Liberal Outrage and the New York Times

The New York Times has been in the center of debate this election cycle. On May 5, Semafor ran an interview with a Times editor in which he attacked the paper’s liberal critics. He defended coverage of issues that reflected poorly on Joe Biden and may help Donald Trump in the 2024 election. Khan argued that the alternative would be, “we turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that’s very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side?”

He was immediately attacked for these comments from throughout the punditsphere. Many of these liberal pundits believed that Khan was being hopelessly naïve about the unique threat Trump and his party poses in the 2024 election, and that it was the media’s duty to raise concerns over the future of democracy over considerations of clicks and readership.

An unfounded outrage cycle

This outrage cycle is part of an almost-daily torrent of criticism directed at the paper of record. It seems as though every day brings another round of stories about terrible Times coverage or a clueless headline. The argument is that the media has a unique power to shape the political system. If only the American people knew about Trump’s unique thuggery, and were reminded of it daily by headlines calling him a fascist, they may be more inclined to support President Biden for reelection.

Complaints about the Times sometimes point out awkward phrasing or a distorted worldview. But the paper’s mistakes do not come close to warranting the thousands of hours of interest from liberals online that they have in previous years. Instead, these complaints may actually contribute to making the paper worse in the eyes of liberals.

The New York Times is hardened to the constant outrage cycle over its coverage for a number of reasons. One glaring cause is its leadership. The Times has a publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, who guides its editorial perspective. The “both sides” tendency that many observers decry the paper for is one of Sulzberger’s beliefs. Last year, he told NPR, “journalists are demonstrating that they’re on the side of the righteous. And I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers.” There is no indication that this belief will change anytime soon.

The leaders at the Times believe that they have found the right formula for financial success. They believe that a liberal position which also acknowledges potential flaws and biases in liberal perspectives is the best way to engage in journalism on a national level. The Times may be liberal, but in its obvious attempt to avoid toadying and propaganda it can appeal to non-liberals. 

The strategy is working

The market response bears this perspective out. In the past seven years, the Times has been one of the nation’s most successful media entities. It has grown substantially even as many of its competitors have shrunk or folded. The paper is one of the only viable newspaper companies operating today. They have no incentive to change that formula based on Twitter complaints.

There is also the possibility that liberal complaints will simply reinforce the methodology used by the Times. An institution that prides itself in standing aloof from liberal activists would not change its headlines and editorial approach just because those activists attack them on Twitter. The Times is more likely to take a defiant stance and embrace arguments like those Kahn used last week. The constant nature of complaint creates a feedback loop where the Times feels even more emboldened to publish articles and pursue stories that may anger activists, for they can then take that anger to the public as evidence of their lack of bias.

Activists need to hold their fire on the Times from time to time. More coverage about Trump’s crimes will not change the dynamics of the 2024 election. A more targeted approach would help increase the chances that the Times accurately points out and dismisses stories that truly have no merit. In addition, they could simply care about the Times less. There are only ten million Times subscribers, a small fraction of which are the swing voters liberals truly need to reach to secure Biden’s reelection. The Times attacks are endless, unproductive, and have a questionable end goal. It is time to consider either slowing down or stopping them once and for all.