The NYTimes fails to meet the moment (again)

October 18, 2024

Rants about the media are tiresome. But you are going to have put up with this one, because I am writing it for myself in an effort to contain my bewilderment and disappointment. Although this essay is about the New York Times, the Times is merely the leading indicator of the failure of major media outlets. When democracy needed them the most, they collapsed into a heap of self-important but largely irrelevant squabble of journalists focused on spectacle over substance.

From the moment Kamala Harris declared her remarkable and improbable candidacy, the media hectored her for instant details about her policy positions and demanded that she sit for interviews with “serious” news outlets. She released a detailed policy agenda in early September (9/10), A New Way Forward, and later released an eighty-page economic plan (9/25), A New Way Forward for the Middle Class. Even so, the media dismissed the plans as “too vague,” always placing those objections in the mouths of mythical “undecided voters.” See CNN (9/18/2024), Harris isn’t giving the specifics some undecided voters say they want.

As Kamala Harris began engaging with social media influencers and popular media platforms with broad reach, the serious press “tut-tutted” and “tsk-tsked,” claiming Kamala Harris was afraid of sitting down with “serious press” so that they could (presumably) grill her about her policies—although everyone knows they wanted to ask a litany of “gotcha questions.” But, for the moment, let’s play along with the fiction that the NYTimes and WaPo care about the details of Harris’s policies.

This week, Kamala Harris entered the lion’s den of Fox News for a serious and adversarial interview about her policies. She not only picked up the gauntlet thrown down by the NYTimes, but she also upped the ante by entering the most adversarial arena possible.

Bret Baier grilled her about her policies, almost always framing his questions through the lens of Trump campaign talking points. Baier even played a Trump campaign commercial and asked Harris to comment. As one observer noted, it was like sitting for an interview “in a Trump campaign field office.”

So, given the urgency and persistence of the Times’ demands that Kamala Harris answer questions about her policies in an adversarial setting, a reasonable person would have expected the Times to cover the substance of Harris’s answers to Baier’s questions. That reasonable person would have been wrong.

The day following the Fox News interview, the Times ran two news articles on the interview. The first article was written by Michael N. Grynbaum, who is described as a “media correspondent” covering the 2024 campaign. Our first clue that something was amiss is that Grynbaum covered the interview as a story about the media rather than a story about Kamala Harris’s policies under interrogation. (Although the second article styles itself as “six takeaways” from the debate and is longer, it adds little of substance. See below.)

It physically pains me to use one of my ten monthly free “gift” articles to share this abomination, but here it is: Kamala Harris Arrived for a Fox Interview. She Got a Debate. (Accessible to all.)

The Grynbaum article contains 18 paragraphs. Here is the breakdown of those paragraphs by topic:

11 paragraphs were exclusively about Bret Baier, including his preparation, questions, irritation that he had to conduct the interview prior to his regular nightly program, Baier’s frustration that Kamala Harris arrived only minutes before the interview, his irritation that there was pressure to wrap up the interview, and Baier’s reaction to his own interview.

2 paragraphs were exclusively about Kamala Harris, as follows: One paragraph quoted her request not to be interrupted; and one paragraph quoted her answer that her administration “would not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency.”

1 paragraph quoted Brett Baier’s colleagues at Fox News praising the Fox news anchor and criticizing Kamala Harris for giving “thin” answers.  

1 paragraph noted that Kamala Harris had been subject to criticism for not sitting for adversarial interviews prior to the Fox interview.

1 paragraph quoted a positive reaction from Kamala Harris’s campaign director.

0 paragraphs discussed Kamala Harris’s answers regarding her policies.

0 paragraphs discussed Bret Baier’s deceptive gambit of playing a deceitfully edited clip of Donald Trump denying that he said Democrats were “the enemy within.”

In other words, the Times’ “media correspondent” wrote about the television spectacle of the interview with Bret Baier as the star and Kamala Harris as a bit player. The article failed to discuss a single substantive answer given by Harris, despite the Times’ harsh criticism of the Vice president for (allegedly) failing to sit for interrogation about her policies by a “serious” news outlet.

Nor did the Times’ “media” reporter comment on what may be remembered as the most remarkable moment of the 2024 campaign—a moment equivalent to “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” That moment came when Kamala Harris forcefully condemned Trump's characterization of fellow Americans as “the enemy within.”

Of all the moments to exclude, that was the single most important moment of substance and consequence in the interview. And Mr. Grynbaum and the Times ignored it entirely.

Even if we accept that Mr. Grynbaum’s remit is limited to covering the “spectacle” of the media, the drama of Kamala Harris catching Bret Baier in a lie was the most “media-worthy” moment of the interview. And yet, Mr. Grynbaum and the Times ignored it.

Why?

I don’t know the answer to that question, and I don’t care. I am done trying to answer the question, “What has happened to the New York Times?”—and by extension, most major media. The Times has lost all credibility with millions of its subscribers for such unforgivable lapses of journalistic standards.

The second article by the Times, “6 Takeaways From Harris’s Fox News Interview With Bret Baier, suffers from many of the same deficiencies of superficiality and focus on spectacle, although in longer form. It likewise omits Bret Baier’s deception and fails to highlight Kamala Harris’s stirring condemnation of Trump's attack on the American people as “enemies,” describing her response with the terse summary, “Ms. Harris quickly pushed back” – and nothing more. You get the point.

It is too late for the NYTimes to “make up” for the sullen and begrudging coverage of one of the most remarkable candidacies in American history—that of Kamala Harris. I fear that the Times’ editors and publisher are “punishing” Kamala Harris for refusing to give the Times what it demands: A sit down with its publisher, A. G. Sulzberger, and senior editors, who believe they are the American version of the Immortals of the French Academy—self-styled vessels of received political wisdom.

A.G. Sulzberger has responded to criticism like that above by saying that the NYTimes is under no obligation to “be a cheerleader for Democrats.” He is 100% correct. But focusing on “bread and circuses” is unworthy of Access Hollywood, let alone the NYTimes.

Be better, NYTimes. The Constitution you save might be the one that protects your right to freedom of the press.

Postscript: I have gone on for too long, but if you would like a positive prescription on how media companies can do a better job of reporting the news without becoming “cheerleaders” for candidates, see this excellent article on Substack, Media and Democracy Project, Brian Hansbury, Newsrooms Must Become Partisans For Democracy. I highly recommend it.

---

The Univision town hall with Donald Trump

In stark contrast to the substance-free article by the Times about the Fox interview, Univision ran a remarkable town hall-style interview with Donald Trump. The town hall was sometimes moving and poignant (because of the questions) and sometimes off-the-rails and offensive (because of Trump’s answers).

I was impressed and sometimes humbled by the audience members who asked questions rooted in the challenges of working and living in a country that exploits and stigmatizes them. The entire town hall is here: Univision, Town hall: Latinos Ask… Donald Trump Responds.

Although I will criticize some of Trump's answers below, I urge you to watch the questions to gain insight into the concerns of the audience members. See, for example, the questions in the following exchanges. (The summaries of the questions and answers are my real-time transcriptions; for the complete and accurate quotes, please refer to the video. My notes are highly abbreviated versions of the actual answers.)

What will you do about the price of groceries. Trump's response: We will cut your energy costs by 50%. “Drill baby drill.”

A remarkable question from a farm laborer: “For many years, I have worked with these hands, hunched over, picking strawberries and cutting broccoli . . . these jobs are done by undocumented workers. If you deport these people, who will harvest your food? Trump's answer: I am the best thing that happened to farmers. . . They released hundreds of thousands of people who are drug dealers, terrorists, murders . . . your jobs are being taken by these people . . . our farmers are dying. They haven’t had anything so bad in 25 years. We want people to come in, but we don’t want murderers. The Border Patrol announced that the Biden administration allowed in 13,099 murderers and gang members and terrorists.

A question about Trump's conspiracy theories, ending with “Do you really believe the Haitians in Ohio are eating people’s pets?” Trump's answer: I was just repeating what I heard on the news. And [they are] eating other things, too, that they’re not supposed to be. I am going to Springfield. I will give you a full report later.” See CNN, At Univision town hall, Trump refuses to back off false claims about Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio.

A remarkable question by a “former Republican” offering Trump the opportunity to “win back my vote” by explaining your inaction on January 6. The question, in part, “Your action, and maybe inaction, during your presidency and the last few years sort of … was a little disturbing to me. What happened during Jan. 6 and the fact that you waited so long to take action while your supporters were attacking the Capitol.”

Trump's answer to the above question was truly shocking. He described January 6 as a “day of love” and included himself as part of the mob that attacked the Capitol by saying, “We didn’t have guns” (a lie). See HuffPost, Trump Once Again Expresses Solidarity With Jan. 6 Domestic Terrorists.

Per HuffPo,

“That was a day of love,” Trump said Wednesday evening as he repeated a number of lies about the day that saw the bloody culmination of his failed coup attempt. “Nothing done wrong at all. Nothing done wrong.”

Trump used the pronoun “we” as he described his mob. He called police officers and National Guard troops “the others.”

Reactions from the audience have gone viral. Audience members visibly recoiled when Trump said about January 6, “Nobody was killed.” See are, WATCH: Audience Member at Univision Town Hall Stunned by Trump’s Claim That Ashli Babbitt Was the Only Jan. 6 Death. Others sat with arms folded tightly across their chests as Trump referred to farmworkers and terrorists in the same breath.

While Kamala Harris’s appearance on the town hall allowed her to show her empathy and concern for Americans struggling to make ends meet, Trump came off as arrogant and out of touch. In other words, the true characters of Harris and Trump were illuminated during their respective appearances in Univision town hall interviews a week apart.

---

More on the Electoral Count Reform Act

The Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA) provides for expedited trials and appeals of cases involving challenges to election results affecting electors. Per Protect Democracy, Understanding the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, the ECRA provides as follows:

• Creates an expedited procedure for federal courts to hear claims brought by presidential candidates . . .  with respect to a state executive’s duty to issue and transmit to Congress the certification of appointed electors.

• It provides for cases to be heard by a three-judge court . . .  composed of two circuit judges and one district judge . . . .

• Allows for direct appeal to the Supreme Court (via a petition for writ of certiorari) and requires that if the Supreme Court hears the case it do so “on an expedited basis, so that a final order of the court on remand of the Supreme Court may occur on or before the day before the time fixed for the meeting of electors.”

The highlighted language is significant. It commands the Supreme Court to resolve lawsuits relating to electors at least one day before the electors are required to meet to cast their ballots (December 17).

Thus, it is highly likely that slates of electors from all fifty states will meet and vote on December 17, 2024, because all litigation should be completed by that date.

As explained in earlier newsletters, once the electors have voted, the only steps remaining are for the Vice President (acting as President of the Senate) to open the ballots in a joint session of Congress, have the votes announced and tallied by “tellers,” and have the Vice President “declare” the candidate receiving a majority of votes to be the president-elect.

---

Don’t assume everything is bad news

Many commentators are spending significant time and attention on the alleged gains by Donald Trump among male Hispanic and Black voters. Losing any ground to Trump is bad, but Mark Joseph Stern explains, the electoral college structure tends to diminish the impact of such gains. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Suddenly, the Electoral College is a problem for Donald Trump.

Per Stern,

But Trump has a problem. Even if he wins over a large number of nonwhite voters, it may not help him secure the presidency. It may, in fact, make no meaningful difference in his quest for 270 electoral votes.

Trump is, ironically, crashing into the same roadblock that has stymied Democrats for decades now: The Electoral College overvalues white votes at the expense of racial minorities, giving white voters considerably more influence over the presidential race.

Nonwhite voters are distributed inefficiently—for purposes of the Electoral College’s arbitrary geography—in states that are highly unlikely to put either candidate over the top.

To be clear, it is both wrong and unjust that the electoral college tends to overvalue white votes and undervalue the votes of Hispanic and Black voters. But if you are lying awake at night worrying about Trump's alleged gains among Black and Hispanic voters, those gains (if any) may be blunted by the electoral college distribution of votes into “swing” and “non-swing” states.

There is a lesson in Stern’s reporting: Don’t catastrophize every piece of seemingly bad news reported by the media. Context matters—but it can be investigated after we have ensured a massive turnout on election day.

---

Opportunities for Reader Engagement

From PostCardsToVoters

Hey everyone, PostcardsToVoters.org has added MICHIGAN back into its line-up! Two state-wide candidates for Michigan Supreme Court on one postcard, to retain Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and elect Kimberly Thomas, are running to keep the majority on the MI Supreme Court. These postcards will also help get Democrats out for Rep. Elissa Slotkin for Senate and Harris-Walz.

We are still working on big lists for Congressional candidates Laura Gillen for NY, Will Rollins for CA, Rep. Chris Deluzio for PA, and for Senator Sherrod Brown for Ohio.  

Only 13 days left to write and mail!  WE NEED MORE HELP!! The more writers, the more postcards! POSTCARDS WORK!

To join PTV, email Join@TonyTheDemocrat.org. If you already joined, PTV has a brand new easy-to-use webpage to get addresses and script. Go to Abby.postcardstovoters.org to get started! 

---

Concluding Thoughts

Ignore the polls. The early vote numbers are a different matter. I look at them as “cold comfort” or “negative assurance.” Early voting numbers are concrete and verifiable. Interpreting their significance takes effort and expertise. But it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in statistics to know that if early vote totals are higher in 2024 than in 2020 and 2022, that it is a good sign for Democrats. When more people vote, the better Democrats do.

And in a year when Dobbs is on every ballot, the increasing numbers of women in early vote totals is also a hopeful sign. While we must be cautious in interpreting the data, the early vote total could have shown a decrease in enthusiasm or a relative increase in the proportion of men who are voting early. Neither of those trends is showing up in the early vote data. Those are objective, verifiable facts—and encouraging news for Democrats.

But we can’t become complacent. Margins in early votes can be swamped by same day vote. So, we should be hopeful but realistic. Early advantages can be erased. Still, I would much rather be us than them (Simon Rosenberg).

Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

Below is an image of M78, located 1,350 light years from Earth. It is a reflection nebula that is home to thousands of objects, including “substellar” clumps that are proto-stars.

After five nights of cloudy skies in LA, I am running out of astrophotography images to share. Don’t be surprised if I begin posting pictures of Halloween decorations or birthday parties for my granddaughters. Hope for “clear skies!” I don’t want to become “that guy” who overshares.