Day of the Heart's Blood

 

My adult (37 years) daughter hates the New York Times. She thinks it's an irresponsible, partisan organ for Big Money interests. She prefers to get her news from blogs, podcasts and the Substacks of journalists and pundits she trusts.

My former conservative, Republican work colleagues also hated the New York Times. They thought the paper was just the publicity outlet of the Democratic Party and represented the biased, liberal media at its worst. They trusted Fox and only Fox for the news.

The two views cancel each other out. It can't be both an irresponsible, partisan organ for Big Money interests and the biased, liberal media at its worst. Personally, I think it's neither. I have my criticisms of mainstream journalism, but think the Times is really no better or worse than The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC.  

But it's complete, I'll give it that. Complete as in it attempts to cover all the news, national, international, political, sports, and so on. Sure, some stories slip through the cracks and some stories don't get the headline treatment that some people might feel they deserve. But it tries to maintain journalistic standards, as in verifying sources, fact-checking, etc. Again, sometimes it errs and mistakes are made, but we usually learn about these errors and omissions from retractions and corrections made by the Times themselves. I don't blindly believe everything I read in the Times - I try not to blindly believe anything -  and usually triangulate the news by cross-checking among the Times, The Guardian, and MSNBC. I don't waste my time with Fox.

A few months ago, I saw comic and activist Russell Brand on some talk show or another ranting that there was no difference between the Times, MSNBC, and Fox News. This was shortly after Fox executives admitted in court to deliberately running stories they knew weren't true but believed that their viewers wanted to hear (election fraud, immigration trends, Dominion voting machines, etc). When pressed on the issue, Brand said his beef with all three outlets was that they weren't giving as much coverage to the Julian Assange story as he thought was appropriate. This was well before Assange's plea deal earlier this year, back when there was really was no news, as in day-to-day events, during his long sanctuary in an Ecuadorian embassy. But because every day's headlines weren't "Assange Is Still in Exile," Brand decided all media was biased and shilling propaganda.

I bring this up because today someone was ranting on social media that the Times' bias was showing in their reporting that Trump proposed to debate Harris on Fox News. "At this point, the Times might as well be the PR shop for the Trump campaign," they declared. Their complaint was that Trump had refused to appear at a previously scheduled debate hosted by ABC News, and would only appear on a friendly (to him) network with friendly (to him) hosts in front of a friendly (to him) partisan audience. The poster was angry that the Times headline made no mention of the cancelled debate, so it sounded like Trump had offered a reasonable request for a debate. "Trump Proposes to Debate Harris" doesn't describe the actual situation, and the poster was furious.

I went to the Times' website to see just how bad their tilted journalism was. The front-page headline actually read, "Trump Cancels a Debate With Harris on ABC News and Pitches One With Fox News Instead." Hardly, the one-sided POV that I was expecting. Sure, the headline and the accompanying article didn't use the words "coward" or "chickenshit" even once, but it did include several quotes criticizing Trump for demanding a friendly (to him) forum. And there wasn't one mention of Julian Assange in the entire article! (LOL)

Was the poster lying (imagine that, someone lying on social media!) or did the Times change the headline due to the post (not likely)? I found a link online to the original Times story, and the headline read, "Trump Agrees to a Fox News Debate with Harris on Sept. 4," which I agree is misleading, as it implies that there's a reciprocal agreement (Harris has not expressed any willingness to debate on Fox) and the passive tense ("Trump Agrees") makes it sound like someone other that Trump had proposed the Fox debate. 

But that original story was on the Times' 2024 Election Live Updates page and no writer was credited. It was likely a lightly edited feed from the AP or other wire service.  The front-page article that ran later in the day ("Trump Cancels a Debate With Harris on ABC News and Pitches One With Fox News Instead.") was written by respected journalists Neil Vigdor, Maggie Haberman, and Simon J. Levien. The headline on the 2024 Election Live Updates page, later also attributed to the same three journalists, was revised to read, "Trump Proposes a Fox News Debate with Harris on Sept. 4." Much better than the original headline, although even the earlier article's actual text provided more clarity than the confusing headline. 

I strongly suspect the poster was the same generation as my daughter and has gotten their news from online Internet sources all of their adult lives. They aren't used to seeing news that isn't biased, news that's not only telling you what happened but also what you're supposed to think and feel about it. News that isn't striving to be the most strident voice online about an issue just to get the clicks. They aren't used to neutral, "just the facts" reporting of the actual news without the moral outrage and editorialization. 

The front-page article in the Times quoted several Democratic sources saying, in so many words, that The Orange One's request was chickenshit and cowardly, such as: 

“Donald Trump is running scared and trying to back out of the debate he already agreed to and running straight to Fox News to bail him out,” Michael Tyler, the communications director for the Harris campaign, said in a statement. “He needs to stop playing games and show up to the debate he already committed to on Sept 10.”

But you would have to actually read the article to see that quote, something the Millennials don't seem to have time for. 

So look, it's fair to criticize the Times along with all of mainstream journalism, but to single out the Times as the sole bad actor because your point of view isn't expressed vehemently enough is off base. 

And Trump IS a chickenshit coward.