The yin and yang of the New York Times in the Trump era
A former student of mine, a young journalist, wrote to me a couple of weeks ago unhappy with this New York Times headline.
“Supreme Court Mail Ballot Ruling Deals New Blow to Trump’s Election Plans.”
The headline, she pointed out, “normalizes voter disenfranchisement and reduces attempts to suppress the vote to ‘election plans’ and efforts to ‘regulate elections.’”
She continued (and yes, she was an excellent student) that the headline “struck me as a disservice to readers because it normalizes attempts to curtail the vote and ignores the larger context of federal attacks on voting access and voting rights.” She asked me to suggest a better headline. OK, how about something like “Supreme Court Ruling Backs Voting Rights and Impedes Trump’s Hope to Curtail Them.” (I’m not a headline writer by trade — never was — but maybe that’s directionally better.)
She’s right, and so are the people who’ve pointed out other Times headlines to me, or criticized them elsewhere. Here’s another one: “Trump’s Huge Windfall Has Few Known Global Precedents.” As former Chicago Sun-Times editorial page editor Lorraine Forte noted: “A ‘windfall’ is when you win the lottery, not when you systematically profit from blatant corruption.” Do better, she urged the Times on its headlines. The stories, often, avoid these problems. But headlines matter hugely.
Or another: “In Backing President Trump’s Politics, Justice Alito Finds His Moment.” Press critic and former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob points out that this is “an upbeat way for the New York Times to say that Alito is trying to turn our country into a dictatorship.”
I’ve heard a lot of people — including left-leaning commentators — say this kind of thing doesn’t matter a bit. That the real problems in media have far more to do with the right-wing megaphones for Trump like Fox News than with a few off-the-mark headlines in the Times. (Former Wall Street Journal editor and Columbia journalism professor Bill Grueskin took apart a Fox-to-New-York-Post story that was egregiously wrong. Wrong, but it was spread everywhere, including by Trump himself on Truth Social; the New York Post headline: “Illegal immigration caused house prices to rise 30 %.” Not so. Find the details here.)
But just because there are worse problems doesn’t excuse the headlines under discussion.
I admire a lot of what the Times does — like this mind-boggling investigation of how Trump gained at least $2 billion just since his second term began, including more than a billion from his family’s cryptocurrency operations.
I think the defenders are wrong.
Normalizing Trump and the whole right-wing project does matter. It’s part of what got us to this sorry place. And could inhibit our recovering from it.
What the Times does matters, especially now, at a moment when the Washington Post is greatly diminished (thanks to a self-serving billionaire) and when CBS News is a shadow of what it was (thanks to a couple of self-serving billionaires and their enablers) and when regional news is so sadly withered.
The New York Times is more dominant, and more influential, than ever. It is financially successful, it has a huge and talented newsroom, and — thankfully — it is not the puppet of Trump-pleasing oligarchs.
So when, in my former student’s words, it publishes prominent headlines that are “a disservice to readers,” yes, that matters.
I think top editors should grapple with this seriously. They should get staffers together and talk about how to improve these headlines. Less polite deference; more plainspoken directness. More helping the reader see things through the lens of “how does this fit into democratic norms and values?” The answer to that question simply can’t be normalization.
Big Journalism has done far, far too much of that, going back more than a decade. And since the Times is the preeminent source, it has a special — and a deeper — responsibility.
A headline can be technically accurate and yet miss the truth, and that’s what’s happening too often. Let me know what you think, readers!
I’m interested also in your views on the latest with Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, who seems on the brink of dropping out of the race after the latest sexual-assault charges against him. How are you reacting to this?
I happen to agree with Robert Reich, as I often do; Platner needs to go immediately, and Maine needs to find someone better to run against the pusillanimous Republican Susan Collins. (He may already be gone by the time you read this.) I must say that I don’t like the argument that “the Republicans are worse, so who cares.” Sure, nobody’s perfect, and troubled people can turn themselves around, but character matters. And so do credible charges of sexual assault.
I’ll also like to share this terrific Contrarian piece by political scientist and author Norman Ornstein, whom I also admire and tend to agree with, titled “Reining in a Rogue Supreme Court.” He argues that Congress should take legitimate steps to bring the court back in line with the founders’ original intentions, and concludes that such reform is clearly necessary: “We have a rogue Supreme Court, and it is time to consider more sweeping actions to restore the balance among the branches.”
Readers, thanks for being here for this exploration of journalism’s role in our democracy. I appreciate your comments, which I read and learn from. And while I’m glad to have you here on any terms, if you can swing $50 a year to be a paid subscriber, that will help to keep this effort afloat.
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. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, 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: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, 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!