Time Is Limited

When I was young I used to believe that the New York Times was biased against the Jews and against Israel. Lots of reasons were given for that, primarily involving the Jewishness of the publisher and the goal of Jews in America to stay hidden and not make waves. Otherwise, I saw the paper as reasonably objective. It was the American newspaper of record: the “Gray Lady,” the standard by which other papers were judged.

As time has passed I've become more and more convinced that I was wrong – not about my first supposition but about the second. In regard to the first, in 2001, Max Frankel, a former editor of the Times, wrote

AND then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II -- a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination.

The annihilation of six million Jews would not for many years become distinctively known as the Holocaust. But its essence became knowable fast enough, from ominous Nazi threats and undisputed eyewitness reports collected by American correspondents, agents and informants. Indeed, a large number of those reports appeared in The Times. But they were mostly buried inside its gray and stolid pages, never featured, analyzed or rendered truly comprehensible.

…........

At The Times, the reluctance to highlight the systematic slaughter of Jews was also undoubtedly influenced by the views of the publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. He believed strongly and publicly that Judaism was a religion, not a race or nationality -- that Jews should be separate only in the way they worshiped. He thought they needed no state or political and social institutions of their own. He went to great lengths to avoid having The Times branded a ''Jewish newspaper.'' He resented other publications for emphasizing the Jewishness of people in the news.

…........

It's easy to consider this approach a remnant of the past, one peculiarly linked to the time and the social attitudes, but it is now worse than ever. The Times devotes numerous articles – usually front page – column after column and article after article to making accusations against Israel while supporting the Palestinians – sometimes justifying terrorist acts – as often as possible.

As for the assumption that the Times was otherwise objective, I was too naïve. Over time, however, I've come to realize that the paper is agenda, not news, driven; that ideology is more important than fact; that readership numbers and ad revenues are among the internal criteria of success. Especially ideology. That's the key.

Advocacy journalism has replaced objective reporting, and vitriol is splashed generously on those with whom the paper differs. That was repeatedly demonstrated during the recent presidential campaign – and the fault-finding continues. With a vengeance. I may have personal reservations about President Trump, but he is my president and I'm prepared to reserve judgment and criticism until he takes office. The Times, which has lionized his predecessor and touted his party's candidate, continues its praise, while denigrating the election winner, whom it has already written off.

I've been reading a book recently, “Gray Lady Down,” by William McGowan, who has written for several publications including the Times magazine. The book documents many of the paper's failings in reporting – not simply errors of fact, which are frequent, but plagiarism and the insertion of opinion in what should be objective news. The “reporters” frame the news in the mold prescribed by the management, as they were chosen to do. And they omit or bury information that does not support the preformed opinions. (Interestingly, McGowan doesn't mention the Times failures regarding the Holocaust, Israel, and the Jews. Perhaps in relation to the “social attitudes” of current society – or his own views.)

But there are problems with style as well as substance. In an effort to increase readership, the paper has altered its style to meet perceived preferences (or at least the preferences of the publisher) and social fads and fashions are what generates the newspaper's form and content. The style of the paper is aimed at attracting “hip” (ie LGBT, “diverse,” multicultural, young) readership, to whom it will impart the ideology. (Of course that won't be difficult, since those who agree with its philosophy will choose the paper anyway.) It's a sad and scary, but entirely predictable, scenario.

Bottom line? What is the “takeaway” message? The “standard” of American journalism is no more reliable than any other organ. Less so, because people assume it can be trusted. And it can't. It's neither fair nor balanced. Other media organs may claim to be so, but at least people take their claims with a grain of salt. Somehow the Times has become sacrosanct. It shouldn't be.