Open-source research is an interesting enterprise. You start with a question, and what you find leads to a tree of more questions, which often brings you full circle back to the root of the tree. This particular journey started with the question, “Why don’t people know about the Biden administration’s accomplishments?” It moved into some research into quantifying editorial bias that focused on the Washington Post and New York Times with an article in the Columbia Journalism Review,1 branched into sources of leverage and activist investors at NYT,2 and then looped back around into research on the views of A. G. Sulzberger, the New York Time’s Chairman and Publisher, on media and the news, the focus of this post.
On May 15, 2023, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), published a 12,000-word essay by Sulzberger as part of its debate on “objectivity” in the news. According to CJR, it has “served as a forum for that discussion, through numerous pieces, and even a conference, last fall, exploring approaches to the question.”3
Sulzbeger’s concerns, as voiced in the essay, are as follows:
American journalism faces a confluence of challenges that present the most profound threat to the free press in more than a century. News organizations are shrinking and dying under sustained financial duress. Attacks on journalists are surging. Press freedoms are under intensifying pressure. And with the broader information ecosystem overrun by misinformation, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and clickbait, public trust in journalism has fallen to historical lows.
There is no clear path through this gantlet. But there will be no worthwhile future for journalism if our profession abandons the core value that makes our work essential to democratic society, the value that answers the question of why we’re deserving of the public trust and the special protections afforded the free press. That value is journalistic independence.
Independence is the increasingly contested journalistic commitment to following facts wherever they lead. It places the truth—and the search for it with an open yet skeptical mind—above all else. Those may sound like blandly agreeable clichés of Journalism 101, but in this hyperpolarized era, independent journalism and the sometimes counterintuitive values that animate it have become a radical pursuit.
Independence asks reporters to adopt a posture of searching, rather than knowing. It demands that we reflect the world as it is, not the world as we may wish it to be. It requires journalists to be willing to exonerate someone deemed a villain or interrogate someone regarded as a hero. It insists on sharing what we learn—fully and fairly—regardless of whom it may upset or what the political consequences might be. Independence calls for plainly stating the facts, even if they appear to favor one side of a dispute. And it calls for carefully conveying ambiguity and debate in the more frequent cases where the facts are unclear or their interpretation is under reasonable dispute, letting readers grasp and process the uncertainty for themselves.
This approach, tacking as it does against the with-us-or-against-us certainty of this polarized moment, requires a steadfast, sometimes uncomfortable commitment to journalistic process over personal conviction. Independent journalism elevates values grounded in humility—fairness, impartiality, and (to use perhaps the most fraught and argued-over word in journalism) objectivity—as ideals to be pursued, even if they can never be perfectly achieved. And crucially, independent journalism roots itself to an underlying confidence in the public; it trusts that people deserve to know the full truth and ultimately can be relied upon to use it wisely. [Emphasis is mine.]
The new question raised after reading Sulzberger’s definition of the problem, is how well does the New York Times trust that people deserve to know the full truth? Robert Reich, in his Substack, explores some of these issues in a broader context:4
First, it’s drawing a false equivalence between Trump and Biden — claiming that Biden’s political handicap is his age, while Trump’s corresponding handicap is his criminal indictments…
Secondly, every time the mainstream media reports on another move by Trump and his Republican allies toward neofascism, it tries to balance its coverage by pointing out some fault in the Democratic Party (such as the ongoing federal corruption and bribery case against Senator Bob Menendez)..
Which brings us to the third way the mainstream media is quietly helping Trump. It makes it seem as if the dysfunction in Washington is coming from both parties…
Finally, blaming both sides for this chaos plays into Trump’s and his allies’ goal of wanting Americans to believe the nation has become ungovernable, so it needs a strongman…
I would add a fifth item to Reich’s list: ignoring the Biden Administration’s accomplishments.
Sulzberger addressed these issues ingenuously in his CJR essay, as the data from the CJR article on media bias in editorial decisions makes abundantly clear [Ref 1 below].
In this way, independent journalism is the exact tonic the world needs most at a moment in which polarization and misinformation are shaking the foundations of liberal democracies and undermining society’s ability to meet the existential challenges of the era, from inequality to political dysfunction to the accelerating toll of climate change. When the stakes feel highest—from the world wars to the red scare to the aftermath of 9/11—people often make the most forceful arguments against journalistic independence. Pick a side. Join the righteous. Declare that you’re with us or against us. But history shows that the better course is when journalists challenge and complicate consensus with smart questions and new information. That’s because common facts, a shared reality, and a willingness to understand our fellow citizens across tribal lines are the most important ingredients in enabling a diverse, pluralistic society to come together to self-govern. For that, as much as anything, we need principled, independent journalists
Sulzberger goes on to delineate his view of the role of the press in the “healthiest” democracies, in particular on informational aspects of the news, such as how tax dollars are used and what legislation aims to achieve.
The press plays a straightforward informational role: who’s running for office, how tax dollars are used, what legislation aims to achieve. It plays an accountability role, exposing corruption and incompetence, ensuring that the law is administered evenly and justly, and shedding light on institutions that don’t want their secrets out in the open.
In a pluralistic democracy like ours, an independent press plays another crucial role. It binds society by providing the connective tissue of a common fact base that can be discussed and debated and by exposing people to a wider range of experiences and perspectives. “Democracy’s legitimacy and durability depend on dialogue and deliberation, on process as much as on outcomes,” Carlos Lozada, a Times columnist, wrote in a recent piece on this topic.
I find Sulzberger’s comments ludicrous when the only place online that I can find the White House’s response to the current House appropriations bills that are loaded with right-wing culture war amendments is at WhiteHouse.gov.
He goes on to talk about “prioritizing the process” in a discussion that reeks of obliviousness and myopia—an inability to see the forest for the trees.
The most important ingredient is treating independence as a discipline, backed by processes and ethics designed to foster it. At the Times, as with many other traditional news organizations, the commitment to independence is reflected at every stage of our journalistic efforts. Our goal is to only publish what we know; we would rather miss a story than get one wrong. We correct our errors openly because mistakes should be transparent and, honestly, painful. We talk to the people we write about whenever possible and give those accused of wrongdoing the opportunity to respond. We use multiple sources to confirm information and display a healthy skepticism of everything we learn. We review pieces not just for factual accuracy but for fairness. We enforce ethical guidelines designed to prevent conflicts of interest (for example, we prohibit supporting politicians and political causes) as well as stylistic guidelines designed to minimize bias (for example, we avoid the use of partisan terminology and provocative labels in our news pages)…
—the journalistic process described above doesn’t guarantee perfect results. Personal biases and agendas can still distort the work reporters and editors produce—just as people’s personal experiences and backgrounds can elevate it. But good journalistic processes reduce the frequency of mistakes and create mechanisms for self-correcting when we err. That stands in contrast to alternate models guided by political objectives, partisan loyalty, or, most obviously, self-interest—all of which are more vulnerable to mistakes, hypocrisy, and corruption. As with scientists, doctors, or judges, it is far better to have journalists imperfectly striving for independence backed by a defensible process than choosing not to bother because total independence can never be fully achieved. “Failure to achieve standards does not obviate the need for them. It does not render them outmoded. It makes them more necessary,” wrote Marty Baron, former executive editor of the Washington Post, in a recent essay on this theme. “And it requires that we apply them more consistently and enforce them more firmly.”
Sulzberger goes on to discuss how the paper covers “uncertainty”, and the role of editors:
Evaluating these debates is one reason why the journalistic process is designed around hearing from a diversity of voices. That’s most obviously true in reporting, which requires talking to people and representing a range of perspectives. But it also is why reporters benefit from the additional eyes of editors, not just for style and accuracy, but to ensure the issues they include are fairly represented and contextualized. When journalism succeeds in illuminating questions and debates, it not only helps people better understand those with whom they disagree, it helps them better recognize the differences they have with people they thought they agreed with—and it can help society move conversations about these issues toward resolution. [Emphasis is mine.]
There is much more in Sulzberger’s essay, but this should provide those of you who can write to him, the New York Times Company’s corporate Board, the activist investors at ValueAct Capital, and letters to the editor at the New York Times some ammunition. There is much here in Sulzberger’s own words that can be contrasted with the reality of the New York Times’ editorial choices.
It is your choice as to which of the horse’s body parts is in play.
It's worth noting that the NYT and WaPo are not the only news organizations left in America. Even as hometown newspapers continue to disappear, cities like Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Chicago and others still have relatively robust news organizations, not all of which are owned by billionaires.
Thank you Georgia for all the hours you must have spent bringing us this important article.
"Media companies are public corporations. They are accountable to their Board of Directors. They respond to possible negative action on their revenue streams and profitability and to activist shareholders." This paragraph really impressed me, more than A.G. Sulzburger's long winded defense of the New York Times. If his reporters and editors were really as free as he claims, we wouldn't have the problem of misinformation he claims to deplore.