The Case for Journalistic Independence

[ad_1]

Today’s news is a bit different than usual. We will focus on The Times itself – and how it defines our mission today.

The show is a recent essay in the Columbia Journalism Review by AG Sulzberger, our publisher, in which he explains why The Times’ guiding principle is independence. In addition to summarizing the argument, I will offer my own thoughts in relation to this newsletter.

Sulzberger writes:

Independence is a journalistic commitment that is increasingly needed to follow the facts wherever they are. Putting the truth – and the search with an open but skeptical mind – above all else. This may sound like an unacceptable Journalism 101 cliché, but in this age of hyperpolarization, independent journalism and its sometimes contradictory values ​​are what make it a radical endeavor.

Independence asks journalists to adopt a posture of seeking, rather than knowing. It demands that we describe the world as it is, not the world as we want it to be. This requires journalists to be willing to exonerate people they think are villains or interrogate people they think are heroes. It insists on sharing what we learn – fully and fairly – no matter who might bother or what the political consequences are. Freedom requires openly stating the facts, even if it seems to favor one side of the dispute. And it requires careful transmission of ambiguity and debate in more frequent cases where the facts are not clear or the interpretation is in sufficient dispute, so that the readers can grasp and process the uncertainty.

The idea of ​​journalistic independence has many critics, he said. Conservatives argue that journalists are too liberal to be independent, while many liberals choose a more confident form of ideological journalism, as the norm in the US during the 1700s and 1800s and remains common in Europe.

Independence does not always come naturally to journalists. Each of us has our own personal opinion. Sometimes, we fail to address our biases and produce flawed coverage. At other times, we overcorrect to “false equality” and neglect to explain that one side of the debate is not telling the truth.

But the pursuit of freedom is a worthy goal. This is the same goal as scientists, judges and sports referees. “Failure to meet standards does not eliminate necessity,” said Martin Baron, a former top editor at The Washington Post. “It makes them even more necessary.”

Sulzberger goes into more detail in his essay – including his counterarguments – and I encourage you to read it. (Clear disclosure: He’s my boss.)

I would like to add a reflection, based on writing this newsletter during the Covid pandemic. These experiences highlight the difference between independent and alternative approaches.

Like many other subjects in American life today, Covid is quickly becoming a source of political polarization. Many conservatives believe that the threat of the virus has been exaggerated. Many liberals think the country is doing too little to fight Covid. The political right and left also disagree about the origin of the virus – from a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China, or from animals in a food market in the same city.

If The Times adopted a more European journalistic model, our coverage of the pandemic would begin with the assumption that either left or right is right about all things Covid. Independent models require a different approach. This requires examining the evidence on every aspect of Covid – and accepting the possibility that one political tribe is right about almost everything or that every side is right is just a matter of questions.

Of course, the data shows that many conservatives are deeply wrong about vaccines (which are safe and effective) and often wrong about masks (which protect people when worn consistently). But many liberals — including some in public health, a left-leaning field — also come with beliefs that the evidence doesn’t support.

Many liberals point out the dangers of Covid to the elderly, especially children. Part of the reason is that Democratic-led communities are closing schools longer. It’s a bad trade-off: The region doesn’t have Covid, and its children struggle more. The left also seems to be wrong about the long-term mask mandate (which has no effect) and wrong to dismiss the lab leak theory (which, contrary to fanatical conspiracy theories, remains plausible).

I want to emphasize that the model of independent journalism does not guarantee accuracy. For example, I initially misread the evidence about vaccine immunosuppression and underestimated the value of booster shots. Journalism is called the first draft of history because it is imperfect. Great stories require tough judgment calls, and reasonable people sometimes resist conclusions. My friends and I will make mistakes.

Nor do I want to suggest that The Times’ approach is the only valid one. In today’s digital landscape, there is plenty of room for ideological publications. I like, and learn from, many people.

But The Times pursued another strategy. We believe that no political group – not left, center or right – has a monopoly on clairvoyance. We are not on a team. Our bet is that The Times can serve the public while remaining independent. We believe that many readers want such coverage, uncomfortable though 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—that an informed society not only makes better decisions but is more trusting, empathetic, and more caring.”

  • Turkey’s election is set to be a runoff after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan failed to secure a majority of the vote.

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

  • Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the opposition leader, came second. Both said they are ready for the runoff, which is scheduled for May 28.

The doctor who stayed in the capital of Sudan after the war broke out should inspire us all to help the people in our homeland, Farah Stockman write.

Probabilistic decision making tends to make better decisions, Robert Rubin have learned with the help of the yellow pad.

Gail Collins and Bret Stephens discussing Trump’s 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 advanced to 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 superteams. Welcome to the era of league player empowerment.

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

“Seinfeld,” a show about nothing, ended in May 1998. In the middle there was Jerry Seinfeld and three friends, who proudly flouted social conventions and traditional adult rules, The Times Maya Salam writes. Twenty-five years later, parts of the show seem prescient, Maya writes: “By realizing that long-standing images of adulthood are not as accessible as before, the show gains a new relatability.”

[ad_2]

Source link

Leave a Reply