On a recent long walk I decided to listen to the January 31 episode of The Daily, in which host Michael Barbaro interviewed Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times.
Their discussion focused on The Time’s coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign and how articles leading up to the election contextualized the candidates, and perhaps unfairly, influenced readers’ perceptions. They then moved to the current challenges of covering American politics.
It was a fascinating discussion, and a couple of things immediately jumped out at me, elements that I think are worth exploring, especially if you work in public relations or journalism. Even as simply a consumer of news, the ideas in this podcast hold important relevance.
Consider the example of how The Times covered Bernie Sanders. The day that Sanders announced his candidacy in the 2016 election, the paper published an article that offered this:
“Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, announced Thursday that he was running for president as a Democrat, injecting a progressive voice into the contest and providing Hillary Rodham Clinton with her first official rival for the party’s nomination. Avoiding the fanfare that several Republicans have chosen so far when announcing their candidacies, Mr. Sanders issued a statement to supporters that laid out his goals for reducing income inequality, addressing climate change and scaling back the influence of money in politics. ‘After a year of travel, discussion, and dialogue, I have decided to be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president,’ Mr. Sanders said in an email early Thursday.
Mr. Sanders’s bid is considered a long shot, but his unflinching commitment to stances popular with the left — such as opposing foreign military interventions and reining in big banks — could force Mrs. Clinton to address these issues more deeply.”
In the podcast, Barbaro points out the phrase “long shot” that characterizes Mr. Sanders’ chances. This upset and frustrated some Times’ readers because they felt the coverage unfairly influenced or impacted how voters perceived the candidate.
Baquet didn’t agree. He still believes it is great lead to the story and that Bernie Sanders was indeed a long shot. He goes on to explain that journalism is, by its nature, flawed and that, “The flaws are [that] you do have to tell people what to think.”
I fundamentally disagree. Why not assume people are smart and that if they don’t understand the context of information presented, and feel it is important, they will seek out additional context and clarification?
Furthermore, wasn’t the conjecture that Mr. Sanders’ bid was considered a long shot actually just the reporter’s opinion? As I consider this article, I think it could have been improved if this information was attributed to an expert – and not by inference the reporter – who could offer verifiable proof (statistics, poll numbers, etc.) that Sanders was indeed a long shot.
Afterall, in this same interview, Baquet says, “The most powerful writing lets the person talk, lets the person say what he has to say. And it is usually so evident that what the person has to say is [for example] racist or anti-Semitic, that to actually get in the way and say it yourself is less powerful.”
He goes on to say that others should do the labeling and the New York Times should stick to objectively covering what happened.
In this dark era of rampant disinformation, when some unscrupulous politicians seem to be repeatedly acting deceptively and where sources can be obfuscated and shadowy, it is more important than ever that journalists from accredited and respected publications scrutinize their reporting to ensure that they’re as objective as possible – and that may mean less characterization of information, not more.
At the same time, I’d like to see more schools and academic institutions focus on educating their students about the importance of finding a broad range of news sources as they work to understand an industry.
Times’ journalists and editors don’t have a crystal ball to see into the future, and by trying to tell people what to think, the venerable publication may undermine its credibility by appearing biased. It grows ever harder to find even simple truth.