Westside Pioneer Home Page

The demise of journalistic standards in media's pursuit of Trump - Part 1

By Michael Goodwin

       Michael Goodwin is the chief political columnist for the New York Post. He has a B.A. in English literature from Columbia College and has taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Before joining the Post in 2009, he was the political columnist for the New York Daily News, where he served as executive editor and editorial page editor. Prior to that, he worked for 16 years at the New York Times, beginning as a clerk and rising to city hall bureau chief. He is the co-author of "I, Koch" and editor of "New York Comes Back."
       The following is adapted from a speech delivered April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar. First of two parts.


       I've been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn't always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it.
       Among the many firsts, last year's election gave us the gobsmacking revelation
Michael Goodwin.
From Goodwin's Twitter account
that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale - that most of what you read, watch and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.
       It's not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at the New York Times, so I'm familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and '70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large.
       The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government - and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in "All the President's Men." Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That's because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.
       During the years I spent teaching at the Columbia University School of Journalism, I often found myself telling my students that the job of the reporter was “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” I'm not even sure where I first heard that line, but it still captures the way most journalists think about what they do. Translate the first part of that compassionate-sounding idea into the daily decisions about what makes news and it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that every person afflicted by something is entitled to help. Or, as liberals like to say, “Government is what we do together.” From there, it's a short drive to the conclusion that every problem has a government solution.
       The rest of that journalistic ethos - “afflict the comfortable” - leads to the knee-jerk support of endless taxation. Somebody has to pay for that government intervention the media loves to demand. In the same vein, and for the same reason, the average reporter will support every conceivable regulation as a way to equalize conditions for the poor. He will also give sympathetic coverage to groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.
       Trump's candidacy treated at first like 'outlandish publicity stunt'
       I knew all of this about the media mindset going into the 2016 presidential campaign. But I was still shocked at what happened. This was not naïve liberalism run amok. This was a whole new approach to politics. No one in modern times had seen anything like it. As with grief, there were several stages. In the beginning, Donald Trump's candidacy was treated as an outlandish publicity stunt, as though he wasn't a serious candidate and should be treated as a circus act. But television executives quickly made a surprising discovery: the more they put Trump on the air, the higher their ratings climbed. Ratings are money. So news shows started devoting hours and hours simply to pointing the cameras at Trump and letting them run.
       As his rallies grew, the coverage grew, which made for an odd dynamic. The candidate nobody in the media took seriously was attracting the most people to his events and getting the most news coverage. Newspapers got in on the game too. Trump, unlike most of his opponents, was always available to the press and could be counted on to say something outrageous or controversial that made a headline. He made news by being a spectacle.
       Despite the mockery of journalists and late-night comics, something extraordinary was happening. Trump was dominating a campaign none of the smart money thought he could win. And then, suddenly, he was winning. Only when the crowded Republican field began to thin and Trump kept racking up primary and caucus victories did the media's tone grow more serious.
       Even sports pages revealed 'naked display of partisanship'
       One study estimated that Trump had received so much free airtime that if he had had to buy it, the price would have been $2 billion. The realization that they had helped Trump's rise seemed to make many executives, producers and journalists furious. By the time he secured the nomination and the general election rolled around, they were gunning for him. Only two people now had a chance to be president, and the overwhelming media consensus was that it could not be Donald Trump. They would make sure of that. The coverage of him grew so vicious and one-sided that last August I wrote a column on the unprecedented bias. Under the headline, “American Journalism Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes,” I wrote that the so-called cream of the media crop was “engaged in a naked display of partisanship” designed to bury Trump and elect Hillary Clinton.
       The evidence was on the front page, the back page, the culture pages, even the sports pages. It was at the top of the broadcast and at the bottom of the broadcast. Day in, day out, in every media market in America, Trump was savaged like no other candidate in memory. We were watching the total collapse of standards, with fairness and balance tossed overboard. Every story was an opinion masquerading as news, and every opinion ran in the same direction - toward Clinton and away from Trump.
       For the most part, I blame the New York Times and the Washington Post for causing this breakdown. The two leading liberal newspapers were trying to top each other in their demonization of Trump and his supporters. They set the tone, and most of the rest of the media followed like lemmings.
       Washington Post has never endorsed a Republican for president
       On one level, tougher scrutiny of Trump was clearly defensible. He had a controversial career and lifestyle, and he was seeking the presidency as his first job in government. He also provided lots of fuel with some of his outrageous words and deeds during the campaign.
       But from the beginning there was also a second element to the lopsided coverage. the New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, meaning it would back a dead raccoon if it had a “D” after its name. Think of it - George McGovern over Richard Nixon? Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan? Walter Mondale over Reagan? Any Democrat would do. And the Washington Post, which only started making editorial endorsements in the 1970s, has never once endorsed a Republican for president.
       But again, I want to emphasize that 2016 had those predictable elements, plus a whole new dimension. This time, the papers dropped the pretense of fairness and jumped headlong into the tank for one candidate over the other. The Times media reporter began a story this way:
       "If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation's worst racist and nationalist tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?"
       I read that paragraph and I thought to myself, well, that's actually an easy question. If you feel that way about Trump, normal journalistic ethics would dictate that you shouldn't cover him. You cannot be fair. And you shouldn't be covering Hillary Clinton either, because you've already decided who should be president. Go cover sports or entertainment. Yet the Times media reporter rationalized the obvious bias he had just acknowledged, citing the view that Clinton was “normal” and Trump was not.
       Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages
       I found the whole concept appalling. What happened to fairness? What happened to standards? I'll tell you what happened to them. The Times' top editor, Dean Baquet, eliminated them. In an interview last October with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, Baquet admitted that the piece by his media reporter had nailed his own thinking. Trump “challenged our language,” he said, and Trump “will have changed journalism.” Of the daily struggle for fairness, Baquet had this to say: “I think that Trump has ended that struggle. . . . We now say stuff. We fact-check him. We write it more powerfully that [what he says is] false.”
       Baquet was being too modest. Trump was challenging, sure, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He's the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be abandoned without consequence.
       With that decision, Baquet also changed the basic news story formula. To the age-old elements of who, what, when, where and why, he added the reporter's opinion. Now the floodgates were open, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper - all the tools that writers and editors have - were summoned to the battle. The goal was to pick the next president.
       Thus began the spate of stories, which continues today, in which the Times routinely calls Trump a liar in its news pages and headlines. Again, the contrast with the past is striking. The Times never called Barack Obama a liar, despite such obvious opportunities as “you can keep your doctor” and “the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video.” Indeed, the Times and the Washington Post, along with most of the White House press corps, spent eight years cheerleading the Obama administration, seeing not a smidgen of corruption or dishonesty.
       They have been tougher on Hillary Clinton during her long career. But they still never called her a liar, despite such doozies as “I set up my own computer server so I would only need one device,” “I turned over all the government emails,” and “I never sent or received classified emails.” All those were lies, but not to the national media. Only statements by Trump were fair game.

         Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, a private college in Hillsdale, Michigan. The Hillsdale website is hillsdale.edu.

(Posted 7/13/17; Opinion: General)

Would you like to respond to this column? The Westside Pioneer welcomes feedback to "General" items (to appear under this subcategory) at editor@westsidepioneer.com. (Click here for letter-writing criteria.)