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.

I Admit It

Well, I didn't get it quite right yesterday. Today's New York Times headline was:

Brief Lull Ends In Gaza Crisis; Strikes Resume

It didn't mention Israel in the headline. It doesn't bother to mention that Israel had accepted the cease-fire. And not until the sub-headline did it note that Hamas had rejected the cease-fire. The “Lull” mentioned above was, in fact, only on the Israeli side. The “proportional” response to that moderation by Israel was rocket fire on southern Israel by Hamas. And then it tells us, “Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip resumed on Tuesday the all-too-familiar rhythm of their latest battle.” The first mention that Israel had accepted the truce came from the first person quoted in (the sixth paragraph – the last on the front page) of the article. It was by Norman Thrall, “an author of the [objective?] International Crisis Group report on the situation.”

“Egypt helped its ally, Israel, achieve a face-saving unilateral cease-fire – that's what happened. … We had an Israeli unilateral cease-fire to which Hamas never agreed and”

Continued on Page A6

“Egypt helped Israel market it.”

The Times article continues, “The lopsided battle claimed its first Israeli casualty [actually it was the first death, not the first casualty] Tuesday night” while Israeli strikes continued, “bringing the Palestinian death toll to 189 over eight days.” And later it added, “Israel had little to lose by initially approving Egypt's proposal.” That's The New York Times's version of “fair and balanced.”

CBS radio, to which I listened a few minutes ago, talked about the fact that Israel was now targeting the homes of Hamas leaders, and it reported how many Palestinians had been killed, while The Wall Street Journal's front page headline was:

Palestinians Told to Clear Out

Israel Warns Thousands to Leave Gaza as Army Readies Broader Offensive

Sure Hamas had rejected a truce, but you had to start reading the article to actually find that out.

So the message of yesterday's essay may not have been quite right in the particulars, but the overall idea was on the mark. The press underplayed any Palestinian responsibility, while emphasizing Israel's, and the suffering of the Gazans.

I'm not sure why I get upset about what is so predictable, but I do.

In The Eye Of The Beholder

Israel Resumes Bombardment of Palestinians

Observes truce for only six hours

That's the headline I expect to see on the front page of tomorrow's New York Times. Perhaps somewhere in a lower paragraph, or on an inside page well beyond the view of someone whose main interest is in headlines and lead paragraphs, there will be a brief mention of the fact that Hamas didn't accept the truce at all, and that it continued to aim rockets at Israel during the time that no fire was being returned. (I speak primarily of the Times, by the way, because of its influence, but the situation is far more extensive.)

And the article will be accurate in terms of presenting facts. But it will completely mislead the readership. Actually, it won't mislead the readership, who are used to this kind of misplaced emphasis and who approve of it. For them this is the truth that's fit to print; it's the truth they want to read. The Times sees Israel as the source of the problem in the Middle East, and trumpets the victimhood of the Palestinians who fight on bravely, though, despite the billions contributed to the PA, they lack modern weapons and defenses. It is a land blockaded by Israel which is starving the Palestinians and making the area uninhabitable. There is little notice of the long border of Gaza with Egypt nor the large number of smuggling tunnels from both Egypt and Israel.

And in addition to the frequent front page articles bemoaning the fate of the Palestinians, there are regular editorials and “Op-Ed” columns which describe the steps Israel must take if there is to be peace. There are two problems with those columns, however: they imply, wrongly, that only Israel must act in order for there to be an end to hostilities, and, even more wrongly, they lead the reader to believe that if Israel acts peace will result. The refusal of Hamas to accept the present cease-fire, and the long history of failures by the Palestinians to respond to Israeli offers of peace make it clear that agreement is not what Hamas and the PA seek. And the continued indoctrination of their children to hate Israel and Jews makes it unlikely that a positive result will be brought about by anything Israel does.

But that's not what “spin” is about. “News” articles have become editorials and reporters are now advocacy journalists. All you need to do to “subjectivize” the facts is to make whatever supports your view prominent, and bury what brings it into question. The last place to look for the news is in the “objective” media. Better to look in publications that don't hide their bias. At least you know what you're getting.

The Times They Are a-Changin'

Happy Groundhog's Day.

It struck me yesterday that it was a good time to make predictions, about the weather in the next few months and the Super Bowl to be played today. But the prediction I make will be on a different subject: The New York Times will be in the sunlight but continue to drop the ball.

Around the world, the Times is viewed as the standard for journalistic excellence. Certainly that's the way its staff and publisher view themselves. And they're sure that their opinions are similarly enlightened, only rarely printing dissenting views – and even then apparently with the aim of eliciting reactions which will set the errant commentator or correspondent right by familiarizing him with “truth.” That truth will be provided by readers who will set the confused writer straight. Those who argue are, after all, disputing the “newspaper of record.”

And, indeed, the paper may be the holder of a significant journalistic record, though it isn't surprising if it's not a record that others in the media will fight to take away. Even if they are more “worthy” of it, none is likely to challenge “the gray lady” for bragging rights in the field of making mistakes. I looked, last night and this morning, at the paper's record over the last full month – January, 2014 – to get a sense of how often it erred, since I have long questioned the accuracy of the purveyor of “all the news that's fit to print.” What I found were two hundred ninety corrections of articles and pictures. (Some of the articles had more than one correction, so the number is really higher.) It's hardly a rigorous scientific survey, but on an annualized basis (290 times twelve months), and assuming that January was a typical month, that's nearly three thousand five hundred errors in a year. If I'm off by a few hundred in either direction, though, it doesn't change the meaning of the findings. I don't mean to suggest that they were all significant mistakes (they weren't), but that there is a problem in the paper to which people turn for accuracy – a paper that people trust. The trust may be misplaced. The automatic assumption that what it says is true is invalid.

Adding to the problem are some other concerns. The corrections are merely the errors to which they admit. They can't deny them. There are others of which they are notified that they dispute or disclaim. (I once had a letter published in the Times in which there was a misquotation of my words, and I had a long fight with them before it was corrected.) They “stand by” their positions even though serious questions may be raised about what they have reported. And I suspect there are additional misstatements that are not brought to their attention by readers, and others which they prefer not to advertise if they have discovered them on their own. It's not likely that the paper's ombudsman would turn them in, or that they would admit to what they could finesse. Even if a correction were to be made, a small print statement, after the fact, and on an inside page is less likely to be read or taken seriously than the original statement. That initial statement will have a far greater impact than the clarification.

The problem as stated, however, only refers to the facts. It's harder to deny errors of fact than admit to illogical or misleading opinions. Such opinions, reflecting the positions (biases) of the staff of the paper, remain as testaments to their point of view irrespective of the strength of their arguments (or its lack) and the reasoning of those who disagree. They're less likely than facts to be disputed because they are labeled as opinion, and because the opinions coincide with those of most of the readership. After all, that's why they buy the paper. They already favor that point of view. But their opinions, though just as inclined (or more so) to be questionable as are many of their “facts,” are likely to get a free pass. And they will play a large part in creating the views of those readers who have not yet formed their own opinions and are ready to accept the judgment of what they see as the source of wisdom. Even when it is not Groundhog's Day, the gray lady operates largely in the shadows.

And that's the way it will probably remain. The Times's reputation will not suffer from it's sloppiness, lack of fact-checking and biases, but rather it will receive praise for its willingness to correct the errors it has made. And that willingness will raise the reputation of the paper rather than triggering a reevaluation based on the errors themselves. A party that is favored always gets the benefit of the doubt.

And there will be six more weeks of winter.

Belief

                                                                                 

You think the press is bad? I mentioned recently that only 25% of the people asked by Gallup in a poll taken in June, 2012,ⁱ placed great confidence in newspapers.ⁱⁱ A more recent Gallup Poll (November, 2012) asked how respondents judged the “honesty and ethical standards” of people in various fields of endeavor, and the outcome is quite revealing (apart from the 24% rating for journalists, whom people don't trust even though we all “consult” them). For example, 70% of the respondents trusted the honesty and ethical standards of medical doctors, while only 62% trusted dentists; 41% trusted psychiatrists, and 38% chiropractors. But the confidence in nurses was at the 85% level. Even college professors, clergy, and bankers were considered more honest and ethical than journalists with ratings of 53%, 52% and 28%. Not very good to be saddled with such low levels of trust,ⁱⁱⁱ but better than the press, to whom we turn every day.

There are those, however, whom we trust even less than “reporters” of the^iv news – as unbelievable as that may sound. For example, although 58% consider policemen to be honest and ethical, we only rate the lawyers who take over from them at 19%.^v And the courts are in between.^vi In the case of the judicial system, however, the problem may be less a perception of dishonesty than the appearance of poor judgment or incorrect political outlook.^vii

In any event, consumers don't trust “car salespeople”^viii (8% confidence) or “advertising practitioners” (11%). It appears that lies are more their stock in trade than are the products they sell. Of course, all “lies” aren't really lies. Advertisers have learned how to play on consumers' hopes and fantasies, so they only need to suggest something, or display an attractive image, in order to seduce a prospect and induce a purchase. They don't have to make any claim. Last year over a thousand new perfumes were introduced. With so many already on the market it's hard to believe that any of them broke new ground, but attractive packaging and the imprimatur of a movie star, clothing designer, or other famous personality – one who probably had nothing to do with the development of the scent – and a customer, longing for love or a new “look,” can be convinced to try whatever is advertised so skillfully. (Hope may spring eternal, but when it is stretched too far it is likely to recoil. So second sales may be harder to get.)

And what applies to cars and perfumes applies to other products as well. Whether it's a skin cream,^ix laundry detergent, electronic device, or telephone plan, the new product is far superior to anything before.^x And the price can't be beaten.^xi So what are you waiting for?^xii

There are many others who mislead us or lie to us on a regular basis, and when they tell the truth we don't believe them. In the poll that determined honesty and ethical standards ratings of various professions, insurance salespeople earned a 15% very high or high score while it was 12% for HMO managers and 11% for stockbrokers.

No group is as worthy of discussion, however, as politicians. Although nearly half the population approves of the job he is doing, in a poll taken during the 2012 election campaign, Gallup determined that 5% of voters considered honesty as President Obama's greatest strength.^xiii His oath of office includes a promise to uphold the Constitution, which many consider to be his first lie as our Chief Executive. Before that, however, come his campaign promises (just as they flower for all politicians who are running for office). Fortunately no one really believes them. So after the election, when they are forgotten or violated, no one honestly believes he has been deceived. Anyway, the fault, is that of the previous administration or the opposite party, who created whatever problems exist and who now prevent their solution. Fortunately there are some successes, but they always come despite the opposition of the other party and all the credit belongs to the President and his party.

But the President wasn't listed in the honesty poll so it is hard to compare him to members of Congress. In 2012 they earned nearly a 43% improvement in the perception of their honesty from the year before. Actually they worked their way up from 7 to 10%, so it's a little less impressive than it sounds.^xiv Like those of other politicians, their campaign promises are strictly for their campaigns. So, as is the case with others running for office, they should be judged on the basis of previous performance.

But, of course, it's hard to determine what they've done in before because the past records claimed during an election are unreliable. The usual pattern is that the candidate says wonderful things about himself and his accomplishments while his opponent, in negative ads, defames and accuses him. No. That's wrong. The two defame each other. Claims of your accomplishments are of less interest than what's wrong with your opponent. And the few accomplishments are likely to be bills with attractive titles that mislead the voter about the content and intent. Too often they actually accomplish something other than, or even opposite to, what the title suggests. Caveat emptor. (My favorite – and I've mentioned it before – is the Paperwork Reduction Act which increases governmental paperwork.) But truth in labeling is not required of Congress. And the “transparency” they demand of others certainly doesn't apply to them. It's no wonder that citizens view Congress as a nest of liars.

It should be obvious that a lack of trust is not conclusive proof of someone's deception. Not all politicians are liars. (Whatever the claims they make though, you'd better confirm them yourself.^xv) But after all these years, consistent doubt should make us wary of the bold statements we hear. They want to be elected. They're no different from the rest of us. We want to be liked so we often say things we don't believe in order to please someone else. We don't want to deceive – at least that's not the primary goal – but we want to be liked. Just like the newspapers, the advertisers, and the politicians.

To tell the truth, you shouldn't trust anyone.

Next episode: “If I've Said It Once” -- Words to the wise. Words to the wise.

i      For additional information on the methodology and results of Gallup Polls, see http://www.gallup.com

ii     Although I didn't mention it, the number for television news was only 21%.

iii    Especially the clergy.

iv     “their version of the” news would be a more accurate characterization.

v     It may be unfair to categorize an entire profession this way, but that is the perception of the “street.” It is, perhaps, a cliché, however “perception is reality” and, in fact, it guides our beliefs about the group even if such a characterization is not warranted.

vi     When asked about the Supreme Court in a Gallup Poll taken in June, 2012, 37% of respondents expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in it.

vii    Barry Friedman writes, in an article in the online edition of “The Nation,” which I read on March 11, 2013 – though the date it first appeared is not listed – entitled (Why Are Americans Losing Trust in the Supreme Court?), “The New York Times reports a recent poll showing the Supreme Court’s approval rating at 44 percent. This represents one of the lowest numbers the justices have polled in recent years and is part of a generally downward slide since 2009. ... A plausible answer [to the question posed by the article] is: partisanship. Polls show a widespread disgust with partisanship in Washington; Congress’s approval rating was at an all time low in May. Although the justices often are divided into left-right ideological blocs, those blocs have recently become identified in the public mind with the Democratic and Republican parties.”

Some citizens also take issue with the Court's occasionally finding in the Constitution what they feel ought to be there, even if there is no evidence that it is. See Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade.

viii   Big talk and small print bring high profits even when performance is low. Those believing the claims are all too often disappointed.

ix     Is pomegranate really better for your skin than cucumber? It seems that in every ad there is a new ingredient which is the answer to all your problems. Except gullibility. We keep hoping and we keep buying.

x      And it will remain so until the next version – even better – is introduced soon.

xi     Often the price can't even be found. That particular bargain no longer exists or the product is sold out. But wait. There's something even better (and more expensive). “Bait and switch” is an advertising device often used to maximize revenues. It's used because it works. “Never give a sucker an even break.”

xii    Don't waste your time thinking or comparing.

xiii   Interestingly, 3% considered his greatest strength to be the ability to lie with a straight face.

xiv   In 2011, when they received a 7% rating, they tied with lobbyists and car salespeople. By comparison, journalists got 26% and funeral directors 44%.

xv   As John Locke said, “The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.”