The "Trust and Innovation Project," a pet venture of publisher A.G. Sulzberger recently announced by the New York Effing Times, is coming in for considerable -- and well deserved -- head-scratching and mockery. The paper, which has become infamous for its years long Trump voter diner safaris, is now using this "reboot" in a search for the reasons why people just don't trust them (and, of course, to expand their subscription base).
The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch has the best take- down of this latest navel- gazing exercise by the clueless management at the Times. His full article is worth the read, but here are some excerpts:
Yo, Trump voters in rural Ohio diners! Wake up! It’s time to put your MAGA hats back on, grind some bitter coffee and wipe the layers of grease off that Formica countertop. The New York Times still desperately wants you, and they’re coming back your way! Like, for the umpteenth time.
That may sound over the top, but I don’t know what else to say after learning that America’s most influential newsroom — after more than four years of dozens of stories informing its largely left-leaning readers that Donald Trump voters still love Donald Trump — is doubling down on efforts to persuade media-bashing right-wingers to like them, and maybe even subscribe. [snip]
It’s true that lack of trust in the media is widespread these days, but since the dark morning of Nov. 9, 2016, the Times has been largely obsessed with its seeming failure to understand the Trump movement, but also — more weirdly — its inability to forge some kind of connection with these huddled masses who seem to hate them. In an anxious moment when the Times’ core readers and a flood of new digital subscribers looked for leadership to defend truth, science, and the role of a free press, the Times instead dwelled on the question that Sulzberger and top editor Dean Baquet asked in a letter five days after that election: “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?” [snip]
Instead of learning from those mistakes as we enter the Biden era, the new Times initiative seems to double down on its lost-cause obsession with wooing angry conservatives, like John Cusack holding up that boombox. Why? The crass answer would be money, as the Times — which already dominates digital journalism in America with 7 million subscribers, including more in many cities than that city’s hometown paper — is aiming for a goal of 10 million, which presumably could be reached with some (literal) buy-in from conservatives.
But more important is the Times’ stuck-in-the-1950s worldview that their self-worth as journalists comes from everyone perceiving them as balanced and fair — as opposed to a commitment to uncomfortable truths, regardless of how that might offend some readers. This apparent belief by prominent Times journalists that the public would like them more if they only understood how gosh-darned smart and overqualified its medical or legal reporters are is almost sad in its naivete. It shows that in those 58 months since the Sulzberger-Baquet letter, the Times has learned nothing about the modern conservative moment. [snip]
In other words, not only is there little — nothing, really — the Times can do to gain the trust of such non-readers, it shouldn’t even consider pandering to these instincts in the first place. A truly trustworthy news organization doesn’t cater to the concerns of any segment of the public — but only to one thing, the truth.
In today’s current fraught moment, that means an aggressive and clear-eyed approach to informing that public about the unprecedented threats to American democracy — with zero concern about “on one hand, on the other hand” forms of balance. The irony is that, in doing this, the Times might actually gain a few million new readers from so many Americans who desperately want the earned trust that comes with unvarnished truth, and not a phony, manufactured kind. If the Times still insists on clueless kowtowing instead of rising to this moment, the nation’s premier news org might be destroying journalism instead of saving it.
As with all corporate print and media operations, the imperative to increase the reader/viewer base, which drives advertising rates and revenue, is paramount. Unfortunately, the Times appears to be moving toward an even more entrenched "both sides" model of journalism in a desperate attempt to draw more subscribers rather than, as Bunch puts it, to just tell the truth.
Once again, we must refer to Masha Gessen's perceptive warning that institutions will not save us from autocracy. It seems the Times is living proof of that thesis. But be assured, they'll cover the fall of democracy evenhandedly!
BONUS: Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog has additional thoughts on the project.
(Image: That was then; now, not so much.)
