The plea for journalistic independence

The subject of today’s newsletter is slightly different than usual. We’re going to focus on The Times itself – and how we define our mission today.

The opportunity is one new essay in the Columbia Journalism Review by AG Sulzberger, our publisher, explaining why independence is The Times’ guiding principle. In addition to summarizing his argument, I’ll offer my own thoughts on how they relate to this newsletter.

Sulzberger writes:

Independence is the increasingly contentious journalistic commitment to follow facts wherever they lead. It puts the truth – and seeking it with an open but skeptical mind – above all else. That may sound like bland, pleasant clichés from Journalism 101, but in this hyperpolarized era, independent journalism and the sometimes counterintuitive values ​​that animate it have become a radical pursuit.

Independence requires reporters to adopt a searching attitude rather than knowing. It requires that we reflect the world as it is, not the world as we might like it to be. It requires journalists to be willing to exonerate someone who is considered a villain or question someone who is considered a hero. It insists on sharing what we learn – fully and honestly – regardless of who it upsets or what the political ramifications may be. Independence calls for stating the facts clearly, even if they seem to favor one side of a dispute. And it calls for carefully conveying ambiguity and debate in the more frequent cases where the facts are unclear or their interpretation is reasonably contested, so that readers can understand and work through the uncertainty for themselves.

The idea of ​​journalistic independence has been widely criticized, he notes. Conservatives argue that journalists are too liberal to be independent, while a growing number of liberals favor a more confident ideological form of journalism, as was the norm in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries and is still common in Europe.

Independence is not always self-evident for journalists. Each of us has our own personal opinion. Sometimes we fail to rise above our prejudices and produce flawed reporting. Other times we correct too much towards “false equivalence” and neglect to explain that one side in a debate is not telling the truth.

But striving for independence is a worthy goal. It is the same goal that scientists, judges and sports referees pursue. “Failure to meet standards does not obviate the need for them,” said Martin Baron, former editor-in-chief of The Washington Post. has written. “It makes them more necessary.”

Sulzberger elaborates on the counterarguments in the essay I encourage you to read it. (Obvious disclosure: He’s my boss.)

Covid as a case

I would like to add one consideration, based on writing this newsletter during the Covid pandemic. That experience emphasizes the distinction between the independent approach and the alternative.

Like many topics in American life today, Covid quickly became a source of political polarization. Many conservatives believe the threat of the virus has been exaggerated. Many liberals believe the country has done too little to fight Covid. The political right and left also disagree about the origin of the virus – from a lab leak in Wuhan, China, or from an animal at a food market in the same city.

If The Times adopted a more European model of journalism, our coverage of the pandemic would have begun with the assumption that the left or the right were right about all things Covid. The independent model asks for a different approach. It calls for examining the evidence on every aspect of Covid – and accepting the possibility that either one political tribe is right about almost everything, or that each side is right about just a few questions.

Sure enough, the data showed that many conservatives were terribly wrong about vaccines (that are safe and effective) and often wrong about masks (which can protect people with consistent wear). But many liberals — including some in public health, a left-leaning field — also came to adopt beliefs that the evidence did not support.

Lots of liberals overdone The dangers of Covid for the non-elderly, especially children. Partly for this reason, democratically run communities closed schools longer. It was a bad trade-off: These areas didn’t noticeably have less Covid and their children struggled more. The left also seems to have been wrong about long-standing mask mandates (which had little effect) and wrong to reject the lab leak theory (which, unlike a bigoted conspiracy theory, remains plausible).

I want to emphasize that the independent model of journalism does not guarantee accuracy. For example, I initially misread the evidence about declining vaccine immunity and underestimated the value of booster shots. Journalism is called the first draft of history because it is imperfect. Great stories require difficult appraisals, and reasonable people sometimes come to contradictory conclusions. My colleagues and I will make mistakes.

Nor am I suggesting that The Times’ approach is the only legitimate one. In the current digital landscape there is a lot of room for philosophical publications. I enjoy and learn from many of them.

But The Times follows a different strategy. We believe that no political group – whether left, center or right – has a monopoly on clairvoyance. We are not on a team. Our guess is that The Times can best serve society by remaining independent. We think many readers want such coverage, uncomfortable although it may be.

As Sulzberger writes“Independent journalism also rests on the fundamental belief that those who want to change the world must first understand it – that a fully informed society not only makes better decisions, but also operates with more trust, more empathy and more care.”

THE LAST NEWS

Elections Turkey

• Turkey’s elections are going to a second round after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan failed to secure a majority of the vote.

• The election was in many ways a referendum on the performance of Erdogan, Turkey’s dominant politician for 20 years.

• Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the opposition leader, came in second. Both men said they were ready for a second round, scheduled for May 28.

Heavy weather

Politics

Other great stories

Opinions

Doctors who stayed in Sudan’s capital after the outbreak of war should inspire us all help the people in the places we come from, Farah Stockman writes.

Probabilistic decision making is usually better decision making, Robert Rubin has learned using a yellow pad.

Gal Collins And Bret Stephens discuss the Trump CNN town hall, the budget and the border.

NHL Playoffs: The Vegas Golden Knights defeated the Edmonton Oilers 5-2 in Game 6. Las Vegas reached its fourth conference final in six years.

A new era: Two WNBA teams – New York and Las Vegas – have attracted enough stars to be considered super teams. Welcome to the competition player empowerment era.

An uncertain future: The Grizzlies have Ja Morant suspended again after he was seen flashing what appeared to be a gun in an Instagram Live.

ART AND IDEAS

What’s wrong with maturity?

“Seinfeld,” the show about nothing, ended in May 1998. The centerpiece was Jerry Seinfeld and his three friends, who proudly flouted social conventions and the rules of traditional adulthood, writes Maya Salam of The Times. Twenty-five years later, parts of the show seem prescient, Maya writes, “With the realization that long-held images of adulthood may no longer be as attainable as before, the show has taken on a new relatability.”