Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Call Them What They Are: Smear Merchants
Do you remember the days when the New York Times was considered to be a respectable newspaper? I found this surprising statement about the executive editor:
Long-time executive editor Abe Rosenthal was famous for his public dedication to impartial and unbiased journalism, combined with the understanding that journalists generally tended to lean leftward in their personal views. Later NYT executive editor Joseph Lelyveld said of Rosenthal, ‘Abe would always say, with some justice, that you have to keep your hand on the tiller and steer to the right or it’ll drift off to the left.’
I was even more surprised to learn about this assessment of the NYT by William F. Buckley:
In 1972, conservative activist and author William F. Buckley’s National Review undertook an audit of the paper’s journalism under Rosenthal and found no evidence of ideological bias, concluding, ‘The Times news administration was so evenhanded it must have been deeply dismaying to the liberal opposition.’ The National Review suggested other media should follow the NYT’s example, writing ‘Were the news standards of the Times more broadly emulated, the nation would be far better informed and more broadly served.’
Ah, the good ol’ days.
Unfortunately, this sterling reputation was not to last and was doomed under future editors. In fact, after Trump was elected, a Times staffer made the following declaration:
The media journalist at The New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, declared, if ‘you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies . . . you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using . . . If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that.’ He also acknowledged ‘Balance has been on vacation since Trump . . . announce[d] his candidacy.’
The mask of pretense was publicly discarded and the NYT declared war not only on Donald Trump, but on the Republican party and the American public.
So where do we find ourselves now? I think we must be even more aggressive about condemning the Mainstream Media. In fact, they no longer deserve to be called the MSM, because there is nothing mainstream about them. And they are perfectly content to pursue the spreading of lies, misinformation, and distortions. Even recent comments by the new President of CNN, Chris Licht, who says he supports returning to a more neutral approach, or the Times pathetic confession in an extensive article about Hunter Biden’s laptop offers no reassurance that the media will reform itself anytime soon.
That’s why I think we must completely reframe our approach to the Leftist media and call it out for what it is in no uncertain terms. As Gov. Ron DeSantis nicknames them, we need to repeatedly and regularly call them the Smear Merchants. Every public person—elected official, bureaucrat on the right, or conservative media journalist must work to discredit the Leftist media at every opportunity.
Don’t get me wrong: I once despised name-calling and vulgar labels. But Smear Merchants have not hesitated to use defamatory labels when it suits their needs.
To further make my point, remember when Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi” in the 1990s? It enraged the political Left, but he made a powerful point:
A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren’t necessary. They don’t need men in order to be happy. They certainly don’t want males to be able to exercise any control over them. Abortion is the ultimate symbol of women’s emancipation from the power and influence of men. With men being produced from the ultimate decision-making process regarding the future of life in the womb, they are reduced to their proper, inferior role. Nothing matters but me, says the feminazi. My concerns prevail over all else. The fetus doesn’t matter, it’s an unviable tissue mass.
Whether you loved, hated, or were indifferent to his statement, it was impossible to ignore and demonstrated his fearlessness in attacking important, controversial, and difficult issues.
We need to describe the Smear Merchants accurately for the same reasons. I propose that we call them what they are until, if ever, they clean up their act.
If ethics are ever restored to the field of journalism, I’ll consider changing my opinion.
Published in Journalism
No, that was before my time.
I do have a copy of Herman Dinsmore’s book, though. (I see it was published in 1970. I had thought it was earlier than that. I probably bought it via the Conservative Book Club.)
Very well said, Susan.
The NYT and CNN are the pennant-bearers of the Smear Merchants.
I once read the NYT coverage of when Castro took power in Cuba. There was nothing – NOTHING – evenhanded about their coverage at that time. They thought Fidel was the Second Coming.
I remember seeing the television coverage of a Castro arrival – I don’t remember if it was in Havana or at the UN in New York – but what I do remember very well is the fawning coverage. It is no exaggeration to say they treated him as the Second Coming.
Well, it’s not something that we haven’t already known. For the last 20 years or so we’ve seen some really good writing that has detailed the downfall of the Times. (Probably the best that I read was Gray Lady Down by William McGowan back in 2010.)
Sometimes I have to wonder how the Times blunders on with (seemingly) no loss of readership. Are there really that many leftists who need their morning dose of bias confirmation?
It’s really been fascinating (at least, to me) to see talented liberal journalists such as Bari Weiss jumping ship only to be replaced by far left hacks who are capable only of the smear journalism that you speak of.
I suppose one reason for the continued existence of the Times could be the large number of progressive dullards that are being spawned by our colleges and universities. If that is the case, these smear merchants will be in business, at least for the foreseeable future.
You may very well be right, CA, but I want to do whatever I can to make their lives miserable. If we could get a lot of people on board for calling them Smear Merchants, frequently and regularly, it may be hard fo them to ignore.
I found this, too. It’s not much, but it’s something:
No. I don’t.
And neither does anybody else.
Of course, they also published Walter Duranty’s bald-faced lies covering up the Soviet famine in 1932-33. It wasn’t until over 50 years later in 1986 that the Times started acknowledging that they had been derelict in their editorial oversight.
Does the daily circulation number include both print and on-line? Just curious.
There’s a reason some call them the NY Slimes.
Newspapers have always been smear merchants. Always have been, always will be.
One day I’ll write about the con-job that convinced some they weren’t, for a brief period post-WW2.
I wondered that, too, but it didn’t say.
This is surprising, indeed. It seems to be a reference to this cover article: “Is It True What They Say About The New York Times?” by John C. Ottinger and Patrick D. Maines National Review, September 15, 1972, pp. 999-1006.
I would love know what the article says. And why.
In 2009 Maines characterised it thus:
I still have my doubts.
I have only had two uses for the New York Times in my life. The first was to put down for paper training my puppies. Since they no longer need that, the only thing I use the paper for is its crossword puzzles. I have been addicted to them since the mid 1980s. It is truly sad that the once great paper has become nothing more than a propaganda sheet for leftists.
Some bias is always present. The question is whether (a) the journalistic enterprise even notices and (b) whether there is any sense of duty to correct it.
One of the side effects of the secularization of America is that political ideology has displaced religious and traditional moral sensibilities. The admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s becomes unintelligible when you want Caesar to be God, to see your personal sensibilities and ideological preferences manifested in a powerful political entity. Conservatives, Republicans, and Trump, in particular, are not just of a contrary political persuasion, they are an evil force denying your god a rightful place.
The problem is not just leftward bias. It is that the modern left has no reference point other than an ideology largely based on self-congratulations in lieu of a larger moral framework. They have no place to stand to be able to judge their own political biases and policy preferences. Without that capability, they cannot even engage other points of view, much less come to grips with the horrific defects in their own.
As always, so articulate, OB. What distresses me, too, is that there is no interest at all in anything close to facts or the truth. If it doesn’t fit the narrative, toss it. Since their politics have become their god, that is all they serve. Thanks.
In the days of the Holy Roman Empire, there was a defined set of men known as the Prince-Electors….they, and only they, got to vote on who the next Emperor would be. I think we have people in America today who see their proper role as analogous. They include major media writers and publishers, Ivy League academics, and senior government officials. They may not exactly see themselves as specifically choosing the next President, but they certainly view themselves as the deciders who qualifies and who does not.
Control of communications channels is very powerful, and people with such power are not likely to avoid using it.
See my post Comm Check for related thoughts.
The arrogance and lack of any humility are mind-boggling. Thanks, David.
One could make an argument that they see and know their bias but not only feel no duty to correct it but are encouraged to express it. Today’s journalists feel the need to save the world as they see the world of course. In fact they feel it’s their moral duty to correct the wrongs. They see it as the civil rights fight of our times. Under that preconception how could they not be bias?
There is a difference between a preference for a particular spin versus a complete inability to conceive of any other viewpoint. One can consciously opt to serve one’s biases. But a cognitive cripple can’t do otherwise.
I highly recommend everyone read the linked essay. Good stuff, David. Ditto, Susan.
It’s why I prefer “corporate media.” It’s not only accurate, it rubs their smug leftist noses in it.
I approve of your methodology.
I call them the Press, as if to remind them of the nobility of their Constitutional calling.