I agree, except your premise is wrong …
Nick Denton writes on Gawker that the New York Times should admit that the line between news and opinion is blurry. The paper is not objective, he says.
I agree completely. And I disagree totally.
I agree that the New York Times is not objective. That is not, however, as Mr. Denton suggests, the result of some policy change specific to the Times. No newspaper, in fact no reporter, is objective, because objectivity is impossible. I remember a line from a book on scientific objectivity from my college days: Inherent in any observation is an aetiology and a prognosis.
Where Mr. Denton and I really disagree, however, is in his sweeping conclusion: “The newspaper’s proprietors and editors are obviously moderate liberals, and the conservative columnists are either watered-down or compromised, as token as the useless liberals allowed to whine on Fox News—but the Times can’t acknowledge that it’s partisan.”
The paper is obviously liberal! And Mr. Denton offers a stunning array of evidence to support this dubious conclusion. Some examples: The paper’s coverage of Heath Ledger’s death and its attacks Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer and on Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama. Liberal? In fact, none of his examples is remotely liberal, ranging from non-partisan sensationalism to a deeply conservative bias. But to Mr. Denton, it all adds up to an obvious liberal bias.
His comment about opinion columnists is equally dubious. Conservatives are watered-down and compromised? Where? How? David Brooks and Maureen Dowd are hardly watered down. I’m not suggesting that the Times opinion columns are overwhelmingly conservative, not with Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and others, but they certainly are not overwhelmingly liberal.
Paul Krugman and Frank Rich both proudly wave the liberal flag, but Brooks and Dowd don’t similarly wave the conservative flag. Perhaps that gives the appearance of liberal bias, but it’s acknowledged liberal bias, which is what Mr. Denton is calling for. It’s the conservative bias that isn’t acknowledged.
Worse, Mr. Denton laments the bias in news coverage. The Times’ incessant cheerleading for the Bush administration in its news coverage leading up to the Iraq War by Judith Miller and others can hardly be construed as liberal. That coverage warmed the hearts of even the most-ardent neocon, but I don’t know that liberals were similarly entranced by the Times’ suggestion of a Heath Ledger-Mary Kate Olsen connection, which Mr. Denton uses several times to support his charge of liberal bias.
But the Times ran a news story about John McCain and his ties to a lobbyist. Liberal bias! Except it ran a Page 1 attack piece on Barack Obama, with Deval Patrick as proxy, on Page 1 at about the same time.
So you’re right, Mr. Denton.
And oh, so totally mistaken.
