Thigh-High Politics is an op-ed column by Teen Vogue columnist Lauren Duca that breaks down the news, provides resources for the resistance, and just generally refuses to accept toxic nonsense.
“The media” is an imprecise phrase. Loosely speaking, when we talk about “what the media is doing wrong,” it’s the sum of a series of editorial and business decisions mixed with human error. There is not a group of writerly-looking New Yorkers choosing whether or not to write too many articles about Hillary Clinton’s emails, though we all bore witness to that meme-ification. For every new horror vomited out of Donald Trump’s scandal-ridden campaign, along came that pesky false equivalency: He was caught bragging about sexual predation, engulfed in a fraud lawsuit, and explicitly threatening to ban Muslims, but her emails.
Any discussion of Clinton is compounded by a slew of contaminating factors (see also: sexism). Fortunately, or rather, unfortunately, The New York Times has provided a less complex example of the phenomena in their choice to hire columnist Bret Stephens back in April. There is some debate over whether or not the new columnist is a climate-change denier, but I don’t have time for the semantics. Stephens has rejected portions of the research on climate change in a way that is specifically disturbing to the scientific community. We talk a lot about the partisanship of bubbles and bias, but science is kind of upset right now.
Here, two ideas are in tension: The Times choice to hire Stephens was a heartbreaking failure for modern journalism. Also, I’m going to continue reading the Times every day, and I’d urge you to do the same.
The editors at the Times seem to be confronting the idea that they are a liberal publication, or, as my Trump-voting father might put it, “a liberal rag.” By providing a platform for Stephens’s anti-intellectual stance, the editors have established an in-house defense for the claim that they adhere strictly to progressive orthodoxy. His inclusion in the op-ed pages is meant to signal an openness to opposing ideas. It’s also a rejection of rational thought. Despite their best intentions, the Times has officially pulled a Comey.
Let me explain. Back in April, the Times published a piece titled “Comey Tried to Shield the FBI From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election,” which explores FBI director James Comey’s decision-making process over the course of 2016. He notoriously handled Clinton’s email investigation publicly, while allowing continued investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia to operate with standard-practice FBI secrecy. We don’t have a transcript of his inner monologue, but Comey was notably concerned about the perception of bias, and appears to have overcompensated as a result. At the very least, he dealt with the two candidates, as the Times put it, “in starkly different ways.”
We can agree, then, that “pulling a Comey,” is the folly of acting out of self-observation. By operating in anticipation of potential reactions, Comey sullied the purity of the decision-making process, and, as a result, altered his professional guidelines. Something similar seems to be happening at the Times, and in many “neutral” newsrooms. Beneath the profound confusion around what constitutes “unfair bias” – and what we mean when we say “the media” — lies a troubling misconception about the fundamental purpose of journalism.
Here’s J-101 crash course to bring everyone up to speed: Journalists owe the public a depiction of reality that is defined by a discipline of verification. Since it is impossible to wholly erase the bias of any individual perception, we must use an objectivity of method (basically, the gathering and presentation of facts). Overcorrecting for perceived bias in an attempt to achieve personal objectivity is simply another form of distortion.
That’s essentially what went wrong at the Times. After Stephens’s first column, many readers began announcing the cancellation of their subscriptions. Times Public Editor Liz Spayd responded by doubling down. “As for Stephens,” she explained in a piece published on Wednesday, “I’m taking him at his word that he has no intention of manufacturing facts and that he will be transparent with his audience about his ideas and intentions.” That ought to be what readers can expect, but it’s not what they’re getting from Stephens’s presence in the op-ed pages, or the Times framing of the backlash as a “liberal embarrassment.” When asked for comment, the Times told Teen Vogue that reader surveys have shown subscribers “want their views to be challenged.” A journalist minimizing the impact of climate change isn’t a controversial conservative view; it’s an act of deception.
Still, I’ll keep reading. It’s more productive to grapple with the problematic than to unsubscribe from it altogether. In this fraught political moment, we need the press more than ever, and the Times continues to be the best. This was an egregious misstep steeped in the scrambling forces of partisanship. If they weren’t affected by external ideas about performing neutrality, their senior editors might remember that bias, be it subconscious or toxic, should not interfere with objectivity of method for vetting and presenting the truth.
It’s hard to see past the paranoia of ideological agendas. As we continue to simultaneously confront and rely on journalism, it may be helpful to remember this: The media isn’t a frappucino-inhaling cabal of liberal conspirators, but it is made up of people. And sometimes people make mistakes.
Things to Read:
On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amended healthcare bill that revokes protections for preexisting conditions and could lead to millions of people losing their healthcare coverage. Read The Washington Post's editorial board opinion on the betrayal and hypocrisy at play in this devastating piece of legislation.
James Comey’s role in shaping the election was further evaluated on Wednesday, when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Head over to The New Yorker for John Cassidy’s analysis of his potentially self-serving testimony.
Speaking of “the media,” check on this New York Times piece on the role the tabloids may have played in shaping public opinion around Brexit.
- Celebrity StyleKit Connor Just Buzzed All of His Hair Off
Things to Do:
The amended American Health Care Act was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday. If you are concerned about someone with preexisting conditions or the millions of people who could lose their health insurance under the plan, now is the time to call your senators. Find their contact info here or use 5 calls.
Stay informed with a variety of sources. In addition to The New York Times and Teen Vogue, try adding The Washington Post, NPR, and/or The Guardian to your daily media diet.
If you insist on cancelling your Times subscription, maybe donate the money you would be spending to the independent investigative news organization ProPublica.
Related: Why We ALL Need to Be Activists Right Now
Check this out:
