The New York Times Democratic endorsement(s)
/
or all of its liberal bona fides, the New York Times has often been so inept in the practice of journalism that it's served the right wing far more effectively than the left.
A Times reporter named Jeff Gerth once "broke" the story of the Clintons and Whitewater, an incomprehensible and error-ridden fairy tale that ultimately set in motion the preposterous (and in that case acdurately described) witch hunt that led to our last impeachment.
A Times reporter named Judith Miller once "broke" a string of stories about mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that never existed. Thousands of people died because George W. Bush was able to leverage these "liberral" reports to rally the support for war among voters, Senators and overseas allies. (Miller's career ended as a commentator on Fox News.)
And any number of reporters in 2016 didn't bother telling the truth about Hillary Clinton's non-existent "damaging" emails...which helped usher in Donald Trump. Good job, Times.
After all that, you'd think maybe the paper learned a few lessons. But with its inexplicable endorsement of not one--but two--candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, once again they're guilty of journalistic malpractice.
Now...first and foremost...I want to be clear I am NOT taking issue with who they endorsed (both Warren and Klobuchar) or the process they used to background themselves (separate private interviews with each candidate). People should sincerely endorse whomever they want.
But the specific candidates (in this context) don't matter. Here's what does:
1) Two choices = no choice. What the hell? They want TWO presidents? This was not an endorsement of the candidate they think is best. It's a transparent attempt to eliminate the ones they don't like.
Journalists like to say they work to report the news, not be the news.
But this is exactly what this move does. It taints every report in their pages for the rest of the campaign...because they've already pressed their thumbs down on the scales of electoral choice--before a single vote is cast.
(2) Why now? Part of me wants to think that the fact that Sanders and Biden have been surging in recent weeks made it crucial for the Times to try to stem their momentum.
But even if that's not true, the editorial also cites "perilous times" as a reason for breaking with their tradition. You know what's perilous? The Trump presidency. You know the best way to have undecided voters see that for themselves? Let them watch the impeachment case against him in the Senate. In other words, do NOT insert you opinion and the resulting tumult into the news cycle the DAY BEFORE the trial is set to begin.
And one more point on timing: maybe wait until you can decide between the two?
(3) Identity orthodoxy. The last line in the editorial says, "let the best woman win." How delightfully "woke". But maybe that should have been the lead? In dissing Biden and Sanders and Buttigieg and Bloomberg and Yang and Steyer, the far left is going to love their commitment to a different, non-male "identity."
Maybe the timing was also a way to take sides in the recent Bernie/Warren spat over whether a woman can be elected. But why now? Maybe the voters are smart enough to figure all this out for themselves.
If I'm a Times reporter covering any of the campaigns...or the primary election in general...I am not a happy camper. My editorial board has colored me with a veneer of favoritism--positive or negative--which hampers my ability to seem evenhanded to the candidates, their supporters, or the public at large.
For all of its good intentions, sometimes the New York Times can't help but make things worse.
Have a comment or thought on this? Just hit the Your Turn tab here or email us at mailbox@cascadereview.net to have your say.
