informed… then you aren’t doing news.
It’s one thing to advocate that the Times needs various points of view. It’s another to suggest that it needs to insert points of views to please the most irrational demographic that exists (other than sports fans), partisans. That latter view is the sort of toxic thing that allows a guy like Brisbane to even ponder the question of whether or not newspapers should call out lying politicians (see: Brisbane’s infamous “truth vigilante” article).
@Katharsis: Lemme know when reality pierces that facade of yours
@Eric Florack:
I rarely use ad hominems, but I am compelled to make an exception. That was truly moronic.
The problem with the Old Gray Lady isn’t having too much or too little liberalism, the problem is that with the Internet I can seek out people based on their expertise. I.e. if I want to look up something about a random conflict I don’t seek out Nick Kristof I just go to a reputable military or security blog. Same with anything about economics, the NYT’s saving grace in that regard is having Krugman as their main economist.
@Eric Florack:
Interesting. You point to Jayson Blair as somehow representative of the NYT, and most sensible people see FoxNews as representative of what’s wrong with journalism.
I think there is a liberal slant, but I often think the liberal comes out more in what isn’t covered or in how it is covered.
I also think bias comes out in word choice and often isn’t intentional, but is part of a natural bias of the reporter.
I don’t personally read the NYT enough as a whole (I read selected articles linked to on various blogs I follow or that are picked up by my local paper) to say one way or the other whether they have a liberal slant and whether it is intentional.
I do think in general the media often ignores some stories while covering others and I think this is where the bias often shows up.
@al-Ameda:
Hmm. Lessee….
Written By Sara Bibel
August 24th, 2012
Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday, August 23, 2012
P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC 1,311 317 610
CNN 340 101 144
MSNBC 546 168 254
CNBC 160 62 92
FBN 54 16 29
HLN 277 123 166
So, the vast majority of Americans are not “sensible”?
Your credibility seems wanting.
@bk: HArdly, BK.
Since you seem to have missed the points attached, perhaps you’d like to answer themn? Here’s your chance to give the Democrats a rather badly needed crutch on the matter; Answer the following:
Obama’s forged birth cert is a real issue as well, unless you’re going to at last advise us when Obama was lying… then, when he wrote it in his auto biography, (one of several such) or now… and why we should believe him, either way., on much of anything.
And why, if Akin’s gaffe said is so damnable, Joe Biden still has a job.
All America awaits an answer to these.
@Eric Florack:
I said:
I did not say, “vast majority” because I do not believe that the vast majority of Americans are sensible. Your ability to accurately quote me seems to be wanting..
@Eric Florack:
It’s certainly a real issue with non-reality based Republican and conservative voters, and not among sensible Americans.
@Eric Florack: 1.3 million are the “vast majority of Americans”? Really? Math must not be your strong suit.
@Mark:
How dare you nitpick Eric on this, Mark, 1.3M is only about 155M viewers short of being a vast majority (50.1%) of Americans. I believe that 1.3M = the number of white male viewers who tune into FoxNews on that day at that moment, the rest (11K) are white female viewers.
I do enjoy it when people complain about the MSM(Not!), FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, especially. (YES, FoxNews is part of the MSM or “LSM”, if you will)
These “news sources” have become a joke. A joke to anyone that actually seeks out real news from other sources.
Of course anyone who watches these networks regularly will be biased and try to deflect their obvious bias with ratings or try and demean the other networks because they don’t do what their favorite channel does.
The fact of the matter is, FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN are all pretty much shite. And just because FoxNews just so happens to have the best ratings out of these three networks DOES NOT mean it should be given any more credibility than the others.
It just means that out of all the shite that inhabits the toilet bowl of cable news, the FoxNews turd happens to float to the top.
If anyone here wants to debate the differences or the validity of cable news, you might want to make your way over to Mediaite with the other numskulls.
As far as the New York Times, if you do not enjoy what they write, don’t read it. If you prefer a conservative lean, try the WSJ or even the NY Post or which ever news rag that helps you stay in that bubble of yours.
@Eric Florack: I read what you wrote the first time. It was moronic then. Repeating it doesn’t make it any less so.
It seems like a relevant distinction is, “liberal compared to what?” I think that most people would agree that bias in the Times comes through, as Brisbane seems to suggest, in terms of the stories it chooses to cover or emphasize, rather than overt editorializing on the news page. (Although I don’t find his examples terribly convincing: it seems difficult to argue that the Occupy movement or gay marriage were significant stories with notable impact on discourse in the country, particularly the latter.)
That said, it seems like you need a reference point if you’re going to start alleging this bias. While I can see a relevant comparison against, say, the current state of conservative Republicanism in the US, the liberal nature of the Times seems rather tame relative to the broader spectrum of global political attitudes. If you can distinguish liberal bias only by suggesting that it is more liberal than, say, Fox News, I’m not sure you’ve said much of merit regarding the undesirability of that bias or what it implies as to how the Times should react.
James: “@Cheryl Rofer: You’re citing examples from 2003? In foreign policy? ”
Good point. Let’s go to how the NYT no longer features any of the people who lied us into that war.
Or those whose economic policies trashed the economy.
Or any other thing – where has the NYT looked at right-wing lies, called them that, and refused to respect them any more?
And as been pointed out, Fox News is a pack of lies, pure and simple.
@Facebones: :Well, facts do have a liberal bias.”
That’s rich,,,LOL
@Barry: Barry, Barry – Simply – You’re an idiot!