presswatchers--2020-06-19--Right message, wrong messenger: NYT’s Peter Baker decries the ‘normalization’ of Trump’s presidency

In Friday ’ s New York Times , the paper ’ s White House bureau chief , Peter Baker , tut-tutted the “ normalization ” of Donald Trump ’ s presidency – as if he himself , along with his colleagues , weren ’ t among the people most responsible for it .
In a “ White House Memo , ” Baker wrote about the damning things former national security adviser John Bolton says about Trump in his new book – startling revelations like that Trump “ sees his office as an instrument to advance his own personal and political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; that Trump is “ erratic , ” “ impulsive ” and “ stunningly uninformed ” ; that he makes “ irrational ” decisions ; and that he feels that “ the rules that governed other presidents in the post-Watergate era are meant to be broken.
“ Baker ’ s “ nut graf , ” as we call it in the business , came after he described a scene in which Bolton agrees with then-chief of staff John F. Kelly that there has never “ been a presidency like this ” .
Baker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t actually think the public experiences Trump ’ s presidency as normal — quite the contrary .
I think there are two widely held and mutually exclusive views of the president , and in neither of them is he even remotely normal .
But reading , listening to and watching the news coverage of Donald Trump , I am often struck at the lack of context , alarm , and outrage from the mainstream political media .
There ’ s an awful lot of stenography and credulousness .
So , coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he wrote there would be astute media criticism .
Coming from him , though , it ’ s preposterously , laughably ironic .
Now in Baker ’ s defense , he is a sharp , fast and agile reporter who has at times written about Trump in highly incisive and critical terms , especially in his news analyses .
For better and for worse , he is hugely admired by his colleagues , and is a role model for many of them .
We were colleagues once , even friends .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily articles , Baker has downplayed the profoundly aberrational , deviant nature of the Trump presidency .
He has taken what Trump says at face value even when he knows better .
He has internalized Trump ’ s framings , refused to call lies lies , and engaged in mind-boggling false equivalence .
When all else fails , he has resorted to pox-on-both-your-houses , boring-what-else-is-new coverage .
And he seems to forget , from one day to the other , who Trump really is , and what he himself has written .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his avowed detachment from the very topic he covers .
In a feature intended to explain some of the Times ’ s journalistic practices in March , Baker echoed his boss Dean Baquet ’ s aversion to taking sides – even when one side is the truth and the other side is a lie .
Baker ’ s quote : I do not think news reporters should be partisans .
But they do need to make up their minds about who is right and who is wrong .
They do need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what ’ s not .
And they need to remember that from day to day .
After I tweeted my displeasure about Baker ’ s nut graf on Friday morning , one reader asked me to provide some examples of Baker ’ s normalizations .
So I searched my archives for mentions of Baker .
( Press Watch only goes back to October 2019 , but I like to think of it as a resource of sorts . )
And here are some of the columns that came up : Dec. 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , the press can ’ t be an innocent bystander “ There are days in Washington lately when it feels like the truth itself is on trial , ” Baker wrote during the House impeachment hearings .
What ensued was a master class in avoiding the obvious , which was that Republicans were engaged in a litany of lies , obfuscations , conspiracy theories , distractions and avoidance , while Democrats remained largely tethered to reality and trying to uncover the truth .
Baker wrote about “ radically competing versions of reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Americans harbor toward their leaders and institutions.
” But he never explained to readers who was lying and who wasn ’ t .
I wrote that Baker was basically throwing his hands up in the air , with an occasional wink at the readers , when what he ’ s supposed to be doing is shouting the truth from the rooftops .
It was New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen who really nailed it : Dec. 16 , 2019 : The New York Times ’ s political coverage has completely imploded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the Times ’ s ongoing failure to adjust to the two central political truths of the moment : the profound asymmetry between the parties ( one relying mostly on facts and the other trafficking almost entirely in deceit and division ) and the wildly abnormal nature of the Trump presidency .
Baker often obscures both those truths , casting much of what he sees as just so much partisan bickering .
He maintains such an emotional and moral distance that he sometimes actually appears bored by what ’ s going on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote that “ it feels like one more chapter in an all-out clash that has been fought for three years , hugely consequential yet of a piece with everything that has come before , with less suspense and an outcome seemingly foreordained.
” Dec. 19 , 2019 : Covering Trump ’ s impeachment , the Washington Post and the Associated Press best the New York Times In an instant classic of world-weariness and bothsidesism , Baker ’ s takeway from the House vote to impeach Trump was this : Jan. 29 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times finds it amusing that Democrats want a despised neocon to testify about what he saw and heard I cited Baker as an example of how our star political reporters “ approach the impeachment trial as a game , covering each side with as little show of favoritism as they can possibly muster .
This often leads to false equivalence , one example of which is when ‘ both sides ’ are equally blamed for something that only one side has actually done.
” In this case , Baker seemed to think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , who historically disagreed with Bolton about policy , still wanted to hear his testimony .
Feb. 3 , 2020 : The big takeaway is obvious : Republicans can not be trusted to hold members of their own party accountable The Trump impeachment proceedings showed us two things : that Trump incontrovertibly abused his office and engaged in a cover-up ; and that Republicans can not be trusted to hold members of their own party accountable .
Baker cast it as a huge win for Trump .
Under the headline “ While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From Trial Triumphant and Unshackled , ” he wrote : Feb. 10 , 2020 : The folly of writing that Trump ‘ hits back ’ ; Feb. 13 , 2020 : Political journalists are sounding the alarm .
They mustn ’ t stop .
How do you normalize something as grotesque as Trump ’ s post-impeachment purge of truth tellers ?
If you ’ re a star reporter at the New York Times , you make it sound like he ’ s just fighting back .
Trump ’ s ousting of impeachment witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblower protections .
But to Baker and his colleagues , it was just the latest blow in a boxing match .
Trump was “ emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back.
” A follow-up article by Baker was headlined “ Trump ’ s War Against ‘ the Deep State ’ Enters a New Stage.
” As Luppe B. Luppen , a lawyer and writer who tweets as @ nycsouthpaw explained , Baker ’ s story “ so internalized Trump ’ s point of view that it starts analyzing a ‘ war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Any close observer of the administration these past 3y surely knows that individual acts of defiance to Trump are sporadic , uncoordinated , and reliably get brutally crushed.
” Feb. 25 : Trump , unbound , escalates his blustering attacks on the courts – and reporters do stenography Trump says manifestly outrageous things , and Baker dutifully writes them down .
Case in point , when Trump maligned and tried to bully two liberal , female Supreme Court justices – while he was traveling in India – I wrote that “ reporters should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior for a president of the United States ” that “ represented an escalation of his persistent and unprecedented attacks on the legitimacy and independence of the federal judiciary.
” Baker reported the story straight for paragraph after paragraph , quoting Trump and his tweets , patiently explicating what Trump was talking about and what he meant , and at one point simply noting that “ It is unusual for presidents to fixate on domestic issues while overseas on a state visit , but Mr. Trump has veered from that tradition so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” March 3 , 2020 : Trump ’ s dangerous ignorance ought to be a top story Other reporters saw Trump ’ s profound cluelessness about what ’ s involved in fighting a pandemic on full display during a televised meeting with the heads of major pharmaceutical companies .
Baker performed dutiful stenography .
March 5 , 2020 : Get political reporters off the coronavirus story because they don ’ t distinguish between right and wrong Trump tried to blame Barack Obama for his own administration ’ s continued failure to make widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public .
It was a patently outrageous , completely false claim .
It took Baker a credulous headline , a credulous subhead and two long stenographic paragraphs before even giving readers a hint that Trump had no idea what he was talking about .
My response was to suggest that journalists who refuse to decide who ’ s right and who ’ s wrong shouldn ’ t be allowed anywhere near a story with major public-health implications .
Baker and other Times reporter often write that Trump is “ struggling ” when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no evidence he struggles , certainly not for balance .
Instead , he reacts , impulsively , with self-interest his primary and possibly only concern .
But Baker actually wrote this paragraph : Of all the euphemisms the Times has used for “ pathological lying , ” “ Panglossian dismissiveness ” maybe the the Timesiest .
April 1 , 2020 : Trump predicts two bad weeks followed by ‘ a burst of light ’ and political press lauds him for his new realism Baker routinely jumps on any evidence that Trump may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Case in point , Trump on March 31 held a rambling two-hour press conference during which he braced the country for a “ very tough two weeks ” – but then said , absurdly , that things will “ get better all of a sudden… like a burst of light.
” Baker saw what he wanted to see , writing about the “ grim-faced president ” who “ was coming to grips with a reality he had long refused to accept.
” That has not aged well , but neither has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

In Friday’s New York Times, the paper’s White House bureau chief, Peter Baker, tut-tutted the “normalization” of Donald Trump’s presidency – as if he himself, along with his colleagues, weren’t among the people most responsible for it.
In a “White House Memo,” Baker wrote about the damning things former national security adviser John Bolton says about Trump in his new book – startling revelations like that Trump “sees his office as an instrument to advance his own personal and political interests over those of the nation”; that Trump is “erratic,” “impulsive” and “stunningly uninformed”; that he makes “irrational” decisions; and that he feels that “the rules that governed other presidents in the post-Watergate era are meant to be broken.“
Baker’s “nut graf,” as we call it in the business, came after he described a scene in which Bolton agrees with then-chief of staff John F. Kelly that there has never “been a presidency like this”. Baker wrote:
That is self-evidently true and yet it bears repeating every once in a while. After more than three years of the Trump presidency, it has become easy to forget at times just how out of the ordinary it really is. The normalization of Mr. Trump’s norm-busting, line-crossing, envelope-pushing administration has meant that what was once shocking now seems like just another day.
As it happens, I don’t actually think the public experiences Trump’s presidency as normal — quite the contrary. I think there are two widely held and mutually exclusive views of the president, and in neither of them is he even remotely normal.
But reading, listening to and watching the news coverage of Donald Trump, I am often struck at the lack of context, alarm, and outrage from the mainstream political media. There’s an awful lot of stenography and credulousness.
So, coming from almost anyone besides Peter Baker, what he wrote there would be astute media criticism.
Coming from him, though, it’s preposterously, laughably ironic.
Now in Baker’s defense, he is a sharp, fast and agile reporter who has at times written about Trump in highly incisive and critical terms, especially in his news analyses. For better and for worse, he is hugely admired by his colleagues, and is a role model for many of them. We were colleagues once, even friends.
But way too often, especially in his daily articles, Baker has downplayed the profoundly aberrational, deviant nature of the Trump presidency. He has taken what Trump says at face value even when he knows better. He has internalized Trump’s framings, refused to call lies lies, and engaged in mind-boggling false equivalence. When all else fails, he has resorted to pox-on-both-your-houses, boring-what-else-is-new coverage.
And he seems to forget, from one day to the other, who Trump really is, and what he himself has written.
I suspect it’s partly a result of his avowed detachment from the very topic he covers. In a feature intended to explain some of the Times’s journalistic practices in March, Baker echoed his boss Dean Baquet’s aversion to taking sides – even when one side is the truth and the other side is a lie. Baker’s quote:
I try hard not to take strong positions on public issues even in private… For me, it’s easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong.
I do not think news reporters should be partisans. But they do need to make up their minds about who is right and who is wrong. They do need to distinguish between what’s dangerously aberrational and what’s not. And they need to remember that from day to day.
After I tweeted my displeasure about Baker’s nut graf on Friday morning, one reader asked me to provide some examples of Baker’s normalizations. So I searched my archives for mentions of Baker. (Press Watch only goes back to October 2019, but I like to think of it as a resource of sorts.) And here are some of the columns that came up:
Dec. 10, 2019: In the war on truth, the press can’t be an innocent bystander
“There are days in Washington lately when it feels like the truth itself is on trial,” Baker wrote during the House impeachment hearings.
What ensued was a master class in avoiding the obvious, which was that Republicans were engaged in a litany of lies, obfuscations, conspiracy theories, distractions and avoidance, while Democrats remained largely tethered to reality and trying to uncover the truth.
Baker wrote about “radically competing versions of reality” and “the deep distrust that many Americans harbor toward their leaders and institutions.” But he never explained to readers who was lying and who wasn’t.
I wrote that Baker was basically throwing his hands up in the air, with an occasional wink at the readers, when what he’s supposed to be doing is shouting the truth from the rooftops.
It was New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen who really nailed it:
"Each side took what it wanted from the day’s developments and drew the conclusions that best reflected its views." https://t.co/QtCg2jKq89 This is now the best the Times can do. It has maneuvered itself into a null space, where it can only repeat this observation over and over. — Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) December 10, 2019
Dec. 16, 2019: The New York Times’s political coverage has completely imploded at the worst possible time
I wrote about the Times’s ongoing failure to adjust to the two central political truths of the moment: the profound asymmetry between the parties (one relying mostly on facts and the other trafficking almost entirely in deceit and division) and the wildly abnormal nature of the Trump presidency.
Baker often obscures both those truths, casting much of what he sees as just so much partisan bickering. He maintains such an emotional and moral distance that he sometimes actually appears bored by what’s going on.
Just before the House impeachment vote he wrote that “it feels like one more chapter in an all-out clash that has been fought for three years, hugely consequential yet of a piece with everything that has come before, with less suspense and an outcome seemingly foreordained.”
Dec. 19, 2019: Covering Trump’s impeachment, the Washington Post and the Associated Press best the New York Times
In an instant classic of world-weariness and bothsidesism, Baker’s takeway from the House vote to impeach Trump was this:
From the day he took office, Mr. Trump made clear that he would not abide by the conventions of the system he inherited. So perhaps it was inevitable that at some point he would go too far for the opposition party, leading to a historic day of debate on the House floor where he was alternately depicted as a constitutional villain or victim.
Jan. 29, 2020: Peter Baker at the New York Times finds it amusing that Democrats want a despised neocon to testify about what he saw and heard
I cited Baker as an example of how our star political reporters “approach the impeachment trial as a game, covering each side with as little show of favoritism as they can possibly muster. This often leads to false equivalence, one example of which is when ‘both sides’ are equally blamed for something that only one side has actually done.”
In this case, Baker seemed to think it was a hilarious “gotcha” that Democrats, who historically disagreed with Bolton about policy, still wanted to hear his testimony.
Feb. 3, 2020: The big takeaway is obvious: Republicans cannot be trusted to hold members of their own party accountable
The Trump impeachment proceedings showed us two things: that Trump incontrovertibly abused his office and engaged in a cover-up; and that Republicans cannot be trusted to hold members of their own party accountable.
Baker cast it as a huge win for Trump. Under the headline “While Stained in History, Trump Will Emerge From Trial Triumphant and Unshackled,” he wrote:
With the end of the impeachment trial now in sight and acquittal assured, a triumphant Mr. Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.
Feb. 10, 2020: The folly of writing that Trump ‘hits back’; Feb. 13, 2020: Political journalists are sounding the alarm. They mustn’t stop.
How do you normalize something as grotesque as Trump’s post-impeachment purge of truth tellers? If you’re a star reporter at the New York Times, you make it sound like he’s just fighting back.
Trump’s ousting of impeachment witnesses was a huge defeat for accountability and whistleblower protections. But to Baker and his colleagues, it was just the latest blow in a boxing match. Trump was “emboldened by his victory and determined to strike back.”
A follow-up article by Baker was headlined “Trump’s War Against ‘the Deep State’ Enters a New Stage.”
As Luppe B. Luppen, a lawyer and writer who tweets as @nycsouthpaw explained, Baker’s story “so internalized Trump’s point of view that it starts analyzing a ‘war’ that isn’t real. Any close observer of the administration these past 3y surely knows that individual acts of defiance to Trump are sporadic, uncoordinated, and reliably get brutally crushed.”
Feb. 25: Trump, unbound, escalates his blustering attacks on the courts – and reporters do stenography
Trump says manifestly outrageous things, and Baker dutifully writes them down.
Case in point, when Trump maligned and tried to bully two liberal, female Supreme Court justices – while he was traveling in India – I wrote that “reporters should have called it out as grotesquely abnormal behavior for a president of the United States” that “represented an escalation of his persistent and unprecedented attacks on the legitimacy and independence of the federal judiciary.”
Baker reported the story straight for paragraph after paragraph, quoting Trump and his tweets, patiently explicating what Trump was talking about and what he meant, and at one point simply noting that “It is unusual for presidents to fixate on domestic issues while overseas on a state visit, but Mr. Trump has veered from that tradition so much that it has come to be expected.”
March 3, 2020: Trump’s dangerous ignorance ought to be a top story
Other reporters saw Trump’s profound cluelessness about what’s involved in fighting a pandemic on full display during a televised meeting with the heads of major pharmaceutical companies. Baker performed dutiful stenography.
March 5, 2020: Get political reporters off the coronavirus story because they don’t distinguish between right and wrong
Trump tried to blame Barack Obama for his own administration’s continued failure to make widespread testing for the virus available to the public. It was a patently outrageous, completely false claim.
It took Baker a credulous headline, a credulous subhead and two long stenographic paragraphs before even giving readers a hint that Trump had no idea what he was talking about.
My response was to suggest that journalists who refuse to decide who’s right and who’s wrong shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a story with major public-health implications.
March 9, 2020: Time to tune Trump out
Baker and other Times reporter often write that Trump is “struggling” when he’s… not.
There’s no evidence he struggles, certainly not for balance. Instead, he reacts, impulsively, with self-interest his primary and possibly only concern.
But Baker actually wrote this paragraph:
Mr. Trump, who is at his strongest politically when he has a human enemy to attack, has seemed less certain of how to take on an invisible killer. The role of calming natural leader is not one that has come easily as he struggles to find the balance between public reassurance and Panglossian dismissiveness.
Of all the euphemisms the Times has used for “pathological lying,” “Panglossian dismissiveness” maybe the the Timesiest.
April 1, 2020: Trump predicts two bad weeks followed by ‘a burst of light’ and political press lauds him for his new realism
Baker routinely jumps on any evidence that Trump may be acting like a normal president and amplifies it.
Case in point, Trump on March 31 held a rambling two-hour press conference during which he braced the country for a “very tough two weeks” – but then said, absurdly, that things will “get better all of a sudden… like a burst of light.”
Baker saw what he wanted to see, writing about the “grim-faced president” who “was coming to grips with a reality he had long refused to accept.”
That has not aged well, but neither has so much of what Baker has written.


presswatchers--2020-06-22--There’s no national testing program for Trump to slow down, is the problem

Donald Trump wasn ’ t joking when he complained the other night that increased testing for the coronavirus was resulting in more reported cases .
Nor was he joking when he said that he told “ his people ” to “ slow the testing down , please.
” The only question is whether he actually did it , or just thought about doing it .
Either way , however , the real outrage is that “ his people ” couldn ’ t necessarily slow things down if he asked them .
That ’ s because in defiance of public-health experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up anything like an actual national testing program .
He has consistently refused to launch a massive federal effort to develop supply-chain capacity to test more Americans , although that is desperately needed , and only the federal government is capable of doing what ’ s required .
His antipathy toward testing – towards anything that makes “ his ” numbers look worse – has been clear since the beginning of the pandemic .
And he famously said in May , “ In a way , by doing all this testing we make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument happens to be garbage , as a global health expert pointed out : Indeed , when it comes to the virus – as with so many other things — Trump ’ s Washington is doing basically none of the things we need it to do .
In the absence of a national approach , states have been forced to take the lead , haphazardly and inconsistently , and with no ability to affect the major supply chain issues that continue to slow testing initiatives around the country , according to a survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is despite Trump , not because of him , that about 500,000 Americans a day are getting tested now .
That ’ s a big improvement over two months ago , but still far short of the 5 to 20 million tests a day that some experts think is necessary to detect , track and isolate the infected and prevent repeated new outbreaks .
Trump ’ s comment was tragic in its symbolism more than in its effect .
It only further exposed his complete lack of a plan , other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the pandemic here .
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney ( D-N.Y. ) offered up a sobering summary of the federal response earlier this month , in an interview with the Hill ’ s Steve Clemons : You ’ ve got 115,000 Americans dead and 40 million people out of work , you know ?
How ’ s it going ?
The fact is is that our national testing program was a disgrace .
I don ’ t care what the White House says , and if you look at every country on Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus , it ’ s because they had a national testing program in place early , aggressively .
They did contact tracing and containment .
And we have never gotten our act together on that at the federal level .
And we are paying a terrible price for it .
And we will never get those days back .
We will never be able to put that suffering back together because we paid that price already and at the state level we ’ re now testing 50,000 people a day , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing all the things necessary to win .
But we didn ’ t have to be .
We didn ’ t have to be hurt this badly and I ’ m sorry .
There ’ s a lot of blame to go around , but the administration will never convince me that they handled this properly .
That ’ s not to say that Trump is incapable of making the situation even worse .
Conceivably , “ his people ” could pressure manufacturers to slow operations .
And , notably , two Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health and Human Services is still sitting on $ 8 billion of the $ 25 billion it was given to spend on testing and tracing .
As Politico reported , White House dissimulator Kayleigh McEnany said Trump ’ s comment was made “ in jest.
” But that ’ s what Trump ’ s people say when he says something that ’ s true , or that he really feels — as CNN ’ s Daniel Dale so effectively pointed out .
Joe St. George of Scripps Television asked Trump on Monday if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Trump simply repeated his anti-testing argument .
“ If we did slow it down , we wouldn ’ t show nearly as many cases , ” Trump said .
“ If it did slow down , frankly , I think we ’ re way ahead of ourselves , if you wan na know the truth .
We ’ ve done too good of a job.
” Nobody thinks Trump has done too good of a job , except him .
I ’ ve written a lot about Trump ’ s response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what has been clear all along : It ’ s an ongoing tragedy that he has no real plan to restore the country to health other than to peddle false hope , predict a quick end , adopt fake deadlines and shift the blame to others .
The most urgent need is to test , test , and test even more , but Trump has never liked testing because the results “ look bad ” .
The media has blown its coverage of the federal response by letting political reporters lead instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much attention to whatever Trump says , such that whatever it is makes headlines .
They let Trump set the agenda instead of letting knowledgeable people do it .
Political reporters also give Trump way too much credit for trying , which he is not .
They cover up for his incoherence , ignorance , cluelessness , gaslighting , and yes , just plain stupidity .
They generally fail to properly exploit their rare access to him by confronting him with facts and piercing his bubble .
They don ’ t hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is causing .
They remain complacent in the face of a massive death toll , instead of relentlessly demanding more forceful action .
Please consider supporting my work , which is dependent on donations and grants .

Donald Trump wasn’t joking when he complained the other night that increased testing for the coronavirus was resulting in more reported cases.
Nor was he joking when he said that he told “his people” to “slow the testing down, please.”
The only question is whether he actually did it, or just thought about doing it.
Either way, however, the real outrage is that “his people” couldn’t necessarily slow things down if he asked them. That’s because in defiance of public-health experts, Trump has repeatedly refused to stand up anything like an actual national testing program.
He has consistently refused to launch a massive federal effort to develop supply-chain capacity to test more Americans, although that is desperately needed, and only the federal government is capable of doing what’s required.
His antipathy toward testing – towards anything that makes “his” numbers look worse – has been clear since the beginning of the pandemic. And he famously said in May, “In a way, by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad.”
Trump’s argument happens to be garbage, as a global health expert pointed out:
False. Proportionally, more than a dozen countries have tested more than us. And our average test positive percentage is higher than almost all of them, meaning we are missing (i.e. not testing) many cases. Lastly, it ‘looks like we have more cases’…because well, we just do. https://t.co/xL5PhOYrkY pic.twitter.com/197UtHIbj6 — Craig Spencer MD MPH (@Craig_A_Spencer) June 22, 2020
Indeed, when it comes to the virus – as with so many other things — Trump’s Washington is doing basically none of the things we need it to do.
In the absence of a national approach, states have been forced to take the lead, haphazardly and inconsistently, and with no ability to affect the major supply chain issues that continue to slow testing initiatives around the country, according to a survey from the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.
It is despite Trump, not because of him, that about 500,000 Americans a day are getting tested now. That’s a big improvement over two months ago, but still far short of the 5 to 20 million tests a day that some experts think is necessary to detect, track and isolate the infected and prevent repeated new outbreaks.
Trump’s comment was tragic in its symbolism more than in its effect. It only further exposed his complete lack of a plan, other than wishful thinking, for an end to the pandemic here.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) offered up a sobering summary of the federal response earlier this month, in an interview with the Hill’s Steve Clemons:
You’ve got 115,000 Americans dead and 40 million people out of work, you know? How’s it going? The fact is is that our national testing program was a disgrace. I don’t care what the White House says, and if you look at every country on Earth that has got a handle on the virus, it’s because they had a national testing program in place early, aggressively. They did contact tracing and containment. And we have never gotten our act together on that at the federal level. And we are paying a terrible price for it. And we will never get those days back. We will never be able to put that suffering back together because we paid that price already and at the state level we’re now testing 50,000 people a day, and that’s great. We’re doing all the things necessary to win. But we didn’t have to be. We didn’t have to be hurt this badly and I’m sorry. There’s a lot of blame to go around, but the administration will never convince me that they handled this properly.
That’s not to say that Trump is incapable of making the situation even worse. Conceivably, “his people” could pressure manufacturers to slow operations. And, notably, two Senate Democrats are complaining that the Department of Health and Human Services is still sitting on $8 billion of the $25 billion it was given to spend on testing and tracing.
As Politico reported, White House dissimulator Kayleigh McEnany said Trump’s comment was made “in jest.” But that’s what Trump’s people say when he says something that’s true, or that he really feels — as CNN’s Daniel Dale so effectively pointed out.
Some other moments in the eternal Just Joking cycle:
– Trump invites China to probe Biden, Republicans say he was joking, Trump makes clear he was not joking – Trump applauds Gianforte for assaulting journalist, Republicans say he was joking, Trump makes clear he was not joking pic.twitter.com/qeieqaaDdz — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 22, 2020
Joe St. George of Scripps Television asked Trump on Monday if he had really given the slow-down order, and Trump simply repeated his anti-testing argument.
VIDEO: Just asked President Trump if he actually ordered testing to be slowed down. He said in his Saturday speech he did. He didn't answer the direct question. pic.twitter.com/aDKGu6F2Ok — Joe St. George (@JoeStGeorge) June 22, 2020
“If we did slow it down, we wouldn’t show nearly as many cases,” Trump said. “If it did slow down, frankly, I think we’re way ahead of ourselves, if you wanna know the truth. We’ve done too good of a job.”
Nobody thinks Trump has done too good of a job, except him.
A note from Dan Froomkin:
I’ve written a lot about Trump’s response to the pandemic, and here is what has been clear all along: It’s an ongoing tragedy that he has no real plan to restore the country to health other than to peddle false hope, predict a quick end, adopt fake deadlines and shift the blame to others. The most urgent need is to test, test, and test even more, but Trump has never liked testing because the results “look bad”. The media has blown its coverage of the federal response by letting political reporters lead instead of health reporters. Political reporters pay way too much attention to whatever Trump says, such that whatever it is makes headlines. They let Trump set the agenda instead of letting knowledgeable people do it. Political reporters also give Trump way too much credit for trying, which he is not. They cover up for his incoherence, ignorance, cluelessness, gaslighting, and yes, just plain stupidity. They generally fail to properly exploit their rare access to him by confronting him with facts and piercing his bubble. They don’t hold him accountable for the suffering and deaths he is causing. They remain complacent in the face of a massive death toll, instead of relentlessly demanding more forceful action.
Please consider supporting my work, which is dependent on donations and grants.


presswatchers--2020-06-24--Elite media defines neutrality in terms of a white guy who doesn’t even exist

Wesley Lowery , the reporter who has taken a leading role in confronting anachronistic newsroom norms , is absolutely right to put his primary focus at this point on the issue of race .
Lowery ’ s latest powerful call to arms appeared on the New York Times op-ed page on Tuesday .
“ The views and inclinations of whiteness are accepted as the objective neutral , ” he wrote .
In the pursuit of “ a model of professed objectivity , ” he wrote : This is not the first time that argument has been made .
( See @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cover race . )
Lowery , a 30-year old Black man , left the Washington Post for CBS News last year after getting scolded for his tweets by editor Marty Baron .
In his op-ed , Lowery wrote : “ Collectively , the industry has responded to generations of black journalists with indifference at best and open hostility at its frequent worst.
” But we are in the midst of a rare moment during which white people actually seem to be listening to Black people .
And the events that gave rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with the most to risk from the continued status quo are not white .
Those risks are not hypothetical , they are real .
Those risks ruin and kill .
Our top newsrooms are showing signs of , finally , possibly , making genuine moves toward greater diversity in their hiring , promotion and coverage decisions .
Washington Post publisher Fred Ryan sent out a memo committing to adding more than a dozen new newsroom positions to “ strengthen our capacity to cover this rapidly unfolding societal reckoning and the broader issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States.
” New York Times editor A.G. Sulzberger and three top editors wrote in a memo that “ we have heard from many black colleagues , and other people of color around the company , that they do not feel sufficiently part of decision making , feel fully valued in our culture , or see a clear path for advancement .
This is something we must change.
” The Times vaguely promised “ to develop an ambitious , long-term strategy for making The Times more diverse , equitable and inclusive.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations , including the Associated Press , have begun to capitalize the B in Black .
As Temple University journalism professor Lori L. Tharps so cogently explained : “ Black with a capital B refers to people of the African diaspora .
Lowercase black is simply a color.
” These various efforts may represent a shift in the industry ( although I ’ m with Ford Foundation president Darren Walker , who explained on MSNBC the other day that corporate diversity targets and goals don ’ t mean much unless they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regardless , this is no time to let up the pressure .
More reporters and editors and producers and photojournalists of color need to hired , they need to be promoted , and most of all they need to be heeded .
This is not a crisis for people of color alone , this is a crisis for everyone in the field .
Newsrooms that don ’ t reflect their community are out of sync in a profound way .
And understanding and being able to explain the complex role that race and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to covering this moment coherently – particularly because Donald Trump is so effectively using race to divide us .
As long as the gaze of our newsrooms remains intractably white ( and male ) those newsrooms will fail .
Objectivity is not what you think it is Even as our newsrooms ( hopefully ) become more diverse internally , there may be something else they should do .
But let me take a step back first : The movement that Lowery has become such an effective spokesman for is fighting against a whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and habits that dramatically reduce the accuracy and authenticity of news coverage , and erode the bond of trust between news organizations and their readers and viewers .
Those who want to preserve the status quo often defend themselves by calling what they do “ objective ” – and what we want “ opinion.
” Lowery ’ s op-ed received a lot of support on social media , including from one of the most respected voices in American journalism today , American Press Institute executive director Tom Rosenstiel .
In a massive Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application of “ objectivity ” is a perversion of what the term is supposed to mean .
“ The idea was that journalists needed to employ objective , observable , repeatable methods of verification in their reporting , ” Rosenstiel wrote .
He continued : But neutrality is exactly what so many editors are striving for in the name of objectivity , as Lowery wrote : That theoretical reader , who is granted such great power in our newsrooms , is not just white ( and almost certainly male ) , but is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get defined by newsroom leaders as half way between the two main political parties , which leads to ceaseless triangulation that lately has entailed a wild tilt to the right as the GOP loses its moorings to reality and tolerance .
And if we know anything about our politically divided country , it ’ s that there are few people who actually occupy that right-in-the-middle space .
In other words , the politically neutral white man all these editors are afraid of offending doesn ’ t actually exist .
Why won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in covering Donald Trump ’ s lies ?
Why publish bothesiderish crap like “ the lawmakers from the two parties could not even agree on the basic set of facts in front of them ” ?
Times executive editor Dean Baquet was literally asked about that in an interview earlier this year and his answer was : Baquet called what his staff does “ sophisticated true objectivity.
” He said : “ If you hear stuff you disagree with , but it ’ s factual and it ’ s worth people hearing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also means you can ’ t call a lie a lie .
“ Let somebody else call it a lie , ” Baquet said .
That ’ s neutral objectivity .
As Lowery wrote , “ Neutral objectivity trips over itself to find ways to avoid telling the truth.
” There are lots of ways to address the problems afflicting our journalism these days .
I write about them all the time !
But reading Lowery about that theoretical white reader to whom editors grant so much power made me wonder .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and editors started keeping a widely diverse audience very much in mind when they do their work ?
That means not writing for the imaginary white guy .
It means not writing for your sources .
( That ’ s a whole other big problem . )
In the case of elite political reporters , it also means not writing for the liberal who will , you know , be able to figure out the real story because they ’ re not stupid .
Reporters and editors should be visualizing an audience that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socioeconomically , demographically , geographically .
With that audience in mind , how can you worry about offending them ?
How can you worry about explaining things too much ?
You can ’ t .
All you can worry about is that you haven ’ t told them what they need to know .
The smartest thing to do is to make your best attempt at discerning the truth , what ’ s important and what it means , and explaining it as clearly as possible .
Rosenstiel , towards the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some journalists might misinterpret reformers like Lowery and “ replace a flawed understanding of objectivity by taking refuge in subjectivity and think their opinions have more moral integrity than genuine inquiry.
” But that ’ s not what Lowery and others are saying at all .
We ’ re talking about a re-dedication to the best principles of news journalism .
As Lowery wrote :

Wesley Lowery, the reporter who has taken a leading role in confronting anachronistic newsroom norms, is absolutely right to put his primary focus at this point on the issue of race.
Lowery’s latest powerful call to arms appeared on the New York Times op-ed page on Tuesday. “The views and inclinations of whiteness are accepted as the objective neutral,” he wrote. In the pursuit of “a model of professed objectivity,” he wrote:
[T]he mainstream has allowed what it considers objective truth to be decided almost exclusively by white reporters and their mostly white bosses. And those selective truths have been calibrated to avoid offending the sensibilities of white readers.
This is not the first time that argument has been made. (See my explainer on how newsrooms are struggling to cover race.) Lowery, a 30-year old Black man, left the Washington Post for CBS News last year after getting scolded for his tweets by editor Marty Baron. In his op-ed, Lowery wrote: “Collectively, the industry has responded to generations of black journalists with indifference at best and open hostility at its frequent worst.”
But we are in the midst of a rare moment during which white people actually seem to be listening to Black people.
And the events that gave rise to this moment vividly illustrate how the people with the most to risk from the continued status quo are not white. Those risks are not hypothetical, they are real. Those risks ruin and kill.
Our top newsrooms are showing signs of, finally, possibly, making genuine moves toward greater diversity in their hiring, promotion and coverage decisions.
Washington Post publisher Fred Ryan sent out a memo committing to adding more than a dozen new newsroom positions to “strengthen our capacity to cover this rapidly unfolding societal reckoning and the broader issues related to race and identity in the United States.”
New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and three top editors wrote in a memo that “we have heard from many black colleagues, and other people of color around the company, that they do not feel sufficiently part of decision making, feel fully valued in our culture, or see a clear path for advancement. This is something we must change.”
The Times vaguely promised “to develop an ambitious, long-term strategy for making The Times more diverse, equitable and inclusive.”
In a small public-facing change, several news organizations, including the Associated Press, have begun to capitalize the B in Black. As Temple University journalism professor Lori L. Tharps so cogently explained: “Black with a capital B refers to people of the African diaspora. Lowercase black is simply a color.”
These various efforts may represent a shift in the industry (although I’m with Ford Foundation president Darren Walker, who explained on MSNBC the other day that corporate diversity targets and goals don’t mean much unless they’re directly tied to executives bonuses.)
Regardless, this is no time to let up the pressure. More reporters and editors and producers and photojournalists of color need to hired, they need to be promoted, and most of all they need to be heeded.
This is not a crisis for people of color alone, this is a crisis for everyone in the field. Newsrooms that don’t reflect their community are out of sync in a profound way. And understanding and being able to explain the complex role that race and racism play in our society is essential to covering this moment coherently – particularly because Donald Trump is so effectively using race to divide us. As long as the gaze of our newsrooms remains intractably white (and male) those newsrooms will fail.
Objectivity is not what you think it is
Even as our newsrooms (hopefully) become more diverse internally, there are other things they should do as well. But let me take a step back first:
The movement that Lowery has become such an effective spokesman for is fighting against a whole range of what we consider anachronistic attitudes and habits that dramatically reduce the accuracy and authenticity of news coverage, and erode the bond of trust between news organizations and their readers and viewers.
Those who want to preserve the status quo often defend themselves by calling what they do “objective” – and what we want “opinion.”
Lowery’s op-ed received a lot of support on social media, including from one of the most respected voices in American journalism today, American Press Institute executive director Tom Rosenstiel. In a massive Twitter thread, Rosenstiel argued that the modern application of “objectivity” is a perversion of what the term is supposed to mean. “The idea was that journalists needed to employ objective, observable, repeatable methods of verification in their reporting,” Rosenstiel wrote. He continued:
To understand objectivity’s true meaning, think of transparency of method and discipline of verification. Objectivity is not neutrality or disinterestedness. Those notions invite unconscious bias–the very problem the objective method or process was meant to combat.
But neutrality is exactly what so many editors are striving for in the name of objectivity, as Lowery wrote:
Conversations about objectivity, rather than happening in a virtuous vacuum, habitually focus on predicting whether a given sentence, opening paragraph or entire article will appear objective to a theoretical reader, who is invariably assumed to be white…. Instead of telling hard truths in this polarized environment, America’s newsrooms too often deprive their readers of plainly stated facts that could expose reporters to accusations of partiality or imbalance.
That theoretical reader, who is granted such great power in our newsrooms, is not just white (and almost certainly male), but is politically neutral.
Political neutrality tends to get defined by newsroom leaders as half way between the two main political parties, which leads to ceaseless triangulation that lately has entailed a wild tilt to the right as the GOP loses its moorings to reality and tolerance.
And if we know anything about our politically divided country, it’s that there are few people who actually occupy that right-in-the-middle space.
In other words, the politically neutral white man all these editors are afraid of offending doesn’t actually exist.
Why won’t the New York Times get more assertive in covering Donald Trump’s lies? Why publish bothesiderish crap like “the lawmakers from the two parties could not even agree on the basic set of facts in front of them”? Times executive editor Dean Baquet was literally asked about that in an interview earlier this year and his answer was:
In my mind, I think of the reader who just wants to pick up his paper in the morning and know what the hell happened. I’m beholden to that reader, and I feel obligated to tell that reader what happened.
Baquet called what his staff does “sophisticated true objectivity.” He said: “If you hear stuff you disagree with, but it’s factual and it’s worth people hearing, you write about it.”
But it also means you can’t call a lie a lie. “Let somebody else call it a lie,” Baquet said.
That’s neutral objectivity. As Lowery wrote, “Neutral objectivity trips over itself to find ways to avoid telling the truth.”
Writing for a more diverse audience
There are lots of ways to address the problems afflicting our journalism these days. I write about them all the time! But reading Lowery about that theoretical white reader to whom editors grant so much power made me wonder.
How much better would it be if reporters and editors started keeping a widely diverse audience very much in mind when they do their work?
That means not writing for the imaginary white guy. It means not writing for your sources. (That’s a whole other big problem.) In the case of elite political reporters, it also means not writing for the liberal who will, you know, be able to figure out the real story because they’re not stupid.
Reporters and editors should be visualizing an audience that is diverse – politically, racially, socioeconomically, demographically, geographically.
With that audience in mind, how can you worry about offending them? How can you worry about explaining things too much? You can’t.
All you can worry about is that you haven’t told them what they need to know.
The smartest thing to do is to make your best attempt at discerning the truth, what’s important and what it means, and explaining it as clearly as possible.
Rosenstiel, towards the end of his tweetstorm, expressed the concern that some journalists might misinterpret reformers like Lowery and “replace a flawed understanding of objectivity by taking refuge in subjectivity and think their opinions have more moral integrity than genuine inquiry.”
But that’s not what Lowery and others are saying at all. We’re talking about a re-dedication to the best principles of news journalism. As Lowery wrote:


presswatchers--2020-07-07--New York Times editor Dean Baquet wants his reporters to keep an open — and empty — mind

Journalistic “ objectivity ” — as enforced by editors in our top newsrooms — encourages reporters to engage in credulous , both-sides stenography instead of calling out liars and racists .
It discourages reporters from telling the hard truths — depriving readers ” of plainly stated facts ” that “ could expose reporters to accusations of partiality or imbalance , ” as the young Black journalist Wesley Lowery wrote recently wrote in a blistering New York Times op-ed .
Journalistic objectivity , in theory , is about observation and verification .
But in its current newsroom practice , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and casting a censorious white , center-right , male gaze on anything remotely controversial .
And Dean Baquet , the executive editor of the New York Times , considers it a “ core value ” of his newsroom that he intends to guard as long as he remains in charge .
In a long and probing interview with Longform.org co-founder Max Linsky on the site ’ s podcast last week , Baquet responded to Lowery ’ s op-ed and to the unprecedented open revolt among Black Times staffers and others after the publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Tom Cotton calling for the military to forcibly subdue Black Lives Matter protests .
Baquet said he is open to increasing newsroom diversity and inclusion .
But when it comes to Lowery ’ s demand for greater “ moral clarity ” — so that editors and reporters , for instance , would “ stop doing things like reflexively hiding behind euphemisms that obfuscate the truth ” — Baquet was totally dismissive .
“ I have to protect the place .
I have to make it better , but also sometimes resist the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think those things are important to the core , ” he said .
Baquet knew Linsky was going to ask about Lowery ’ s critique of faux objectivity , so he came prepared with his own definition : “ To me the goal of a news story is to capture the news to the fullest , with as much precision as possible , every current viewpoint , personality , underlying motivation , and relevant piece of content , ” Baquet said .
Reporters , he said , should go into every story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they may already know to be true : “ Open to what you hear , empathetic to what you hear.
” He also came prepared with a metaphor .
“ For me , ” Baquet said , “ the objective reporter — but let me not use that word because I don ’ t love it , let me use ‘ the independent and fair reporter ’ — … he gets on an airplane to pursue a story with an empty notebook , believing that he or she doesn ’ t fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to be open to what they hear.
” But think about that metaphor for a bit .
First of all , it ’ s appropriately anachronistic .
Sending a reporter to pursue a story someplace entirely new to them was a rare occurrence even before Covid-19 .
And when asked for an example of what he meant , Baquet provided a ridiculous one : “ The guy who gets on a plane to do a story about the Minneapolis mayor ’ s race , maybe in the bottom of his heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to the point , when it comes to covering Washington and domestic politics – easily the most contentious coverage areas for the Times — there ’ s no way reporters can or should embark anew and empty-headed every time they cover a story .
Ironically , it would actually be great if American reporters could cover Washington as if they were just-off-the-plane foreign correspondents — without undue deference to authority and with no allegiance to stifling local conventions .
( And that ’ s something I think some news organizations , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to . )
But New York Times reporters , just like so many other elite media players , are steeped in Washington culture .
So the question is whether reporters should use their brains to interpret what they see in the context of what they know to be true and what they have themselves written before – or whether they should , as Baquet evidently requires , be diligent note-takers in a brand-new notebook , “ empathetic ” to “ every current viewpoint.
” You can see Baquet ’ s dictum playing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously in articles by his star reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman , when they and others write about such things as Trump “ struggling to unify a nation on edge ” or express shock that the two parties can ’ t even agree on the facts .
Nobody and nothing has ever exposed the failure of modern “ objective ” journalism like Donald Trump , a pathological liar stoking racism and conspiracy theories during a pandemic , supported by a party unmoored from reality .
But to Baquet , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview he did on the Times ’ s own podcast in January , he defended what he called “ sophisticated true objectivity ” — which he distinguished from “ labeling and cheap analysis.
” You don ’ t call it a lie , he said .
“ Let somebody else call it a lie.
” During the Longform interview , when he was asked what demands from his staff he considers a threat to core New York Times values , Baquet was quick to answer – defensively .
“ I think we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think we ’ re as aggressive as anybody , if not more .
I think some of them would like us to be even more aggressive , ” he said .
Baquet casts that demand as some sort of existential threat to the Times that he , nearly alone , has to guard against : What does he even mean by that ?
What is this “ everything ” that he would he have to “ throw to the side ” that would make it impossible to cover the next president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not really sure .
Heck I ’ m not even sure he really knows what he means .
Is he saying that ’ s why the Times can ’ t bring itself to call Trump racist ?
I don ’ t see how calling Trump racist would make it hard to cover the next president , racist or not .
The rule seems simple to me : You hold presidents to consistent standards , and different presidents meet them or not .
That ’ s not your problem , that ’ s theirs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some sort of consistency , Baquet is actually changing the standard between presidents , which is a disservice to his readers .
And if Baquet views Trump is an “ anomaly ” that the Times somehow needs to get beyond with its values intact , well then maybe it ’ s no wonder his reporters so consistently fail to convey how dangerously aberrational Trump is .
My best guess is that what Baquet really means is that he ’ s not willing to reconsider any of the timeworn journalistic algorithms Times political reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those algorithms were built for presidents whose announcements constitute news rather than misinformation and for two political parties that have comparable relationships to reality .
Several times during the interview , Baquet talked about the importance of distinguishing between “ what is truly tradition and core and what ’ s merely habit.
” He explained : “ You ’ ve got to say , ‘ Here ’ s what ’ s not going to change .
This is core .
This is who we are.
’ Everything else is sort of up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those algorithms is arguably the key to the implosion of the Times ’ s political journalism under Trump .
And those algorithms do not represent any kind of core journalistic value .
They are , precisely , habits — habits doing terrible damage to the core .
So he ’ s got it entirely backwards .
Linsky tried to draw Baquet out on this issue .
Here ’ s a wonderful exchange : Linsky : But getting back to Trump and how you cover him in a way that stays core .
Help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the pages of the New York Times is not the most direct and accurate way to describe him .
Baquet : So I have — I have very complicated feelings about this .
First off , we have said he uses racist language .
We said it in the last two days .
Linsky : But it ’ s not always that the phrase is , “ he used racist language.
” Sometimes the phrases are more opaque , less direct , more euphemistic — Baquet : Can you list anywhere where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , I ’ ll admit that .
Linsky : Does that come from you ?
Baquet : I think it came from the institution .
We ’ re not used to having presidents of the United States who say the things he says , right ?
So , you know , I can make the case that in the very beginning , we were a little opaque .
Less opaque in the last year or two of his presidency , far less opaque .
Look , we all have to get used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ( Laughs ) We have to get used to ?
Well , if you cover him every day and you ’ re writing half a dozen stories about him , you have to , I don ’ t know if you have to get used to it .
You have to develop a system .
You know , he defies our systems .
So they have a system .
They recognize that Trump defies it .
But they continue to use it anyway , to preserve it for the next president ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is resolute .
“ I know what I believe we have to hold on to , that core of who we are , which is independence and some empathy and balance , ” he said toward the conclusion of the interview .
“ I hate the word , but I ’ ll use it : some version of objectivity .
”

Journalistic “objectivity” — as enforced by editors in our top newsrooms — encourages reporters to engage in credulous, both-sides stenography instead of calling out liars and racists.
It discourages reporters from telling the hard truths — depriving readers ”of plainly stated facts” that “could expose reporters to accusations of partiality or imbalance,” as the young Black journalist Wesley Lowery wrote recently wrote in a blistering New York Times op-ed.
Journalistic objectivity, in theory, is about observation and verification. But in its current newsroom practice, it is more about overly esteeming the status quo and casting a censorious white, center-right, male gaze on anything remotely controversial.
And Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, considers it a “core value” of his newsroom that he intends to guard as long as he remains in charge.
In a long and probing interview with Longform.org co-founder Max Linsky on the site’s podcast last week, Baquet responded to Lowery’s op-ed and to the unprecedented open revolt among Black Times staffers and others after the publication of an inflammatory and sloppy op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton calling for the military to forcibly subdue Black Lives Matter protests.
Baquet said he is open to increasing newsroom diversity and inclusion.
But when it comes to Lowery’s demand for greater “moral clarity” — so that editors and reporters, for instance, would “stop doing things like reflexively hiding behind euphemisms that obfuscate the truth” — Baquet was totally dismissive.
“I have to protect the place. I have to make it better, but also sometimes resist the things that they want to change because I think those things are important to the core,” he said.
Baquet knew Linsky was going to ask about Lowery’s critique of faux objectivity, so he came prepared with his own definition: “To me the goal of a news story is to capture the news to the fullest, with as much precision as possible, every current viewpoint, personality, underlying motivation, and relevant piece of content,” Baquet said.
Reporters, he said, should go into every story with an open mind – regardless of what they may already know to be true: “Open to what you hear, empathetic to what you hear.”
He also came prepared with a metaphor. “For me,” Baquet said, “the objective reporter — but let me not use that word because I don’t love it, let me use ‘the independent and fair reporter’ — … he gets on an airplane to pursue a story with an empty notebook, believing that he or she doesn’t fully know what the story is, and is going to be open to what they hear.”
But think about that metaphor for a bit.
First of all, it’s appropriately anachronistic. Sending a reporter to pursue a story someplace entirely new to them was a rare occurrence even before Covid-19.
And when asked for an example of what he meant, Baquet provided a ridiculous one: “The guy who gets on a plane to do a story about the Minneapolis mayor’s race, maybe in the bottom of his heart doesn’t like Minneapolis.”
But more to the point, when it comes to covering Washington and domestic politics – easily the most contentious coverage areas for the Times — there’s no way reporters can or should embark anew and empty-headed every time they cover a story.
Ironically, it would actually be great if American reporters could cover Washington as if they were just-off-the-plane foreign correspondents — without undue deference to authority and with no allegiance to stifling local conventions. (And that’s something I think some news organizations, like the Los Angeles Times, should aspire to.)
But New York Times reporters, just like so many other elite media players, are steeped in Washington culture. So the question is whether reporters should use their brains to interpret what they see in the context of what they know to be true and what they have themselves written before – or whether they should, as Baquet evidently requires, be diligent note-takers in a brand-new notebook, “empathetic” to “every current viewpoint.”
You can see Baquet’s dictum playing out almost daily in the Times, most obviously in articles by his star reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman, when they and others write about such things as Trump “struggling to unify a nation on edge” or express shock that the two parties can’t even agree on the facts.
Sucker move
Nobody and nothing has ever exposed the failure of modern “objective” journalism like Donald Trump, a pathological liar stoking racism and conspiracy theories during a pandemic, supported by a party unmoored from reality.
But to Baquet, that’s no reason to change.
In an interview he did on the Times’s own podcast in January, he defended what he called “sophisticated true objectivity” — which he distinguished from “labeling and cheap analysis.” You don’t call it a lie, he said. “Let somebody else call it a lie.”
During the Longform interview, when he was asked what demands from his staff he considers a threat to core New York Times values, Baquet was quick to answer – defensively.
“I think we’re very aggressive with covering Donald Trump. I think we’re as aggressive as anybody, if not more. I think some of them would like us to be even more aggressive,” he said.
Baquet casts that demand as some sort of existential threat to the Times that he, nearly alone, has to guard against:
Here’s the difference between me as the editor of the paper and everybody else, I guess, except maybe the publisher: I have to juggle two things, right? I have to figure out how to cover this president who is an anomaly in modern American politics. And I got to come out the other side with the core stuff intact. I can’t throw everything to the side and say, this guy’s different, we’re just going to be completely different. Because I got to wake up the day after he’s not president, or else my successor has to wake the day he’s not president, thinking we’re still the New York Times.
What does he even mean by that? What is this “everything” that he would he have to “throw to the side” that would make it impossible to cover the next president in Timesian fashion? I’m not really sure. Heck I’m not even sure he really knows what he means.
Is he saying that’s why the Times can’t bring itself to call Trump racist? I don’t see how calling Trump racist would make it hard to cover the next president, racist or not. The rule seems simple to me: You hold presidents to consistent standards, and different presidents meet them or not. That’s not your problem, that’s theirs.
Here, in the name of some sort of consistency, Baquet is actually changing the standard between presidents, which is a disservice to his readers.
And if Baquet views Trump is an “anomaly” that the Times somehow needs to get beyond with its values intact, well then maybe it’s no wonder his reporters so consistently fail to convey how dangerously aberrational Trump is.
My best guess is that what Baquet really means is that he’s not willing to reconsider any of the timeworn journalistic algorithms Times political reporters use to cover Washington — even though those algorithms were built for presidents whose announcements constitute news rather than misinformation and for two political parties that have comparable relationships to reality.
Several times during the interview, Baquet talked about the importance of distinguishing between “what is truly tradition and core and what’s merely habit.” He explained: “You’ve got to say, ‘Here’s what’s not going to change. This is core. This is who we are.’ Everything else is sort of up for grabs.”
But the continued use of those algorithms is arguably the key to the implosion of the Times’s political journalism under Trump. And those algorithms do not represent any kind of core journalistic value. They are, precisely, habits — habits doing terrible damage to the core. So he’s got it entirely backwards.
Linsky tried to draw Baquet out on this issue. Here’s a wonderful exchange:
Linsky: But getting back to Trump and how you cover him in a way that stays core. Help me understand why calling him a racist in the pages of the New York Times is not the most direct and accurate way to describe him. Baquet: So I have — I have very complicated feelings about this. First off, we have said he uses racist language. We said it in the last two days. Linsky: But it’s not always that the phrase is, “he used racist language.” Sometimes the phrases are more opaque, less direct, more euphemistic — Baquet: Can you list anywhere where we were a little too opaque? Well, I’ll admit that. Linsky: Does that come from you? Baquet: I think it came from the institution. We’re not used to having presidents of the United States who say the things he says, right? So, you know, I can make the case that in the very beginning, we were a little opaque. Less opaque in the last year or two of his presidency, far less opaque. Look, we all have to get used to this president, right? Linsky: We do? Baquet: Hmm? Linsky: We do? Baquet: (Laughs) We have to get used to? Well, if you cover him every day and you’re writing half a dozen stories about him, you have to, I don’t know if you have to get used to it. You have to develop a system. You know, he defies our systems.
So they have a system. They recognize that Trump defies it. But they continue to use it anyway, to preserve it for the next president?
It makes no sense. But Baquet is resolute.
“I know what I believe we have to hold on to, that core of who we are, which is independence and some empathy and balance,” he said toward the conclusion of the interview. “I hate the word, but I’ll use it: some version of objectivity.”