News Coverage

I’ve found myself spending more time on Substack with a group of writers and media people who have self-identified as “The News Community” – several former writers for mainstream media including Paul Krugman, Jennifer Rubin, Joyce Vance, Heather Cox Richardson Jim Acosta, Rachel Maddow, Kara Swisher and Timothy Snyder. They point out the folly of the New York Times and even PBS who have to cover both sides with an “on the other hand” dual perspective. Apparently, this view is even getting to the Times itself that has asked readers what they think of their coverage in a special article today in response. I’m taking a look.

·       They are managing the “flood the zone” chaos with hiring more reporters and editors with an attempt to back up occasionally to summarize “how Mr. Trump was acting free of so many of the constraints that had kept him from pursuing his agenda and instincts during his first term.”  My own take is that they need to step up every time rather than stepping back.

·       They claim that their journalists will not be intimidated. Paul Krugman said in his last post that he felt that he was.

·       “The main lesson is to try to separate what some would call “The Trump Show” — his ability to command attention, often by making norm-breaking or outrageous statements — from the concrete policy decisions and substantive changes in the direction of the country.” What really bothers me is the number of images of the president which get as much attention as the other issues above. It is to the credit of my other morning news read, The Globe and Mail is that the have stopped showing his image above any article – lessening the inevitable omni-presence.

·       When asked about choices and scrutiny of their stories, the rightly cite many sources but zero in on the reporter who says, “I’ve found a great story.” So today the remarkable stories are of course a three-hour praise laden meeting of the cabinet and on a parallel line in the online version the announcement of an engagement. It is so typical of us all – multitasking celebrity worship and world changing issues.

·       They go a bit weak when asked about words like propaganda and lies. It is rather nuanced to claim long term “tenuous relationship with facts.” The president is being let off the hook by saying that perhaps he actually believes some things are true when actually they are not. The word to use for this might be “delusional” and questioning whether a delusional person should be in the role that he is in. There are, in fact, constitutional ways to deal with such a problem, and an additional role may be to educate members of government who appear to be avoiding its existence.

·       They rightly suggest that data from any source should be verified by a number of others.

·       They are keeping track of moves with a scorecard – an average of eleven per day. Their visual graphics are admirable. Part of the difficulty is the one hundred items a day that appear and disappear. As a news addict. I like others. Are always looking for the next big thing.

·       Sourcing the news through official press briefings is seen by readers as problematic. The response is that they are there but use other sources. They note that the previous president gave view interviews, while this one is more open to them. Fact checking is necessary of course – but what it means is they are extending the in-your-face podium of daily nonsense.

·       They do allow a range of opinions and guest editors and vet them well. These are among the most interesting reads for me.

·       Immigration information coming at them is full of false leads and starts. I don’t envy the paper in this regard. But to an observer from outside their country the amount of coverage about its effect on the economy rather than the assault on human dignity is concerning.

·       Their coverage of climate change is questioned. The answer is not one that I find totally reassuring. The response is that they are talking to scientists and academia rather than current government “experts.” Following the money isn’t mentioned.

·       And as of today with special interest for Canadians is TARIFFS. They praise a neat little three slide graphic which I find hard to understand because it goes too fast. Then they move on to tell us that car parts come from different countries. Hello? We Canadians know that has been happening for several years. Is this news to most Americans? They go on to say that they are providing lots of articles.

·       Readers would like to see less of Trunp on the home page. They would be happier in Canada where this happens less frequently. I agree with the editors that this presidency is the main story. But at least we don’t have to have shopping and recipes compete at the same level. Sometimes it is nice to live where we do, not because of more elbows up, but because of more sanity.

·       To be fair, they do seem to be talking to a variety of Americans with different points of view.

·       Readers are concerned about threats to reporters. Timothy Snyder notes that investigative reporters are the real heroes and we are mourning those who have provided the real story in Gaza at the cost of their lives. The response reminds us of the dangers to them even in the land of the free where they have to create a home for the brave.

·       Paying for news is another concern of the readers that Timothy Snyder shares in On Freedom. The Times confirms that there are costs but share as widely as they can through summaries.

·       They get called from their readers on “President” or “Mr. Their answer is a good one and applies to our own leaders as well – official at the first mention, but not necessary subsequently, as has been an historical pattern.