Gray Lady’s Sad Bid To Conceal Her Bias
The lack of openness on social media ’ won’ t change the paper’ s bias.
THE New York Times made it crystal clear in last year’s presidential race that it would no longer hide its disdain of Donald Trump. But now it’s suddenly troubled that readers might get the idea its reporters are biased. In a memo Friday, the paper laid out new social-media guidelines for employees. Journalists are no longer allowed to “express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.”
They’ll have to be more careful about clicking “like,” and they’re dissuaded from joining secret or private groups on Facebook. The paper also wants them to be more thoughtful when engaging with readers and not to reply to abusive comments.
On its face, there’s some good advice in these online rules for most people. But the Times’ new edict appears meant specifically to protect its image as an objective source of news.
Just last week, for example, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a video that caught Times audience-strategy editor Nick Dudich on hidden camera talking openly about ways he manipulates news coverage and pushes his agenda.
Last year, Executive Editor Dean Baquet admitted Trump “challenged” the paper’s efforts to be impartial. “We’ve never seen anybody like him,” Baquet said. As a result, he added, “we have changed.”
Baquet defended the paper’s use of stronger language — the word “lie,” in particular — to describe Trump’s assertions. He said it was important that the paper “not obfuscate” and promised to apply the same standard for all “future politicians.”
It certainly seemed that the pa- per, at long last, had decided to lift the veil meant to obscure the bias in its reporting. Most honest observers today would agree the Times, if not trying to lead the Resistance, at least tilts regularly against Trump in ways it would never apply to liberal pols.
Yet by last week, Baquet was wringing his hands that, because reporters were acknowledging their true feelings and agendas in tweets, people might somehow get the idea the paper itself couldn’t be trusted to provide objective coverage.
“I’ve spent full days policing our social media,” he said at a George Washington University event. As Politico reported, Baquet wants the public to think the Times’ motivation is, as Baquet put it, “journalistically sound” and not part of a “vendetta.” Then came the new diktat to reporters.
The paper also insisted that the editor caught on the undercover video “violated our ethical standards” and a statement acknowledged that Dudich mocked “the idea of acting as an objective jour- nalist.” No change in social-media policy would affect that.
The problem for the Gray Lady is that it can’t have it both ways. If its reporters and editors are going to be overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Trump, as they clearly are, it’s a bit dishonest for the paper to insist they pretend otherwise.
Times journos aren’t the only ones blasting Trump and displaying their biases on Twitter. Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway often cites reporters’ anti-Trump attacks outside their official publications, and a quick glance at Twitter proves her right.
But is less sunlight the answer? Writer Mickey Kaus tweeted that the Times’ new policy is a “massive effort to suppress truth.” David Uberti at Splinter News notes that the new rules are meant to make Times journalists “look like they play it down the middle.”
Writers, after all, aren’t being encouraged to shed their opinions, just not to admit they have them. Yet the lack of openness on social media won’t change the paper’s bias; it’ll only conceal it a bit better.
Besides, Times readers want the paper to take sides. That’s why there was so much anger when the Times added conservative columnist Bret Stephens and why Hillary Clinton lashed out over its coverage of her campaign.
The better change would be to have even more openness of opinion, not less. The 2016 election exposed the media’s liberal bubble, and the best way to pop it would be to just acknowledge it. Until then, the new social-media rules are just window dressing. Not appearing partisan and not actually being partisan are two different things.
Until The New York Times cares about the latter more than the former, no change in the way their reporters use Twitter will make a difference.