Our Openly Partisan Press
Like most of those who regularly visit this site, I was taken aback when I read that The New York Times and The Washington Post were enlisting their readers to sift through the tens of thousands of e-mails sent by Sarah Palin in her capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska. Like them, I am amused that what has emerged from this overhyped investigation is a picture of a hard-working, relatively modest, decent young woman trying to do the right thing in a very demanding job. But there is something more to what the editors of the Times and Post have done that deserves extended comment.
I propose that we all step back from the event and ask ourselves what is the larger significance of this ridiculous event. It is, after all, unprecedented in recent times, and it bespeaks a certain desperation and, let me add, folly on the part of our most pretentious (if not distinguished) newspapers. Bear with me. It may take a paragraph or two to explain.
Some years ago – in December, 2002, to be precise – I published a piece in The National Interest entitled An Inky Wretch. Its subject was Marchamont Nedham, the world’s first renowned journalist. Nedham was a remarkable character, He started out in the 1640s, writing for, then editing a weekly newspaper supportive of England’s parliament in the English Civil War. He proved to be too radical for those whose side he was defending, and he was for a time thrown in the klink. When he was released, Nedham switched sides and wrote on behalf of Charles I, then, after his execution, for the deceased king’s eldest son, the prince of Wales: the man who, when crowned, would be known to the world as Charles II. Nedham was eventually arrested and once again jailed, and to secure his freedom he switched sides a second time and began writing on behalf of England’s regicide republic and, when times changed, on behalf of Oliver Cromwell.
What was striking about Nedham was not just his flexibility (which was in and of itself astonishing), but the fact that, no matter which side he was on, he dominated the formation of public opinion in England. In short, the man had talent – talent of a sort rarely seen – and he was always ready to defend his side. He was anything but nonpartisan. But – and here is the kicker – he understood how to make himself indispensable. I devoted four chapters to him in my book Against Throne and Altar: Machiavelli and Political Theory under the English Republic. I could have done a whole lot more.
The piece for The National Interest I prefaced with a brief discussion of the current condition of The New York Times, which was, in my opinion, not good at all. I did not criticize the Gray Lady under the leadership of Howell Raines for being partisan. I denied the very “existence of a golden age” when the old dame “actually lived up to her motto: ‘All the News That’s Fit to Print.’ As I put it,
New Yorkers of a certain age have for decades rolled their eyes when they glanced at the upper left-hand corner of the Times’ front page. In its own bailiwick, the Times has never been above making the most of the peccadilloes of those to whom it is opposed, and over the years it has consistently relegated scandals involving its favorites to the back pages, if not to the executive editor’s circular file.
In any case, we should be neither surprised nor shocked to discover that what styles itself as a newspaper of record is and has always been partisan. After all, at its very inception, the newspaper was a product of fierce partisanship. Indeed, one must justly wonder whether serious journalism could be sustained in the absence of partisan strife. Our interest in knowing is quite often inspired by our inclination to take sides, and the desire to inform and the desire to instruct are virtually inseparable. That is why there is not now, never has been, and never will be a nonpartisan press.
The point of my preface was that “there is a difference . . . between competent and intelligent partisanship” of the sort exemplified by Nedham “and the less sustainable sort . . . lately seen at the Times.” I did not argue that it was “journalistic integrity or partisanship” that distinguished Nedham from Howell Raines. It was “a question of competence.” Raines was a buffoon.
Had a journal with the reputation of the New York Times existed in his day, and had he been given its command, Nedham would have had the wit to recognize its value. He would have taken care to preserve the franchise and would never have squandered an authority it had taken generations to accumulate. He was sly enough to be able to foresee that in abandoning the appearance of impartiality and in turning itself into the vehicle of a political sect, such a journal would be jettisoning its effectiveness as a partisan tool. The temptation for an abuse of trust attendant on the possession of a power seemingly unchecked is no doubt great – but, as Nedham would have understood, resisting that temptation is prerequisite for persuasion.
Soon after my piece was published, the Jayson Blair scandal took place; Howell Raines was fired; and Bill Keller became executive editor of the Times. He had been a good reporter. As executive editor, however, he has been an even greater disaster than Raines. In Raines’ case, this was a function of misplaced ambition. In Keller’s case, I suspect that it is a consequence of weakness. He is the sort of man who desperately wants to be liked by his peers, and, as a consequence, they hold him in contempt. The price at Pinch Sulzberger’s paper has been a complete abandonment of the pretense of impartiality.
There are numerous instances of this, but none is as astonishing as the decision to invite readers of the Times to go on a witch hunt against Sarah Palin. This was a public announcement that, as a newspaper, the Times is today nothing more than a partisan rag – fit to be read only by those in the grips of Palin Derangement Syndrome. It is one thing for an openly partisan paper that is partisan and nothing else – such as, say, Human Events – to invite its readers on such a hunt. That journal has no readers to speak of who are not Republicans and wants none. It is another thing for a newspaper of record to stoop to such shenanigans. It is a public confession – nay, a proud public profession – of bias in its coverage of the news. And it means that it soon will be reduced – and, in fact, wants to be reduced – to its partisan base.
Thirty or forty years ago, this never would have happened. The owners and managers of The New York Times had their prejudices, but they pretended that these were confined to the paper’s editorial pages. It was, as I have said, pretense. They discreetly engaged in news management. But pretense and discretion are fine things. Hypocrisy is, as La Rochefoucauld says, the tribute that vice pays to virtue. And the hypocritical utterances of the Timesman, which he halfway believed himself, served the larger purposes of the partisans on its staff very well – for it enabled them to reach out and persuade Americans who had not made up their minds. Step by step, the Times has been depriving itself of that capacity. Never, however, have its owners and editors gone as far as this. Never have they made a public confession and protestation of their bigotry – and, sad to say, they have taken The Washington Post (our New York Times wannabe) with them.
Events of this sort are generational. They are not likely to be reversed. When Bill Keller hands the baton to Jill Abramson in September and she becomes executive editor, the shift will be complete. The New York Times will really and fully have become Pravda-on-the-Hudson. Keller was actually a decent reporter. Abramson is best known as the co-author of Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas. Her notion of journalism is a drive-by shooting – and Pinch Sulzberger, the runt of the family litter? He is going to get what he asked for. In this world, nothing lasts – not even a newspaper that once pretended to offer “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Today’s New York Times has a lot in common with Anthony Weiner. What was once pretense is now pretentiousness, and we know that neither of them has any sense of shame. Soon they will both be gone.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
"Soon they will both be gone". Very soon may it please you Lord.
May '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
I'm skeptical. If human nature proceeded according to logic alone, you would be right. But people are not merely logical. The Gray Hag will not lose many readers over this anti-Palin campaign or other blatant examples of open partisanship.
Besides, as Ricochet contributors demonstrate time and time again, the Hag does not depend upon objectivity, but instead on seniority and a vast inheritance of sources. A news agency can be respected or it can be needed.
The Hag is an American icon. She can be as nasty as she pleases as long as she continues to print original material that D.C. insiders, pundits and intellectuals appreciate. To that end, the nastier the better.
Edited on June 14, 2011 at 2:55amRe: Our Openly Partisan Press
Aaron Miller: I'm skeptical. If human nature proceeded according to logic alone, you would be right. But people are not merely logical. The Gray Hag will not lose many readers over this anti-Palin campaign or other blatant examples of open partisanship.
Besides, as Ricochet contributors demonstrate time and time again, the Hag does not depend upon objectivity, but instead on seniority and a vast inheritance of sources. A news agency can be respected or it can be needed.
The Hag is an American icon. She can be as nasty as she pleases as long as she continues to print original material that D.C. insiders, pundits and intellectuals appreciate. To that end, the nastier the better. · Jun 13 at 5:54pm
Edited on Jun 13 at 05:55 pm
Maybe -- but she steadily loses readership in New York (and in a large way), and the website strategy is not working. Carlos Slim is closing in.
Edited on June 14, 2011 at 1:05pmJun '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Every good liar knows that in order for his lies to succeed they must closely parallel the truth. It is the shading that carries the lie to fruition and not the falsified facts. So it is with The New York Times, the partisanship is so blatant that only the indoctrinated pretend that they are reading the Truth. The Times would be much more dangerous if its editors knew the first rule of lying. So, I guess we are in luck that they don't, for their lies have become vastly easier to disprove.
May '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
That is not a flattering picture of Ms. Abramson.
Aug '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
I'm not clear on whether you think that what you describe is a good thing or a bad thing.
Jul '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
An old Moscow Proverb:
When Reading Pravda always remember, In Moscow The News is Not the Truth, and the Truth is Not the News.
This shall soon be a New New York Proverb.
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
On the internet, the alternative picture was even less flattering.
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
It is a contemptible thing.
Jun '11
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Paul A. Rahe
On the internet, the alternative picture was even less flattering. · Jun 14 at 4:06am
She does sort of look like she is lined up in a precinct house, having been involved in some angry, drunken bit of domestic violence in which she was certainly not the victim.
Jun '11
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Whenever I have watched "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando, I have always been struck by the fact that in the neighborhood, it is universally accepted that there are bosses who run things, that the fix is always in.
The neighborhood is wise in that respect - they take the corruption and factor it into the calculations they use to get through daily existence.
They understand that the big Friday night fight is often rigged and many of them are smart enough not to lose their paycheck on it.
As Paul Rahe points out, it should come as less than a surprise that the free press operates from a bias.
The danger is that many citizens in America have lost the neighborhood's ability to suspect and to look warily upon the hand that claims to feed you. It's why television anchors strive so mightily to keep their hair in place, to wear the right suits with just the correct amount of foundation. Like Sophists, they deal in appearances and clouds.
The public, the citizens need to understand this and filter the news accordingly.
The neighborhood would have.
Jul '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
I read neither, having sworn off newspapers, but am I right in thinking the WSJ is both better and more prosperous and needless to say more trusted, than the NYT? They appeal to different affinities, conservative and liberal. As the former outnumber the latter by roughly 2 to 1 in this country, I would say the Journal's long-term prospects are considerably brighter.
May '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Perhaps, but the NYT determines the headlines for every major news agency in the country. John Stossel wrote that his editor at ABC cut articles out of the NYT to assign stories only a decade ago.
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Aaron Miller
Perhaps, but the NYT determines the headlines for every major news agency in the country. John Stossel wrote that his editor at ABC cut articles out of the NYT to assign stories only a decade ago. · Jun 14 at 10:16am
The Wall Street Journal has gained in the number of subscribers at the very time that The New York Times has been losing them by the bucket-load. The editorial page of the former is and has long been conservative; its news pages have a liberal bias. the result is quite interesting.
I wonder whether the Times still sets the agenda for everyone else. Being openly, blatantly partisan in your news coverage gradually drives away readers less interested in your opinions than in what is going on. Of course, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN are more partisan then ever. But they, too, are losing viewers bigtime.
We are in the midst of a revolution in the media, and these folks are slowly committing suicide.
May '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Paul A. Rahe
I wonder whether the Times still sets the agenda for everyone else. Being openly, blatantly partisan in your news coverage gradually drives away readers less interested in your opinions than in what is going on.
The NYT provides conservative pundits and reporters an esteemed reference to object to and pivot from. Even as conservatives abhor its lies and vitriol, they put the Times on a pedestal so that they can be seen knocking it down.
So long as the Grey Hag remains at least symbolic of the journalistic elite, the Right will continue to sustain it by citing its every odious gesture.
Articles don't have to be liked to be read.
That's leaving aside the paper's vast network of sources and reporters worldwide which may or may not be absorbed by its competitors in the coming years.
Edited on June 14, 2011 at 10:17pmAug '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Paul A. Rahe: "It is a contemptible thing."
But if the choice is between a newspaper that has a liberal bias but successfully fools its readership into thinking it doesn't, and a newspaper whose liberal bias is obvious enough to scare off non-liberal readers, isn't the latter a Good Thing?
Edited on June 15, 2011 at 10:38amRe: Our Openly Partisan Press
Paul DeRocco: Paul A. Rahe: "It is a contemptible thing."
But if the choice is between a newspaper that has a liberal bias but successfully fools its readership into thinking it doesn't, and a newspaper whose liberal bias is obvious enough to scare off non-liberal readers, isn't the latter a Good Thing? · Jun 15 at 1:38am
Edited on Jun 15 at 01:38 am
Not necessarily. Because it pretended to be a newspaper of record and to publish "All the News That's Fit to Print," The New York Times often did a fine job of covering the news. It was imprisoned by its pretenses. To a considerable degree, it had to live up to the standards it pretended to honor. That is no longer the case -- which means that, apart from The Wall Street Journal, which concentrates mostly on business news, we do not have an even half-way trustworthy source of news.
Aug '10
Re: Our Openly Partisan Press
Well, I have to admit I'd feel more than a smidgin of schadenfreude if they declared bankruptcy one day.
Their contemptible bias wouldn't be such a problem if there weren't lots of newspapers with a similarly "contemptible" bias from our side.