It’s Their Fault

I’ve written a lot about the New York Times’ struggle to be objective. I continue to think it is one of the worst major city papers in the country at presenting news objectively , and it is for a couple reasons:

• The Times staff is very liberal, and they are attacked for this very often, so they are constantly saw-sawing in an attempt to compensate. As it turns out, settling on one side or the other of the see-saw is easier than balancing in the middle, so that what we see.
• Times jobs are competitive and full of ambitious people “trying to make a mark” (if you read my posts about A and B careers, you’ll see I also think they are often uniquely unqualified for their jobs). This brand of reporter needs to be noticed and therefore writes stories that “stand out” by being contrarian, “incisive,” and “tone-setting” in terms of analysis. Unfortunately, this is not the point of newspaper journalism: it, and the Times specifically, built its reputation on outstandingly objective reporting.
• Times employees, especially for the A and B career reasons I describe elsewhere, and even flatly because they live in New York, are also uniquely unqualified to analyze how debates will affect public perception. They share this problem with TV pundits. Basically, reporters are too engrossed in the news and have too-skewed views of voters to ever understand how a normal voter will respond in the debate. What voters don’t realize is this very out-of-touchness tends to make the MSM lean conservatively, not liberally. Reporters have so little understanding, and so much unfounded disrespect for, the typical voter, they think that the simplest platitudes will sway them. Combine this with the fact that many reporters are way dumber than they think they are, and the bias is easy to understand. I should mention that lots of bloggers, especially those on the liberal side, are starting to pick this point up.
• Anyone who thinks that is doesn’t matter that the Times is a large corporate entity is naive.

Examples after the jump…

Post Election Headlines on the Times:

Palin Recaptures Her Image
In Debate, G.O.P. Ticket Survives a Test
Palin and Biden Are Cordial but Pointed

That’s it…

The facts of the debate are: a) objectively, Biden was in much better command of his material and, more importantly, b) every poll shows Biden winning. So: why the hell are two positive headlines about Palin and none on Biden the most objectively efficient way to portray this news? Lets look at it in terms of my points above…

1) On the last point: The Times is getting sucked into the media marrative about the Palin expectation game, despite the fact the very point (to me) of NY Times journalism (to me) should be to rise above this fray. Telling quote:

The debate wasn’t so much between Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Ms. Palin as it was between the dueling images of the Alaska governor: the fuzzy-minded amateur parodied — with her own words — by Tina Fey on “Saturday Night Live” or the gun-toting hokey mom who blazed into history at the Republican convention.

…except that this is the very opposite of the truth. Maybe to media junkies, it was, but shouldn’t we get the facts- that we shouldn’t think of this debate as being about Palin and instead consider it as it was meant to be (and was): a argument on policy and readiness from the two VP contenders? The fact that what should be the standard bearer of journalistic objectivity doesn’t do this is a sad reminder that no one does.

2) The news analyst quotes three GOP strategists and zero Democratic strategists. Given their tendency to completely lie, I don’t think spinners have any place in serious journalism (undecided voters would be better); but come on, some semblance of balance? Also, in terms of my first and second points: this is a attempt to give the GOP a voice…and the Times must think Palin is more interesting to readers (pandering to the imagined expectations of readers: also the exact opposite of what an objective news source should do).

3) Even the the most objective article, theres the quote: ” [Palin] succeeded by not failing in any obvious way.” Now anyone who follows the news closely understands the sentiment behind that statement, but is it objective journalism? What does “succeeded” mean here? It doesn’t mean winning on points or polls. It doesn’t mean improving general polling scores (don’t even know that yet). A good editor should be asking these questions.

I could go on nitpicking, but that shouldn’t be my job. It is the job of the editors at what should be the most carefully objective paper there is. Instead, it has really become a shell of what it was due to intellectual laziness, me too-ism, corporate ownership, and a staff that isn’t up to the task of fighting for a gold standard.