Sign of the Times
Last week, former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson passed along her thoughts for Semafor’s media newsletter, saying some of the best news reporters in Washington failed to hold power accountable by not fully reporting on Biden.
Abramson, who was the top editor at the Times from 2001 to 2014, said, “The Biden White House clearly succeeded in a massive cover-up of the degree of the President’s feebleness and his serious physical decline, which may be simply the result of old age. Shame on the White House press corps for not to have pierced the veil of secrecy surrounding the President.”
Abramson admitted it is a tough story to crack. “But,” she continued, “I do think if enough reporters had pushed, the story was reportable. I worry that too many journalists didn’t try to get the story because they did not want to be accused of helping elect Donald Trump. I get that. But this is no excuse for abandoning our first duty, which is to report the truth and hold power accountable. President Biden should be held accountable for his obvious lapses of mental acuity, even if there are periods of lucidity.”
Hmm, interesting. It seems as if most of the top journalists in Washington politics are bulldogs who aren’t concerned with criticism borne from their reporting.
In an interview with The Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple, current New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn said it wasn’t just Abramson’s comments, but a general narrative about the media’s coverage of Biden that just isn’t true.
Kahn told Wemple, “For any, frankly, even occasional reader of the New York Times to make an assessment of our coverage as having not prepared readers for this moment or having failed to look into the issue of Biden and his age — it’s very clear to me, I think it’s very clear to our readers that we have been persistently raising this issue, exploring this issue, reporting on this issue — and of fact-based analysis of Biden’s performance in office, as well as voter sentiment around the issue, has been one of the key themes of our coverage of the president himself and the campaign for years now. So it did not strike me as being a correct analysis in any way.”
Although there were serious questions about sourcing because the prominent quotes were from Republicans, The Wall Street Journal’s Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes had a story in early June that said Biden had shown “signs of slipping.”
Biden’s age has long been in question, so it’s unfair to suggest it hasn’t been a story. But it probably is fair to say that most people were stunned by Biden’s weak performance in the debate.
Kahn, however, told Wemple that he is proud of how the Times has covered the story.
“Now,” Kahn continued, “does that mean that we solved — the New York Times solved — the problem of Biden’s age? It’s not for us to solve it. What’s on us is to keep our regular readers as well informed as possible about an issue that would be part of their consideration about who to vote for, how to vote, in 2024. And we put that issue regularly in front of readers. Now, whether readers decide to take that information and make a different decision about their vote is up to them. It’s not up to us. We also covered many other issues about Biden’s agenda, some of which people may conclude overwhelm their concerns about his age. But our job is to keep them informed. And in this case, we did.”
By the way, there is much more to the Wemple-Kahn conversation, so I encourage you to check it out. It’s a fascinating, behind-the-scenes look at media coverage.
Doing the right thing
Not all reporters are able to separate their personal politics from their work. But it’s admirable, as well as the right thing to do, when they recognize their conflicts and do something about it.
Take well-respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Julia Preston, who announced this week that she is stepping away as a contributing writer at The Marshall Project, the nonprofit newsroom that covers criminal justice.
In a memo to her colleagues on Monday, Preston wrote, “After the events of recent days, I don't feel I can continue to abide by TMP's ethical guidelines instructing journalists to refrain from public partisan political action. I believe Donald Trump is an existential threat to our democracy and our right to practice journalism freely. I feel strongly that President Biden should withdraw from the race. In particular, I was offended by the President's failure in the June 27 debate to rise to the defense of immigrants, in the face of the onslaught of falsehoods from Trump. I've been writing about immigrants for the better part of two decades. I've seen the dynamism they bring to our country, and the devastation that disastrously broken immigration and border systems can wreak on their families. They deserve better from our leaders.”
Now here’s the important part. In her note to colleagues, Preston wrote that she has no issue with The Marshall Project’s guidelines.
She wrote, “To be clear, I believe the guidelines are correct, and fundamental to the independent, clear-eyed fact-finding journalism that you all practice so well, which has distinguished The Marshall Project over many competitors. Throughout my career, I've done my very best to observe such guidelines at various publications, to avoid any partisan expression. I urge you all to continue to observe them as well. This is just the right move for me at this stage.”
Preston, 73, covered immigration at The New York Times and was a part of the team that won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for coverage of the impact of drug corruption in Mexico. Before the Times, she worked at The Washington Post. Preston has been a contributing writer at The Marshall Project since 2017.
On Monday, I spoke with Preston, who reiterated that she believes The Marshall Project’s guidelines for nonpartisan journalism are correct.
“I believe in that kind of journalism,” Preston told me. “I believe in the discipline of that kind of journalism, and I have done my very best to practice that kind of journalism.”
Preston said the debate “changed my thinking about what I need to be doing now. And I feel that I want to be active as a voter. I’m a Democrat. I want to call my senator. I want to call my congressperson. I want to be active as a voter and Democrat after that debate.”
Preston realizes there is no going back to traditional journalism, adding it was “not an easy” decision. But, she did it also out of respect for her now former colleagues.
“I don’t want any partisan activity on my part to give a false or incorrect impression about the work that they do,” Preston said. “They are really committed to a practice of journalism which I believe is correct. You have to set aside your personal, political beliefs and see the facts with clear eyes. I’ve tried to do that throughout my career. At this moment, I don’t feel that I can refrain from my public role as a voter any longer.”
Preston isn’t done working. She said she is planning a book and audio project about undocumented youth known as Dreamers.
Moving forward
