The Truth About “False Balance” by Liz Spayd, Public Editor of the NY Times
www.nytimes.com/...
The NY Times public editor today published a reply to the growing public outcry she is hearing (including from their own editorial writer, Paul Krugman, to whom she links) against the paper’s ongoing “false balance” in reporting on Trump and Clinton. She sounds like she is doubling down on it.
The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates. Take one example. Suppose journalists deem Clinton’s use of private email servers a minor offense compared with Trump inciting Russia to influence an American election by hacking into computers — remember that? Is the next step for a paternalistic media to barely cover Clinton’s email so that the public isn’t confused about what’s more important? Should her email saga be covered at all? It’s a slippery slope.
Ms. Spayd, you don’t have to take an all-or-nothing position. Yes, journalists should have covered the email investigations and reported that Sec. Clinton was cleared. But for years, the NY Times have blown up every minuscule accusation of the Republicans toward her and prominently displayed it on the front page. Whereas they ignore MAJOR illegalities by Trump. They (or the editors) are making choices. And they are choosing to throw their investigative reporting resources down rabbit holes leading nowhere, like the Clinton Foundation. They are not choosing to throw their resources into investigating Trump’s bribery of Pam Bondi and other Attorneys General to drop cases against his Trump University scam. And they are certainly under-reporting many other real examples of Trump’s unscrupulousness, illegality, and immorality (Russian connections, tax secrecy, alliance with white supremacists, etc.). These are choices your newspaper is making. And next there is sure to be “concerned” stories about Hillary’s health as your way of balancing out, let’s say, Trump’s prior Mafia connections.
Later she says,
I hope Times journalists won’t be intimidated by this argument. I hope they aren’t mindlessly tallying up their stories in a back room to ensure balance, but I also hope they won’t worry about critics who claim they are. What’s needed most is forceful, honest reporting — as The Times has produced about conflicts circling the foundation; and as The Washington Post did this past week in surfacing Trump’s violation of tax laws when he made a $25,000 political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general as her office was investigating Trump University.
Does she hear herself? The first was a big nothing and the second - well, The Washingon Post covered it. Which is what I’ll be reading once I cancel my subscription to the NY Times.
