Media underserves the public yet again
With the New Hampshire primary afoot and the president still triumphant over his impeachment acquittal it is no surprise that the media had another difficult week.
From the esteemed pages of the New York Times, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman passionately laid out the case for the candidacy of Michael Bloomberg.
“My fellow Americans, we face a national emergency,” he warned, before teasing the notion that there was someone uniquely suited to vanquish the source of our peril, Donald Trump.
“This candidate knows how to get stuff done — he can fight this fire at the scale of the fire,” Friedman declared, leading to the big reveal.
“This candidate is Michael Bloomberg. This candidate has Trump very worried.”
“Bloomberg has the right stuff,” Friedman gushed as he headed for the big finish. “A moderate progressive with a heart of gold but the toughness of a rattlesnake — for what is going to be an incredibly big, brutal task: making Donald Trump a one-term president.”
Boom! It was a powerful endorsement.
Then it became a receipt. At the bottom of the article was a small parenthetical note which read: “(Disclosure: Bloomberg Philanthropies has donated to Planet Word, the museum my wife is building in Washington, to promote reading and literacy.)”
Indeed, Ann Friedman is the CEO of Planet Word. A press release for the museum states that, “Planet-Word has secured $16 million toward a $20 million goal to cover the creation of the museum’s exhibits … Planet Word’s generous donors include Bloomberg Philanthropies.” Four other donors are also mentioned.
To be sure, Bloomberg Philanthropies donates millions of dollars to great causes near and far. In fact, back in 2016, Bloomberg gave $50 million to the Museum of Science in Boston.
Bloomberg’s charitable giving is to be lauded but the New York Times should not be using an editorial voice who is directly benefiting from a presidential candidate to champion that presidential candidate.
It brings impartiality into question. Why the Times was willing to green-light the piece anyway is for inquiring minds to pursue.
The New York Times has had challenges in convincing multitudes of media consumers that it is not politically biased. Indeed, the former executive editor of the times who was at the helm of the paper from 2011 to 2014, Jill Abramson, has called the Times’ coverage, “unmistakably anti-Trump.”
In a book published last year, “Merchants of Truth,” Abramson wrote, “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards.”
Regardless of the “urgent times,” media organizations like the New York Times need to fulfill the missions of their charters, without prejudice or influence. The public trust is not shatterproof.