Why we all suffer when powerful institutions yield to Trump’s bullying

Over the past few days, two more major institutions — Columbia University and the law firm Paul Weiss — decided to deal with Donald Trump’s bullying tactics by negotiation and deal-making and, to some degree, compliance.

I work at Columbia (running a journalism ethics center) and thus have had a front-row seat over the past year to everything that’s happened at the Manhattan-based campus: the student protests over the Gaza war, the counter-protests, the encampments, the arrests and expulsions, the resignation of the university president, the closing of the campus to the public, and so much more.

Over the weekend, came the latest news: Columbia’s leadership — in an effort to regain $400 million in federal grants withdrawn by the Trump administration — had agreed (at least in part) to the president’s demands. Here’s a gift link to the New York Times story about it, the lead article in Saturday’s print paper, titled “Columbia Agrees to Trump’s Demands After Federal Funds Are Stripped.”

 

 

I thought the demands outrageous, and I was appalled to see the university leadership respond as it did. We’re seeing far too much compliance — from law firms, news organizations and schools. At this dangerous moment, we need to push back against authoritarian measures, not to yield.

My Guardian column on this is titled, “Columbia should have said, ‘see you in court, not ‘yes, Mr. President.’” You can read it in full, but here’s my major point, noting that Columbia has an endowment of nearly $15 billion and thousands of rich alumni.

“Institutions with resources must resist thuggish bullying, not just for their own sakes, but to protect others who will find it much harder.” I argue that some principles are so central to an institution’s mission that to bargain over them should be unthinkable.

There are people and institutions who are resisting — the Associated Press, the law firm Perkins Coie, Georgetown University Law School, and many others — and they set a righteous example for us all.

Readers, I would appreciate your views on this, and on the larger subject of what Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times has called The Great Capitulation.

Quite separately, I want to address a question that has come up many times in the comments here: “Who writes those damn headlines, anyway?” This matters because headlines really matter. In many cases, they are as far as many people get. They don’t reach the 19th paragraph or absorb every nuance in a long report. They skim the headline — often on their phones — and move on.

But so many headlines don’t get the job done. I’ve often complained here — as recently as last week — about headlines that miss the point or “sane-wash” what’s really going on. They pussyfoot around harsh reality.

You’ve heard, no doubt, that reporters often don’t write their own headlines. But who are the anonymous people who do? What’s the process?

The answer isn’t consistent across the board. It depends on the size and practices of a particular news organization. But as a partial answer, I’ll tell you my experience in four different newsrooms. And I’ll suggest an answer to why headlines sometimes miss the mark — either by sensationalizing or by soft-pedaling.

The Buffalo News: While I was there, until 2012, a team of copy editors wrote the headlines. They were members of a dedicated copy desk who received a story from its assigning editor, edited it for factuality and for adherence to grammar and style, and put a headline on it. The story then went to a chief copy editor before publication. In many cases, the editors were restricted by word count because their headlines would appear both in print and online. It’s really hard to summarize a complicated story accurately in about six words. Try it sometime. (Most newspapers have dissolved their copy desks now, so assignment editors or reporters themselves often write the headlines; these days, there are fewer sets of eyes on each story, which means that more errors get through.)

The New York Times: During my four-year term as public editor, my columns went to a specific editor — the same one every week — who edited for style and wrote a headline. He didn’t change the viewpoint but would point out if I was wrong on the facts. In every case, this editor, before publication, would send me the headline for my review. If I thought it didn’t suit the column, I could say so and ask for a change. This was rarely, if ever, contentious. I would sometimes feel that a complicated story couldn’t be represented in just a few words. Still, I usually couldn’t do any better.

The Washington Post: I worked on a team of media writers, and we had a regular editor for our group of about six. That media editor wrote the headlines, often trying for something that would attract the most readers. Click-bait? Not really. But certainly avoiding something boring was a high value. Getting a lot of “engagement” was important; the headline was a big part of drawing in readers.

The Guardian US: These days, when I file my weekly column, I put a suggested headline on the top. Often, I feel my suggestion is mediocre, and almost always, my editor changes it to something more punchy. I don’t see those until the column is published online. I don’t always love the result — they sometimes go a little farther than I would — but only once did I feel a headline was inaccurate. I quickly complained and the editor changed it online right away. (I did, however, write the headline on the Columbia piece above; it is almost a verbatim line from the column itself.)

But, you may be asking, none of this explains why many headlines fail to drive home that we’re seeing the daily dissolution of our democracy. (The one I complained about last week about Trump’s “charm offensive” comes to mind; that is not what is going on in America right now.)

I think that’s because the editors writing those headlines are striving for a kind of narrow accuracy. They are trying to do their jobs, perhaps be clever with a play on words, and otherwise not color outside the lines. They certainly don’t want to write a headline that’s going to cause a lawsuit or a rebuke from a supervisor, so there’s a kind of built-in defensiveness. They’re focused on safety, not mission. And, I believe, there is no emphatic message from newsroom leadership to be more straightforward. Thus, we get soft-focus headlines that ponder, “Are We in a Constitutional Crisis?”

Sarah Jeong at The Verge wrote a smart mea culpa about all of this a few days ago — blaming herself for “normal-washing” Trump’s firing of two FTC commissioners. Her piece is called “We ran the wrong headline about Trump firing the FTC commissioners.” One quote from her self-takedown: “A news headline should not quietly aid the erosion of our social consensus about the law…” Hallelujah!

Readers, thanks for being here. Welcome to many who have subscribed recently. I removed the paywall for American Crisis a few months ago because I want this newsletter to be open to all and to let everyone comment freely. But please know that I do appreciate the support and encouragement (and occasional messages) from paid subscribers.

 

 

Please let me know how you’re doing, what’s giving you hope — and what’s giving you nightmares. Let me know if you think Columbia’s response is defensible and whether it’s likely to succeed.

Leave a comment