“Think that poll looks good for Democrats? You’re probably unsuitable,” read a fake yet suspiciously real sounding headline tweeted yesterday by Doug J. Balloon.
Doug J. Balloon is the screen name of the person responsible for the Recent York Times Pitchbot, a parody account devoted to roasting the Times for the sadly too often ridiculous and problematic premises of its stories and guest essays.
Doug presently has over 200,000 followers on Twitter, which is substantially greater than a few of the NYT’s highest profile political journalists. (For example, Carl Hulse, the newspaper’s Chief Washington Correspondent, has 45.3k followers.)
Doug’s satirical tweets poking on the Times have taken on particular importance during the Biden presidency, owing partially to the Times’ indefensible fixation with relentlessly promoting the Republican Party’s electoral prospects and schemes for taking power. Though the Republican Party has morphed right into a political entity that’s incompatible with democracy, the Times has inexplicably chosen to treat the party as a legitimate political force and continually award it friendly coverage.
The tiping of the 2022 midterms has yet to be written, but NYT editors and reporters are convinced they know what’s going to happen. They’re churning out stories which have Republican victory is just ahead because the premise, with headlines that endlessly play up Republicans’ possibilities and suggest Democrats are doomed.
Let’s take a have a look at some examples of what the newspaper has published recently that illustrate what I’m talking about. We’ll start with a chunk by Carl Hulse, which ran not long before the attack on Paul Pelosi, titled Pelosi’s Last Dance?
Pelosi’s Last Dance? Speaker Sprints Across U.S. as Republicans Close In.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has raised $276 million this cycle, is in no mood to contemplate a Democratic defeat in November, much less discuss her legacy.
“At the same time as she follows every twist and switch on the House map, the actuality is that this might well be Ms. Pelosi’s final trip across the track as party leader,” Hulse wrote, demonstrating that he considers Republicans to have these midterms pretty much sewn up. “The foremostity she has built and carefully nurtured — not once, but twice — is in jeopardy of falling under the burden of public fears about crime and inflation together with heavy Republican campaign spending and the traditional midterm drag on a president’s party in Congress.”
At the top of his piece, Hulse reports that Pelosi showed no interest in answering a question about what her next moves can be should Democrats lose. “Do you think that I’d reply to that question?” Hulse quotes the Speaker as saying.
Another recent piece by considered one of Hulse’s colleagues employed a headline with the words “winds shift to the suitable,” employing weather as a metaphor:
Republicans Target a Top House Democrat as Winds Shift to the Right
Representative Sean Patrick Maloney of Recent York is in command of protecting the House Democrats’ majority. But now he finds himself at real risk in his own Hudson Valley district.
Or take this one — “with majority in sight” (how can a seriousity be “in sight” for Republicans after we don’t know the way the election goes to show out?)
With Majority in Sight, Republicans Hush Talk of Impeaching Biden
Party leaders have begun to equivocate about whether or not they would seek to question President Biden in the event that they won a House majority, but pressure is constructing from those that have vowed to do so.
Naturally, “red wave” also found its way right into a headline, not even in quotes:
Democrats, on Defense in Blue States, Brace for a Red Wave within the House
“Reality is readyting in”: With two weeks to go, Republicans are competing in Democratic bastions like Recent York, California, Oregon and even Rhode Island.
Next we’ve got “fearing a recent shellacking”:
Fearing a Recent Shellacking, Democrats Rush for Economic Message
In the ultimate stretch before the 2022 midterm elections, some Democrats are pushing for a recent message that acknowledges the pain of rising prices.
Another variation — Red October:
Democrats’ Feared Red October Has Arrived
Many Democrats hoped it might be a “weird election.” But with Election Day just three weeks away, the midterms aren’t shaping up that way.
Worry and wobbling (Dems in Disarray!) made an appearance atop this piece:
Democrats Worry as G.O.P. Attack Ads Take a Toll in Wisconsin
Mandela Barnes, the party’s Senate candidate, is now wobbling in his race against Ron Johnson, the Republican incumbent. Democratic nominees in other states face similar challenges.
Democratic Secretary of State candidates are described as struggling:
Democratic Secretary of State Candidates Struggle Against Election Deniers
Democrats are outspending Republicans 57-to‑1 on television ads for his or her secretary of state candidates. It still is probably not enough.
And turnout for Democrats is characterized as expected to be “weak”:
Bernie Sanders, Fearing Weak Democratic Turnout, Plans Midterms Blitz
Mr. Sanders said he thought the Democratic Party was “doing quite poorly” at selling itself to working-class voters.
While Republicans are described as winning:
Why Republicans Are Winning Swing Voters
The G.O.P. is gaining an edge in midterm elections that may determine control of Congress.
There was even a “story” on lobbyists getting ready for a Republican majority:
Ahead of the Midterms, Energy Lobbyists Plan for a Republican House
The oil and gas industry is already setting priorities for a minimum of partial G.O.P. control in Congress, with a particular give attention to undercutting a Biden administration program to shift away from gas for home heating.
Got all that? Republicans close in, winds shift to the suitable, with majority in sight, brace for a red wave, fearing a recent shellacking, worry, wobbling, Red October, Republicans are winning swing voters, the GOP is gaining an edge.
These are all phrases that The Recent York Times’ reporters and editors are using to characterize the electoral dynamics of the 2022 midterms.
There aren’t any comparable swath of stories in recent weeks that use a hopeful or optimistic lens for Democrats as a balance or a counter. Occasionally, there may be one, reminiscent of this piece, that uses a lens which is a fewwhat friendlier to Democrats.
But that’s a rare specimen.
The Times’ journalists would probably dispute that they’re cheering the Republicans on. But they’re. Take a look at what they’re publishing. Take a look at how they’re framing their stories. Whether or not they admit it or not, they’re totally invested in a victory for the Republican Party and a Kevin McCarthy speakership.
The Times’ “data department” is all in on the narrative, too.
A recent newsletter piece was simply titled A Republican Advantage:
As headlines shift within the weeks before the midterms, so do voters’ top concerns.
Per week before that, there was this:
NYT/Siena Poll Is Latest to Show Republican Gains
Is 4 points the actual margin nationally? That’s a very good query.
Another piece, a collaboration between The Upshot’s Nate Cohn and reporter Shane Goldmacher, was promoted with this heading and subheading:
Polls in 4 Swing Districts Show G.O.P.‘s Strength in Midterms
Republicans are poised to retake Congress this fall in races shaped by forces which might be beyond the red and blue divide, Times/Siena College polling shows.
“How do you get this headline while you poll 4 swing districts and one is tied and three have Dems ahead?” asked an incredulous Josh Marshall.
The article itself uses a different, more neutral headline and subheading:
The 2022 Race for the House, in 4 Districts, and 4 Polls
Swing-district polls by The Recent York Times and Siena College show how the midterm races are being shaped by larger, surprising forces, beyond the traditional red and blue divide.
However, the front page promo heading that drew ire on Twitter and elsewhere was actually a fitting title for the piece, given that it inexplicably characterized excellent news for Democrats as bad news for Democrats in its opening paragraphs:
President Biden is unpopular everywhere. [This isn’t true.] Economic concerns are mounting. [Data shows that unemployment is low and the economy is not as unhealthy as media coverage suggests.] Abortion rights are popular but social issues are more often secondary. [Abortion rights are also an economic issue.]
A recent series of House polls by The Recent York Times and Siena College across 4 archetypal swing districts offers fresh evidence that Republicans are poised to retake Congress this fall because the party dominated amongst voters who care most in regards to the economy.
Democrats continue to indicate resilience in places where abortion continues to be high on the minds of voters, and where popular incumbents are on the ballot. Indeed, the Democrats were still tied or ahead in all 4 districts — three of which were automobileried by Mr. Biden in 2020. However the party’s slim majority — control could flip if just five seats change hands — demands that it essentially run the table everywhere, at a moment when the economy has emerged because the driving issue in all however the country’s wealthier enclaves.
“We depend on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they aren’t allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes,” a modal that always appears in stories on nytimes.com reads. “This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.”
Clearly not forbidden, though, is writing story after story after story after story that uses Republican or Republican-friendly framing. The metaphor of an assembly line will not be far off, according to people who’ve worked for the NYT.
“By and enormous, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called ‘the narrative,’ ” Michael Cieply wrote in 2016. “We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a yr upfront, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.”
The narrative. The pre-designated line.
It seems to still be true today: it’s evident from what’s being published.
Many readers noticed that The Times’ coverage of the talk in Pennsylvania zeroed in on Fetterman’s performance quite than Oz’s, regardless that Oz’s comments on reproductive rights were arguably the story of the night:
Fetterman’s Debate Showing Raises Democratic Anxieties in Senate Battle
The Democratic nominee’s performance in Pennsylvania thrust questions of health to the center of a pivotal Senate race, adding uncertainty to the contest and worrying some in his party.
Pennsylvania Voters Absorb an Unusual Debate: ‘I Felt Sorry for Fetterman’
In interviews, Democrats and Republicans had a variety of reactions to the state’s Senate debate, including alarm, protectiveness, empathy and worry in regards to the political implications.
Fetterman’s Debate Challenges: Selling Policies and Proving He’s Fit to Serve
The Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania will use closed captioning to help with the after effects of a stroke.
There have been no similar collection of stories from The Times in recent days about Oz’s flaws and difficulties. The PA-Sen stories the newspaper is running have focused on Fetterman, repeatedly questioning his fitness for office. That’s the pre-designated line, apparently, and the stories must adhere to the line.
Note the use above of the phrase “Democratic anxieties”.
Contrast those with this headline that claims Republicans aren’t worried about Ohio:
In Ohio’s Senate race, Democrats are predicting an upset, however the G.O.P. isn’t worried.
Polls show Representative Tim Ryan competing withwithin the margin of error against his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, within the high-profile Ohio Senate race.
But again, Democrats are sometimes characterized as worried, nervous, anxious:
Recent York’s Governor’s Race Is Suddenly Too Close for Democrats’ Comfort
Tightening polls, fears about crime and apathy of their base are driving a wave of Democratic hand-wringing and a pivot by Gov. Kathy Hochul.
… while again, Republicans are sometimes characterized as very confident.
Stefanik Says She’s Confident a Red Wave Is Coming to the House
Representative Elise Stefanik, the No. 3 House Republican, also spoke about her PAC’s success in backing female candidates, 23 of whom are running within the fall.
Headlines play up Republicans’ aggressiveness without suggesting any downsides:
With Ads, Imagery and Words, Republicans Inject Race Into Campaigns
Running ads portraying Black candidates as soft on crime — or as “different” or “dangerous” — Republicans have shed quiet defenses of such tactics for unabashed defiance.
One in every of my favorite ridiculous quotes of the yr was in a Recent York Times story published earlier this yr. The story quoted a former Republican state party chair as saying that Republicans were destined to win and suggesting there was absolutely nothing that Democrats could do about it, which is nonsense:
“Their people are depressed,” said Rob Gleason, a former chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party. “Nothing’s going to have the option to avoid wasting them this yr.”
I can imagine a Times editor or reporter reading this critique, shrugging at their computer, and going, “So? We just call it like we see it.”
But that defense doesn’t work. Their sight is obviously compromised.
We don’t know the way the election goes to prove. Nobody knows the long run. Guesses, predictions, and speculation aren’t facts. It’s irresponsible and improper, therefore, for coverage to be driven by a set of expectations held by reporters or editors. To deliver objective coverage, journalists have to be open-minded… committed to exploring all the angles and possibilities. And right away, the NYT isn’t.
Objective journalism is supposed to be fair and impartial. The word “fair” is used repeatedly within the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. Among the many first words of the code are: “Ethical journalism must be accurate and fair.”
Admittedly, it will possibly be difficult to be objective. Advocacy publications like this one have opted for the freedom to not be. The exercise of that freedom can certainly be liberating, but we expect a democratic society benematches from objective, fact-driven, rigorous news coverage that lacks a partisan or ideological slant.
The Recent York Times has chosen the objectivity credo quite than the advocacy tradition, but its political writers aren’t delivering objective news coverage to the newspaper’s readers. That’s a problem. The Times will not be the one publication that’s guilty of political journalism malpractice this cycle, but they’re definitely considered one of the worst offenders, which is why we’ve singled them out for criticism.
We’re within the leadas much as an election during which anything could happen. Occasionally, the reality has slipped into The Times’ headlines, subheadlines, and story copy (reminiscent of in Nate Cohn’s piece titled If These Poll Results Keep Up, Expect Anything on Election Night) but as you may see from the numerous pieces cited above, this mindset of openness to possibilities is the exception quite than the rule.
Our friend Dante Atkins, who’s considered one of the more thoughtful progressive commentators we all know, got so fed up with the NYT and its awful coverage that he imagined how the Recent York Times might cover Trump’s return in 2025 with a parody article attributed to buckraker Maggie Haberman.
The pinnacleline? “America’s Emerging Dictatorship Has Liberals On Edge. But for Some, the Stability and Absence of Hard Choices Is a Welcome Change.”
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Boing Boing laid it out within the NYT’s format and published it:
Responding to right wing misinformation and disinformation is important, however the likes of Steve Bannon and Joe Kent aren’t the one threat to democracy.
So are apathy and indifference.
So are false equivalency and both-sidesism.
So are buckraking and access journalism.
The Recent York Times’ executive leadership, editors, and reporters could do that country an excellent service by rethinking how they cover American politics.
The newspaper’s coverage of Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine is decent, and it still publishes quality investigative reporting.
But within the electoral arena, the Times is doing a terrible job at a time when the United States needs the Fourth Estate to rise to the defense of democracy. That’s why it’s so important that the Times hear from its readers that it’s failing them.
“I’d like to see a Washington newsroom with great reporters who enthusiastically and powerfully expose, explain, and sound the alarm about how dangerously delusional, deceptive, racist, misogynistic and creatoritarian the GOP has grow to be,” Dan Froomkin wistfully tweeted the other day.
So would we.
For those who’d like to jot down to the Times’ Politics Editor to induce the NYT to do better, you may send a tweet or DM to David Halbfinger or reach out via his contact form. It’s possible you’ll also submit a letter to the editor concerning what the Times has published.