There is apparently nothing wrong with America that can’t be blamed on Donald Trump. He is single-handedly destroying the Republican Party, trashing presidential debates and spoiling the reputation of locker-room talk.
And — breaking news alert! — Trump is even changing journalism. His habit of saying things that nobody ever said before is forcing reporters to unleash their partisan views instead of just giving the facts.
Some of these charges may be true, but the one about Trump changing journalism is demonstrably false. All the more so because it comes from the editor of the New York Times, who happens to be the actual guilty party.
Dean Baquet, the Gray Lady’s boss for two years, recently claimed that Trump’s campaign had forced the paper into a new way of covering politics.
“I think that he’s challenged our language,” Baquettold an interviewer. “He will have changed journalism, he really will have.”
The claim is presented as one of those chin-stroking insights about a new paradigm that liberals spot around every corner. In fact, it is just another example of the Times getting it all wrong.
Trump didn’t change the Times — Baquet did. He’s the one who authorized reporters to abandon the paper’s standards when covering Trump and express their personal political opinions.
Or, as Baquet said in the interview with Nieman Lab’s Ken Doctor, the struggle for fairness is over. “I think that Trump has ended that struggle,” Baquet boasted. “I think we now say stuff. We fact-check him. We write it more powerfully that it’s false.”
Fact-checking, of course, is often in the eye of the beholder, and quickly morphs into opinion when there is no restraint or neutral standard. The result is the paper’s relentless, daily assault on Trump, to the advantage of Hillary Clinton.
Opinions, all uniformly anti-Trump, now ooze from the paper’s every pore, with headlines on front-page “news” articles indistinguishable from daily denunciations on the editorial and op-ed pages.
This is not a mere continuation of the old liberal bias that infected the Times, the Washington Post and the broadcast networks for years. This is a malignant strain of conformity that strips away any pretense of fairness in favor of strident partisanship.
The signal that the Times abandoned its traditional church-state separation of news and opinion came in an article by the paper’s media reporter two months ago. Inhis August piece, Jim Rutenberg declared that most reporters saw Trump “as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate,” and concluded they had a duty to be “true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment.”
Baquet, in the interview, cited the Rutenberg piece, saying it “nailed” his thinking. He also said he started “down this track” years ago, during the dispute over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and made it clear he believed then-President George W. Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to take America to war. The Trump treatment, he said, was a logical extension:
“I think he gave us courage, if you will. I think he made us — forced us, because he does it so often, to get comfortable with saying something is false.”
Baquet offered another example that got him to this point. He accused Republicans of lying in their “swift-boat” charges against Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 campaign.
It is not incidental that his examples all involve allegedly dishonest Republicans, and none involves dishonest Democrats. Nothing better explains why the Times fails to give Clinton the same scrutiny it gives Trump. More than 60 percent of voters regard her as fundamentally dishonest, but Baquet sees only Republicans as liars.
Simply put, his political bias precludes fair journalism. And once standards are gone, they are gone forever, meaning anyone wanting to work at the Times will face a political litmus test.
Baquet’s defense of slanted coverage is reflected in the trove of emails WikiLeaks released from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Times reporters and columnists repeatedly show up in partisan ways. Washington correspondent John Harwood sends Podesta his private approval of Hillary Clinton appearances, as if he’s on the team. Columnist Nicholas Kristof, in advance of an interview with Bill Clinton, emails his questions, which Podesta’s team passes around to staffers to shape Clinton’s answers.
A Washington reporter gives Hillary Clinton veto power over quotations he can use from an interview. Another reporter is praised as someone who has “never disappointed” in delivering stories the campaign wants “teed up” for public consumption.
As the editor, Baquet should be outraged that his staff secretly compromised the paper’s integrity.
But as the editor who eliminated the Times’ standards, he’s getting the biased paper he wanted.
Questions for de Blasio
Mayor Bill de Blasio won’t take questions from The Post these days, so here are questions all City Hall reporters should insist he answer.
No. 1: Has the mayor or his lawyer been informed that de Blasio is a target of federal and state investigations?
No. 2: Has the mayor been ordered to testify before a grand jury? Has he voluntarily offered to do so?
No. 3: Did the mayor ask teachers union president Michael Mulgrew for the $350,000 contribution the union gave to de Blasio’s political slush fund, the Campaign for One New York, a month before the union got a $9 billion contract?
No. 4: Did de Blasio or his wife, Chirlane McCray, personally receive any money, gifts or other things of significant value from the consultants paid millions of dollars by the Campaign for One New York?
No. 5: Who is paying the legal fees of de Blasio and City Hall aides? How much, if any, taxpayer money has been spent representing them?
The public has a right to know what the mayor knows about the investigations, including the possibility he will face criminal charges.
The reporters in Room 9, the legendary home of the City Hall press corps, should ask these questions every day until they get answers.
Hill corruption is e-asy to see
Reading the emails hacked from John Podesta’s account, I felt squeamish. But two facts settled my stomach.
First, the emails reveal the greed and backstabbing among the Clinton clan. There is no honor among those thieves.
Second, the claim that the messages are forged or a Russian plot illustrate how the family fudges facts it can’t deny. That means the emails offer the unvarnished truth, making them unique in Clinton land.
Dem’s truth on voter fraud
Alan Schulkin will never eat lunch in New York again.
The Manhattan Democratic representative on the city’s Board of Elections was caught telling an inconvenient truth, saying, “I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”
Schulkin was being secretly taped by an undercover journalist, so maybe his party will forgive him for saying what everybody knows to be true.
Otherwise, he’s going to be a very hungry man.
Source: New York Post
