This is been building for a long time, but...

... things are suddenly starting to pop. I'm not going to try to make sense of all. For now, I'm just going to share some quotes and links and a few quick observations. For years now, lots of people have been getting fed up with the New York Times. I'm not talking about bomb throwers and ideologues, but smart, sober, thoughtful journalists and commentators, people like Josh Marshall, Norm Ornstein, John Harwood and James Fallows who have earned a tremendous amount of respect for both their bodies of work and their judgment. Peers at other major publications are increasingly showing their annoyance. Even at the NYT itself, reporters are expressing their unhappiness off the record. Though n = 1, a high-ranking reporter for the New York Times told me in a private conversation that he was nervous about having publicly made a mildly critical statement about the paper. While a number of former employees have spoken out after leaving the paper, as far as I can tell, the last high-profile person at the paper who was willing to seriously engage with and address criticisms was Margaret Sullivan about a decade ago. Losing her was devastating and the paper has never regained its internal compass. It has bee a long slide into self-parody ever since but things came to a head today.

The White House's critiques of NYT coverage as described in the Politico article are completely legitimate. And yes, as I wrote here, it is publisher AG Sulzberger's fault: https://t.co/GMu73gJe7C https://t.co/RoMCTTLjsR

— Dan Froomkin (PressWatchers.org) (@froomkin) April 25, 2024

I genuinely feel for that reporter. As mentioned before, the NYT is a top down, narrative driven paper and second tier people basically have to write what they're told.

2/ I mean if it weren't for AG basically riding the "shit on biden" button up nonstop in the C suite where would pitchbot be?

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) April 25, 2024

This quote is buried towards the bottom of this Politico piece. This confirms what many had theorized for quite some time, and further undermines the credibility of the NYT's coverage of this election. https://t.co/QWe3ARAY9v

— Tom Bonier (@tbonier) April 25, 2024

God, the arrogance of a man whose one real accomplishment was being born with the right name.

    "In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency." https://t.co/Gq4PFkDm1R     — John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) April 25, 2024

Harwood, whose work and reputation put him on par with anyone at the NYT, is one of the many counterexamples to the paper's complaints about Biden.

Gee John, apparently you, Scott Pelley, Jonathan Capehart, Judy Woodruff, Fareed Zakaria, Enrique Acevedo, David Muir, Stephanie Ruhle, Nicole Wallace, etc. etc aren’t ‘experienced reporters’. 🙄 pic.twitter.com/1qMNYtPdjp

— Maudi63 🌼🌸🪻🌺💐 (@maudi63) April 25, 2024

Norm Ornstein feels the blame should fall mainly on the editors. Fortunately there's enough blame to go around.

Publishers do not dictate news coverage, so I take the criticism of AG with some skepticism. Editors do. That is why I slammed Dean Baquet for the emails fiasco and even more for the “FBI sees no evidence of Russian involvement” headline days before the 2016 election. And I would… https://t.co/B74BpjwtXN

— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) April 25, 2024

 

What I've noticed is that Times honchos often feel free to bully Democrats (and sometimes enjoy it) -- but seem fretful and even fearful about irritating Republicans https://t.co/QZ5yHcvzJK

— Joe Conason (@JoeConason) April 25, 2024

NYT’s Elizabeth Bumiller on covering President Joe Biden vs NYT’s Elizabeth Bumiller on covering President George W. Bush https://t.co/CssVYKklME pic.twitter.com/QpOrIdKdsU

— Dana Houle (@DanaHoule) April 25, 2024

Someone in a position of authority at the New York Times actually thought that this was a good idea, that when credibly accused of serious journalistic lapses and abuses of power in reaction to a candidate not giving them an interview, the best response was to whine about that candidate not giving them an  interview.

A free and independent press fills a vital role in a democracy. See our statement on @nytimes and our coverage of the president. https://t.co/msymF8x6xa

— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) April 25, 2024

Pierce, as usual, puts it best.

Oh, shut up. https://t.co/0oniOjaTCX

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) April 25, 2024

it is weird. felt more like a statement on behalf of the publisher.

— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) April 25, 2024

In a statement to @semafor, a New York Times spokesperson pushes back on this, saying "the notion that any line of coverage has been ordered up or encouraged in retaliation for declining an interview, or any other reason, is outrageous and untrue." https://t.co/ALy9CKkk1u pic.twitter.com/oPzRxLkXfV

— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) April 25, 2024

A statement which would have carried more weight if not for the previously mentioned "why won't he talk to us?!?" statement. Seems only appropriate to close with Pitchbot.

Kudos to Politico for not using “perceived” to modify “its often euphemistic-laden, soft focus coverage of Trump.” pic.twitter.com/JtBBEnbnPR

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) April 25, 2024

I have never been a supporter of Donald Trump, but if Joe Biden is unable to placate the New York Times' nepo baby publisher, I will have no choice but to vote for him for the third time.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) April 25, 2024