Cash handouts, headline accusations, and Trump as 'Big City mayor'

When a campaign advisor gives — or tries to give — cash to a news reporter, that’s a pretty shocking story.

That’s what happened to a reporter at the nonprofit news organization called “The City,” based in New York.

A story in that publication quickly followed, detailing how a former campaign worker (and current campaign advisor) for Eric Adams, gave a wad of cash — stuffed in a potato-chip bag — to a City reporter. Adams is running for reelection in New York City.

Scooped in its own backyard, the New York Times quickly followed with a three-byline story that appropriately gave credit to the smaller outlet. But a part of the Times coverage drew the notice of a sharp-eyed Columbia Journalism School professor, Bill Grueskin.

“Let’s hope the New York Times public editor looks into why Times reporters witnessed multiple instances of cash being handed out at the mayor’s events but didn’t write it up til they got beaten on the story by a feisty nonprofit site,” Grueskin posted on BlueSky.

Of course, as Grueskin well knows, there is no longer a public editor — or ombudsman — at the Times. I wrote about the abandonment of that role here a couple of weeks ago, advocating its comeback, not just at the Times but at other news organizations. (As I explained, I am a former Times public editor, explaining (again) that I wasn’t fired and that I don’t want the job again.)

Here’s the excerpt that caught Grueskin’s eye:

In July, New York Times reporters witnessed other Adams supporters handing out red envelopes with cash at three separate campaign events: one in Flushing, Queens; another in Manhattan’s Chinatown; and a third in Sunset Park in Brooklyn. At those events, Mr. Adams picked up support from leaders of influential Chinese community groups, including several with close ties to the Chinese government.

One Times reader, also commenting on the story, put it bluntly: “So let me understand this. Times reporters on multiple occasions a month ago saw suspicious and unethical exchanges of cash at political events and waited to report it until now, after a rival local news organization reported on something similar. Did the Times ever plan to report this? Or did the Times not think it important before now?”

There could be a reason, I suppose. It’s possible that the Times was working on a bigger, more sweeping investigation; or that an already reported story was tied up in legal or editorial review inside the paper; or something else, who knows? A public editor could investigate and get to the bottom of it, and render some sort of judgment, rebutting or magnifying reader concerns.

But as Grueskin posted, with tongue in cheek, “Apologies. We are being told the Times no longer has a public editor.” (Side note: I always thought Grueskin would make a strong public editor, and I suggested his name when the Times was looking for my successor.)

Outside inquiries from media reporters to big news organizations don’t get the job done. They elicit bland answers like “It’s not our practice to go into detail about our editorial processes.” But if you’re inside the organization, you can learn a lot more. Basically, they have to talk to you.

The last time there was a dust-up about Times mayoral coverage — a much criticized story about the leading candidate, Zohran Mamdani — a senior editor, Patrick Healey, posted an explanation. Perhaps he will this time, too. (I wrote about that controversy in the Guardian, calling the Times story a made-up scandal.)

Two other suggestions for public-editor scrutiny, one in the opinion pages of the Times, another one in the Washington Post:

First, a columnist I admire, Lydia Polgreen, wrote an important piece about a journalist, Anas Al-Sharif, who was killed by Israel.

The column itself was authoritative and brave. But there were questions about various kinds of wording associated with the column. The original headline, which is on the column now: “He Was the Face and Voice of Gaza. Israel Assassinated Him.”

But these headline-like words appeared elsewhere on the Times site: “Israel Says It Killed a Hamas Commander. It Killed a Pulitzer-Winning Journalist.” And more: “Israel Is Making Sure There is No One to Document the Horror of Its War.”

It would be helpful to know when and where these various headlines (or news alerts or promotional squibs or URLs) appeared, and to hear from editors about why they were worded so differently.

 

 

Online headlines often change, for all kinds of reasons, mostly not nefarious. Print headlines, for example, usually are different from online headlines because of space limitations for the former. And when a summary of a story or column appears in different places, such as a news alert, such wording may not mirror the original headline.

But critics of this wording: “Israel Says It Killed a Hamas Commander …” objected because it put Israel’s spin so clearly in the foreground. As Polgreen herself commented, on a different story, last week: “Everything Israel wants to destroy is Hamas.”

It would be helpful to get some explanation, and to report that to readers. Was there internal discussion, a defensive pivot, after pro-Israel complaints? Was the headline changed and then changed back? A public editor could provide transparency on this hot-button topic.

Second, a Washington Post story that — in its framing and its headline presentation — gave a light-and-frothy treatment to Trump’s recent authoritarian-style takeover of Washington, DC.

“Donald Trump fulfills a dream role: Big city mayor,” read the headline. The sub-headline soft-pedaled further: “The president’s showy effort to ‘clean up’ D.C. crime, streetlights and even the Kennedy Center has ruffled city leaders who say he has overstepped his authority. It’s not a new interest.”

One social-media commenter blasted the Post: “Stop minimalizing and attempting to normalize this shit. He’s a wannabe dictator…This is about asserting control like any strongman would.”

An ombudsman, like the Post used to have, could have torn off the Post’s rose-colored glasses and replaced them with a bright spotlight. With Trump in full dictator mode planning military deployment in Chicago and threatening to send the National Guard into Baltimore, mild words like “ruffled” are absurd. Do Post editors really think this serves their public mission?

The Post’s reader-comment section — now tainted by AI summaries — bore an offensive prompt under its “conversations” label: “What are your thoughts on Donald Trump’s approach to managing D.C. as if he were a big city mayor?” Ugh. That deserves a Pulitzer Prize for obfuscation and missing the point.

Readers, news headlines — whatever their wording — are mighty depressing these days. But what to do? I’ll leave you with this thought: The only thing that really matters now are elections, both next year and in 2028. Short of revolution in the streets — highly unlikely — voting is the only way out of this metastasizing mess. That and some enlightened leadership.

Do you agree? Do you see other solutions? Please share your thoughts in the comments here, which I read with appreciation. I’ll be writing more soon about how to turn your understandable despair into constructive action.

Thank you all very much for your support and encouragement. It means a lot.

A new paid subscriber to American Crisis, Joyce Hamel, describes below why she’s come on board. And beneath her kind words is some information for newcomers about who I am, what I’m doing here, and what I ask of you.

 

 

My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US, and teach an ethics course at Columbia Journalism School. I’ve also written two books and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.

The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.

What I ask of you: Last fall, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!

Leave a comment