Do better, Big Journalism. Please do much, much better

When I started this newsletter in 2023, I intended to call it “Can Journalism Save Democracy?”

A friend suggested I make the name shorter and more punchy, and I immediately flashed to “American Crisis.” As it turns out, we are in a crisis far worse than I could have imagined only two years ago.

And, as it also turns out, much of the reality-based press is doing a poor job of even acknowledging that they have a role in saving democracy, much less doing anything about it.

I see a lot of good work, of course, and I’m grateful for investigations like the one in the New York Times recently about how the Trump administration is aggressively and opportunistically pouring taxpayer funds by the billions into private companies, or the Washington Post’s reporting on how few of those swept up in Homeland Security’s roundup of supposed criminals actually have a criminal record. (Those are gift links.)

But I also feel deeply disappointed by flawed decision-making that makes me question whether news organizations have lost their way or even forgotten their mission. So much of what gets attention seems — is — driven by “engagement.” And if it’s not driven by attention-getting, it’s affected by self-censorship, even capitulation.

A few examples and some notes on why they grate so much and how news organizations could do better.

Because it’s so absurd: The Washington Post’s staff-written editorial titled “The scourge of automatic hand dryers.” (Sub-headline: “Holiday travelers deserve better than inadequate and unsanitary dryers.”) Really, WaPo Opinion? Hat tip here to Parker Molloy, who pointed it out to me; she writes the excellent newsletter, The Present Age. With this inconsequential drivel, the Washington Post opinion section, among its notable other failures and embarrassments, is failing to meet the moment.

Because the New York Times already wasted too much ink on promoting this book: The inclusion of Olivia Nuzzi’s “American Canto” on a list of 15 Books Coming in December. I know a lot of deserving authors and, believe me, they would be beyond delighted to get that kind of mention in the New York Times. Recall that Nuzzi’s book, in which she details her lurid relationship with RFK Jr., already got a glowing Times puff piece, complete with glam photography and videography, and titled “Olivia Nuzzi Did It All for Love.” Enough, already! Nuzzi is a disgrace to journalism, as every passing day makes clearer. While waiting to see if her employer, Vanity Fair, does the obvious right thing, I commend to you this hilarious must-read about the whole mess by Brian Phillips in The Ringer.

Because the truth shouldn’t need to be edited out: The BBC’s decision to fearfully remove a line from a speech that was later broadcast. The speech, one of the BBC’s prestigious Reith Lectures, was by the historian Rutger Bregman, talking about the 2024 presidential election. Here’s what he said, with the BBC’s edited-out line in italics: “On one side we had an establishment propping up an elderly man in obvious mental decline. On the other we had a convicted reality star who now rules as the most openly corrupt president in American history.” Greg Sargent of the New Republic wrote about this here, and notes that he asked the BBC why they did that, concluding that Trump’s recent legal threat “apparently got the BBC to censor something that is obviously correct.” (The historian himself posted a full transcript.) Facts are facts, but some of them make media legal departments queasy.

Because Louis C.K. doesn’t deserve this: A New Yorker piece that asks if the comic (who admitted to ugly sexual misconduct years ago) now is sufficiently offering audiences “a great work, channeling their newfound clarity into the finest art they’ve ever made.” Those words are from a New Yorker X post promoting the article.The piece itself is more nuanced and rather brief, but as comic Frank Conniff responded: “With all the worthy artists and entertainers struggling to just survive these days, the New Yorker wants us to focus our interest … on Louis C.K.’s redemption arc. Keep it up, mainstream corporate legacy media. You guys are crushing it.”

Because bad framing amounts to propaganda: A New York Times headline that gives credence to Pete Hegseth’s ridiculous and unfair claims. The Times saw fit to help the Trump administration with this credulous headline: “Pentagon Opens Inquiry Into Senator Mark Kelly Over What Hegseth Called ‘Seditious’ Video.” When news organizations parrot these kinds of claims, they magnify them and give them power they don’t begin to deserve. How to do better: Include in the headline the absolute fact that this whole travesty is pure political retribution; the story itself gets at that, but headlines do matter. In fact, the Washington Post performed much better with a headline that read, “Hegseth conscripts Pentagon for Trump’s efforts to punish political foes.”

Readers, I head to Paris this week to present some research that my colleague Julie Gerstein and I did at Columbia Journalism School, which takes a digital-age look at journalism ethics. We looked at topics such as the use of AI by newsrooms and changing views about traditional objectivity. The series was published recently in six parts in Columbia Journalism Review, where it caught the eye of the journalism school leadership at Sciences Po Paris. Julie and I will talk about our findings at the school’s annual journalism conference, and will be questioned by students. Here’s the series if you’d like a look. (Also, if you’ve visited Paris, please give me your don’t-miss recommendations.)

My trip will be short and I’m not taking a break from this newsletter. I’ll also note that American Crisis now has well over 50,000 total subscribers, and I’m very thankful to have your support and to be landing in your inboxes. Paid subscribers are a tiny fraction of that number but I’m glad to have you with me in any form; I hope to keep the paywall down because I want to give everyone a chance to read and comment.

Finally, a post-Thanksgiving question: What, in your media diet, are you most appreciative of? My own choices: Julie K. Brown’s continued reporting on all things Jeffrey Epstein for the Miami Herald, reporting on local voting access from nonprofit sites including Mississippi Today, Lydia Polgreen’s columns in the New York Times, and powerful 60 Minutes reporting by Scott Pelley on Ukraine’s civilian death toll and on Trump’s pardon of Changpeng Zhao, founder of Binance, the huge cryptocurrency exchange which is dominant source of the Trump family fortune. Given the recent turmoil at CBS News, this reporting is especially good to see.

I also loved this eloquent op-ed piece by Julie Pace, top editor at the Associated Press (and my fellow Buffalo native), explaining why the AP is challenging Trump’s punitive behavior in court: “Why AP is standing for your right to speak freely.” The AP has been a great role model for refusing to capitulate and for not caving under pressure.

Can democracy save journalism? Maybe not, but we still urgently need it — and we need it to be at its best.

Below this message from a new paid subscriber is some information for newcomers about what I’m trying to do here. Thanks so much for joining me!

 

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