“We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly.”

September 5, 2024 11:11 AM

How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America (Washington Post editorial from A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times, commentary by Kevin Kruse)
posted by box (35 comments total)

Yeah, Sulzberger can kindly fuck off, with how his directives have enabled and fueled the very forces he's now decrying because they're threatening him.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:18 AM on September 5 [51 favorites]

Say the line, Bart!

"I never thought the leopards would eat MY face."

*classroom cheers*
posted by SansPoint at 11:23 AM on September 5 [49 favorites]

so what he's saying is that being moved back in the human centipede lineup is no fun?
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:28 AM on September 5 [9 favorites]

It doesn’t look like he’s decrying much, if you go by this quote from the piece:

I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection.
posted by dr_dank at 11:30 AM on September 5 [19 favorites]

Has continued to come to America? We get a C+ at best.
posted by credulous at 11:35 AM on September 5 [6 favorites]

Dear Sulzberger

Why was a candidate's age the most important issue since.... well the Hillary emails security protocols mega scandal of 2014-2016 (followed closely by John Kerry's medal controversy and Al Gore's, uh, boringness?).

And then the minute you got Biden out, it's nowhere despite the increasing dementia of the coup plotter. Why do you insist on sanitizing his racist ramblings? Why do you 'fact check' as false when the Harris campaign uses Trump's own words!

What about the $10m Egypt bribe story that you deep sixed or the Maga Judge dismissing Trump's traitorous stealing of national security secrets. What about the hacked emails you printed endlessly about Clinton, yet completely refuse to do so about Trump? If you spent 1% of the time on Kuchner's $2B Saudi bribe that you do on Hunter Bide's drug habits it'd be a miracle.

Yesterday you had a headline on how Iran is trying to swing the race to Harris through disinformation on the DAY it came out that Russia is doing its fake news disinformation through far rightist hacks.

There are a zillion more examples you nepo-baby.

NYT is vile, doing everything it can to get Trump re-installed. You think youre getting what you want (Orban or Erdogan) but youre going to get Putin, you might even get Xi. And now this, you KNOW what's coming and you still are aching for Trump, the coup plotter.

Future NYT headline: As the Hangings Begin, We Stand By Our Reporting.
posted by WatTylerJr at 11:54 AM on September 5 [72 favorites]

Right after Behind the Bastards spent two plus hours (part one) (part two) pointing out that the allegedly liberal press treating fascists with kid gloves is nothing new. Good timing, Sulzberger!
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 11:56 AM on September 5 [15 favorites]

When I think of AGS these days, I see Kevin Bacon's character standing in the street at the end of Animal House.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:15 PM on September 5 [6 favorites]

January 6th happened.

I know "surely, this" has become a bit of a punchline over the past eight years, but January 6th was the ultimate "this" and anyone who argues otherwise is un-American.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:38 PM on September 5 [18 favorites]

Though I knew TFG was an idiot even in the 80s, my first "Surely, this" was when he made fun of a disabled person. After all, Gary Hart sat on a woman's lap!!1!!
posted by Melismata at 12:40 PM on September 5 [5 favorites]

It's well worth reading Kruse's commentary, if you haven't yet.

I'd just say this: Sulzberger's statement -- "It is beyond shortsighted to give up journalistic independence out of fear that it might later be taken away" -- would have a hell of a lot more legitimacy if the Times was actually using said independence to aggressively cover and portray the most corrupt and dangerous national politician in (probably) all of U.S. history.

I worked for a paper in the NYT chain for a few years. It was a running joke how much of a lightweight "Pinch" (Sulzberger Jr.) is, compared to his late dad ("Punch").
posted by martin q blank at 12:48 PM on September 5 [31 favorites]

I know the NYT is at the top of many people's shit list here, and they have indubitably had their failures, but the immediate instinct to fight your allies is counterproductive. Whatever your opinion of Sulzberger, certainly it's good to have more attention paid to (yet another) threat from the Trumpist party. For example, I disagree with most of Liz Cheney's far-right policy positions but greatly appreciate her principled opposition to Trump. And she strongly disagrees with most of Kamala Harris's positions but will vote for her anyway.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:51 PM on September 5 [9 favorites]

I don't think Liz Cheney is the best comparison because as you said, she's willing to put aside all of her political agreements to not only vote for Harris, but also endorse her as well.

That's way more courageous and principled a position than "I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection." Those are the words of a coward.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:57 PM on September 5 [21 favorites]

I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection.

The criticism is actually, of course, that the NYT is not being neutral at all but rather biased toward Trump. The fact that Sulzberger refuses to address that criticism in good faith but rather set up a straw man suggests the critics are correct.
posted by Gelatin at 1:06 PM on September 5 [38 favorites]

Sulzberger is shooting himself in the foot.

I mean, why should Murdoch buy him out when the NYT is doing exactly what Murdoch wants it to do already?
posted by jamjam at 1:50 PM on September 5 [7 favorites]

If the Times is so essential to the functioning of democracy, why is it run as a hereditary monarchy in which the guy tapped to write this piece owes his entire career to his last name?
posted by rishabguha at 3:33 PM on September 5 [18 favorites]

I know the NYT is at the top of many people's shit list here, and they have indubitably had their failures, but the immediate instinct to fight your allies is counterproductive.

The point is that it's increasingly clear that not only are they not "allies", they're not even committed to "neutral" reporting.

For example - h/t to kirkaracha who posted this in another thread - this is a literal literal transcription of Trump "answering" a question about reducing the cost of child care at a meeting at the Economic Club of NY:

Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka, was so impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about that because the child care is child care couldn't, you know, there's something you have to have it in this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they're not used to, but they'll get used to it very quickly. And it's not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers we're talking about, including child care that it's gonna take care--I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country because I have to say with child care, I want to stay with child care. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about. Including growth. But growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, that I just told you about. We're going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it's relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking in. We're going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to and then we'll worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people. But we're going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It's about make America great again, we have to do it, because right now we're a failing nation. So we'll take care of it. Thank you.

That is, by any "neutral" standard, incoherent babble that does not answer the question. Will the NYT report that? Especially in their headlines? Will they raise the entirely relevant question about whether this could be considered evidence of age or health related cognitive problems?

Judging from their coverage of the election over the last 9 months - no they fucking will not. In fact, here's their article on his remarks at the club meeting - "Trump Calls for an Efficiency Commission, an Idea Pushed by Elon Musk". It's not until nearly the end of the NYT article that they state,

"In a jumbled answer, Mr. Trump said he would commit to legislation but did not offer any specifics, insisting that his other economic policies, including tariffs, would “take care” of child care. “As much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in,” Mr. Trump said.

Jumbled. Fucking jumbled. Fucking "did not offer any specifics." That article sanitizes Trump by making it sound like he was coherent and normal and sensible throughout the speech but maybe a little vague on some details. They chose to quote the ONE sentence in that jumble that was an actual complete sentence.

That's not "neutral." That is, at best, ignoring the actual facts on the ground - that he could not form a coherent response to the question - in favor of presenting him as if he's a "normal" candidate with "normal" conservative ideas, just another Mitt Romney or John McCain.

Yeah, the fucking NYT is on my shit list.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:19 PM on September 5 [63 favorites]

Yeah, I dunno. Sulzy is a leading figure in a hate movement trying to eliminate my partner's rights to healthcare and you want me not to criticize him because?
posted by constraint at 5:03 PM on September 5 [14 favorites]

I have many gripes about the NYT and the overall media landscape right now, but soundguy99 got to my biggest one before I did. Major news outlets are constantly sanewashing and laundering Trump's absolute blathering nonsense into some form of coherence, and it's journalistic malpractice that borders on actively gaslighting the public. At this point, there is no explanation for this media behavior other than that they want him to win. Because we are well past the point where their vaunted "neutrality" has become anti-reality.

Also, we're not dumb? We were all literally here two months ago when you were all shrieking about how Biden is decrepit and infirm and senile? Where's that energy now with Trump? And no, it's not that he's always been like this, he has noticeably declined, but barely anyone is daring to point it out.

I am honestly desperate for an Emperor Has No Clothes moment at the upcoming debate. Maybe if Harris stands up there with an earnest look of concern on her face after one of his word salad non-answers and says something like, "Donald, none of that makes any sense. Are you okay?" or maybe if he deteriorates past the point of plausible deniability, that'll finally lead to a shift in coverage. But it is a problem if I can honestly envision outlets like the NYT laundering even the most concerning "is he having a literal actual stroke right now?" performance into "Trump is now speaking in tongues, in a manner which supporters claim means he is receiving divine revelation, is this a problem for the Harris campaign".

I'll start respecting any of these outlets again when they start reporting on reality.
posted by yasaman at 5:39 PM on September 5 [36 favorites]

I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection.

Given that some 48% of Americans are willing to vote for Trump, let's assume that's a defensible statement. That has absolutely nothing to do with good reporting. You can still report that he constantly lies, that he rambles on bizarre nonsensical tangents, make clearly racists remarks, etc.

Couching everything he does in neutral language is covering his ass for him, not reporting.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:10 PM on September 5 [12 favorites]

That's way more courageous and principled a position than "I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection." Those are the words of a coward.
posted by RonButNotStupid

Or a moron.

Or both.
posted by Pouteria at 8:38 PM on September 5 [1 favorite]

Dems probably should be thankful to the Times for raising the alarm about Biden's senility, considering Trump would be winning if they hadn't convinced the party it was a real problem.

They also gave the Harris campaign material for her speeches when they ran that falsified award winning Oct 7 Hamas rape piece. These are the dogs you're laying with. Don't tell me you're itchy.
posted by jy4m at 1:41 AM on September 6 [2 favorites]

but the immediate instinct to fight your allies is counterproductive.

Moderates are not your allies.

Moderates aren't even moderate.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:45 AM on September 6 [5 favorites]

I'm filing this along with the Atlantic organized writers' letter about freedom of the press where they addressed only their own very narrow concerns (the imagined stifling and criticism of center right punditry) and then collectively go completely and strangely silent once actual state organized book, course and thought banning started happening.

These titans of free thought can only punch down and to the left. Probably because they never had to actually wax a car.
posted by srboisvert at 5:08 AM on September 6 [2 favorites]

Mod note: Comment removed for violating the Content Policy. Please avoid name calling anyone or institution a 'ho', that's sexist language.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:53 AM on September 6 [2 favorites]

And codicil. Guess how the NYT reported on his insane ramblings on childcare? Go ahead guess.

You’ll be SHOCKED to learn they completely washed it into coherence: ‘Trump proposes a set of policy proposals’.

I’m just stunned. As I’m sure you all are as well


Nepo baby oligarch’s gonna oligarch. Arrogant narcissistic ‘publisher’ gonna give us the real as he’s always right. And always right.

Three options:

1) turn it into a nonprofit and give nepo-baby the dignity of a real job as a maintenance engineer;

2) make it an employee owner enterprise;

3) burn it the fuck down.
posted by WatTylerJr at 7:43 AM on September 6 [4 favorites]

I know the NYT is at the top of many people's shit list here, and they have indubitably had their failures, but the immediate instinct to fight your allies is counterproductive. Whatever your opinion of Sulzberger, certainly it's good to have more attention paid to (yet another) threat from the Trumpist party

to pull the card: as a queer trans person, sulzberger and the nytimes are not my allies. they are the opposition, given their journalistic, editorial, and philosophical bent towards harming people like me.
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:48 AM on September 6 [7 favorites]

It's important to have a free and fair press to cover the really vital issues of the day--that's why the NYT is hosting their 2024 Climate Forward event, featuring ...ah...Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025?
posted by mittens at 8:54 AM on September 6 [8 favorites]

Any nation with press freedom has some war against press reedom, but the extent depends upon many cultural factors.

America earning a C+ already entails grading on curve, since it ranked 55th out of 180 nations, while the UK ranked 23rd despite all their superinjunctions etc.

I think pressfreedomtracker.us looks useful, with maybe the largest single category being journalists deliberately targeted for assault by law enforcement.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:44 PM on September 6 [3 favorites]

I worked for a paper in the NYT chain for a few years. It was a running joke how much of a lightweight "Pinch" (Sulzberger Jr.) is, compared to his late dad ("Punch").

And A.G. is Pinch's son. which would make him, what, "Inch"?

Anyway I used to love the NYT, now it's a pile of both-sides-ist crap.

The puzzles are good.
posted by exlotuseater at 1:54 PM on September 6 [2 favorites]

The NY-definitely-not-a-mouthpiece-for-American-power-and-exceptionalism-TIMES? (Ooopsies, we were wrong about Iraq. Sowwie.)

I still look at what the NYTimes is reporting to stay somewhat informed of what's happening, but if the Times' editorial department were to treat American politics with a fraction of the investigative zeal, insight, and analysis that they use when covering Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Venezuelan/etc. political corruption etc. Sulzberger might be able to make this argument in good faith. Things being what they are, he just comes off as a clown.
posted by nikoniko at 12:18 AM on September 7 [2 favorites]

Moderates are not your allies.

they are when they're lining up against somebody (or thing) that I fear way more than them.
posted by philip-random at 11:12 AM on September 7

so, like: trans people; queers, pre-1990; palestinians; afghanis; iraqis; chinese...?

maybe not you, but that's definitely the nytimes, so...
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:06 AM on September 9 [1 favorite]

Current NYT front page lead article: "As Debate Looms, Trump Faces Questions About Age and Capacity"
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:17 PM on September 9

Yes AFTER they've sanewashed his garbage for 9 damn years. And only now cause he's threatening their lives again and again (and they didn't the first 100 times he threatened their lives). And only now cause Rolling Stone quoted his advisors recalling that Trump wanted to kill people over and over during his godawful administration.

And they are not calling out his bloodlust (he wants the deportations to be bloody, cause thats not too fucked up at all).

Let's see them actually do 10% of what they did to Biden. They wont. They want him to win. $$$$
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:46 PM on September 9