Writing Those Letters to the Editor
Some Motivation
My last post was about writing letters to the editor regarding coverage choices of the election in the media. The underlying question was why there is so little coverage of the accomplishments of the Biden administration, even in formerly venerable media behemoths like the New York Times and Washington Post.
Thanks to Thom Hartmann for linking to an article from the Columbia School of Journalism1 in his Substack yesterday. It is directly on point, as the quote below indicates.
After the 2022 midterms, we checked back in, this time examining the printed front page of the Times and the Washington Post from September 1, 2022, through Election Day that November. As before, we figured the front page mattered disproportionately, in part because articles placed there represent selections that publishers believe are most important to readers—and also because, according to Nielsen data we analyzed, 32 percent of Web-browsing sessions around that period starting at the Times homepage did not lead to other sections or articles; people often stick to what they’re shown first. We added the Post this time around for comparison, to get a sense of whether the Times really was anomalous.
It wasn’t. We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. The main point of contrast we found between the two papers was that, while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime.
By the numbers, of four hundred and eight articles on the front page of the Times during the period we analyzed, about half—two hundred nineteen—were about domestic politics. A generous interpretation found that just ten of those stories explained domestic public policy in any detail; only one front-page article in the lead-up to the midterms really leaned into discussion about a policy matter in Congress: Republican efforts to shrink Social Security. Of three hundred and ninety-three front-page articles in the Post, two hundred fifteen were about domestic politics; our research found only four stories that discussed any form of policy. The Post had no front-page stories in the months ahead of the midterms on policies that candidates aimed to bring to the fore or legislation they intended to pursue. Instead, articles speculated about candidates and discussed where voter bases were leaning. (All of the data and analysis supporting this piece can be found here.)
Editorial choices in terms of emphasis and selection can have major consequences on the way news is perceived by the electorate. This is especially critical when half of the media has completely abandoned truth for clickbait conspiracy theories and faux Trump adulation because it brings in viewers.
You can read about the New York Times ethical standards regarding related to political reporting at the link below.2
Staff members of The Times are family members and responsible citizens as well as journalists. The Times respects their educating their children, exercising their religion, voting in elections and taking active part in community affairs. Nothing in this policy is meant to infringe upon those rights. But even in the best of causes, Times staff members have a duty to avoid the appearance of a conflict. They should never invoke The Times’s name in private activities.
Certain of these requirements apply to all newsroom and opinion employees, journalists and support staff alike. No newsroom or opinion employee may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government. In particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other sign of political partisanship while on the job. Otherwise, “staff members” in this section refers only to the professional journalists defined above.
Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues
Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics. They should recognize that a bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as theirs, no matter who in their household actually placed the sticker or the sign.
Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.
No staff member may seek public office anywhere. Seeking or serving in public office plainly violates the professional detachment expected of a journalist. It poses a risk of having the staff member’s political views imputed to The Times, and it can sow a suspicion of favoritism in The Times’s political coverage when one of its staff is an active participant.
Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements, sign ads taking a position on public issues, or lend their name to campaigns, benefit dinners or similar events if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or The Times’s ability to function as neutral observers in covering the news. Staff members must keep in mind that neighbors and other observers commonly see them as representatives of The Times.
Staff members may appear from time to time on radio and television programs devoted to public affairs, but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say in the paper. Opinion writers enjoy more leeway than others in speaking publicly because their business is expressing opinions. The Times nevertheless expects them to consider carefully the forums in which they appear and to protect the standards and impartiality of the newspaper as a whole.
Staff members must be sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses, family or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. When such a possibility arises, the staff member should advise his or her department head and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even move to a job unrelated to the activities in question.
A staff member with any doubts about a proposed political activity should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. These restrictions protect the heart of our mission as journalists. Though The Times will consider matters case by case, it will be exceedingly cautious before permitting an exception. [Emphasis is mine.]
What is crystal clear in the New York Times’ ethical standards related to political reporting is that while reporters and staff are expected to avoid explicit evidence of bias, there are no standards or guardrails or guidance regarding transparency in editorial choices regarding coverage selection and placement. This is the underlying root cause of the lack of coverage of Biden’s accomplishments, and the resulting misperception of the Biden presidency by the electorate.
The Columbia Journalism Review article closes with the following:
The choices made by major publishers are not wrong, per se, for the same reason that one newsroom cannot objectively know how to cover an issue, or how much to cover it: no one can. Still, editorial choices are undeniably choices—and they will weigh heavily on the upcoming presidential race. Outlets can and should maintain a commitment to truth and accuracy. But absent an earnest and transparent assessment of what they choose to emphasize—and what they choose to ignore—their readers will be left misinformed. (Emphasis mine)
Democracy depends on freedom of the press. Since Citizens United, however, money has been directly acknowledged as the legitimate expression of speech. Media is a business first; its primary allegiance is to its stockholders and NOT to its customers or the electorate. It is time that we, its customers, start pushing back for accountability and transparency in coverage choices in the media, for fair and balanced coverage with a return of FCC standards, and for an end to unlimited dark money funding of political campaigns.
The response to Citizens United and a return to FCC standards has to be legislative.
The need for transparency and accountability in media coverage can be addressed through Letters to the Editor, letters to members of the boards of major media outlets, and advertiser boycotts. But boycotts risk sinking those outlets that are still providing the lesser evil coverage.
We have moved very rapidly down the road to perdition and loss of a robust free press. It is time for each of us to dig in and take a stand. Write those letters.
It appears the Times has more standards and restrictions for their employees than our Supreme Court justices! I am referring to Clarence Thomas.
“Staff members must be sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses, family or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. When such a possibility arises, the staff member should advise his or her department head and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even move to a job unrelated to the activities in question.”
Thank you for coalescing people around this issue. Did you know the new editor at the Washington Post was a former Murdoch employee? Sheez.