If Donald Trump emerges victorious in the upcoming November 5 election, it wouldn’t be entirely unjust to attribute some responsibility to the New York Times.
The Times, being the leading force in American journalism, had the power to revolutionize the coverage of Trump, not only by its own reporters but also by the entire political media.
It had the opportunity to abandon vague and insubstantial language, as well as false comparisons, and instead, communicate to the public with utmost clarity that a Trump presidency would bring about a racist and authoritarian regime where facts hold no significance.
The media’s coverage, or lack thereof, has raised some concerns. Let’s take a look at a few examples:
-
- When Trump seized up at a rally this week and bizarrely swayed to music for 39 excruciating minutes, the Times called it an “improvisational departure.”
- Trump’s racist threats to deport millions of undocumented people are actually just full of “hyperbolic rhetoric” and “fury.”
- When it was reported that Trump’s top general, Mark Milley, called him “fascist to the core” the Times buried what should have been front-page news deep in an article about something else entirely.
- Times journalists refuse to call Trump’s “false claims” what they are: malicious lies.
- Hurling racist invective at a vulnerable community to fire up a hateful and bigoted base is just “rabble rousing” to the Times. It’s “combative conservatism.”
- And even in an otherwise admirable article on Trump’s cognitive decline, the Times couldn’t bring itself to use the term “cognitive decline.”
The day-to-day coverage of Trump is troubling as it treats him like a regular candidate, rather than acknowledging the dangerous and unhinged felon that he truly is. The Times consistently sanitizes his nonsensical and disturbing statements, failing to address the alarming divisions over fundamental facts and democratic principles.
Times reporters consistently employ the passive voice to obscure accountability for atrocious acts committed by Republicans, criticize “both sides,” and draw misleading comparisons between two parties, with only one of them upholding the importance of facts and the rule of law.
The responsibility for this lies with the selfish, smug, and self-destructive leadership of the Times. Specifically, New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and editor Joe Kahn have consistently prioritized their so-called “journalistic independence” over their duty to warn the public about the disastrous consequences of electing Trump.
They define “journalistic independence” as not just the freedom to speak truth to power, but also the freedom to navigate between both political parties in order to maintain a perceived moral high ground.
This perspective suggests that remaining neutral is more important than taking a stand, even in situations where one party clearly holds an unfair advantage.
The general public is absolutely correct about this matter. In today’s political landscape, there is simply no middle ground to be found between the two major parties. Moreover, it is crucial to acknowledge that there can be no compromise when it comes to distinguishing truth from falsehoods.
Kahn’s reluctance to raise concerns is also mirrored by his superior, the publisher of the Times. Sulzberger, in fact, firmly believes that it is not the newspaper’s role to do so. In a recent speech, he stated, “I don’t see a shortage of passionate individuals who are morally convinced and sounding the alarm. In fact, the alarm seems so loud and incessant that a large portion of the public has chosen to tune it out with earplugs.”
Independent reporting, according to him, is characterized by its refusal to conform to any particular perspective. It goes beyond the easy and comfortable narratives to delve into uncomfortable truths that people may not be willing to confront.
The Times’ coverage of Trump is influenced by the top leadership, just as their decision in 2016 to prioritize Hillary Clinton’s emails on the front page instead of highlighting the threat posed by Trump turned out to be a disaster.
The conclusion that remains is this: If Trump emerges victorious, partially due to the public’s lack of alarm caused by the press coverage of the 2024 election, the individuals in charge of the Times will bear the highly questionable honor of being responsible for Trump’s double election.
