It was Bill Keller, former executive editor of the New York Times, who argued against Glenn Greenwald that news reporting should be “objective.” Greenwald, in contrast, argued that, in fact, reporting is always advocacy of one kind or another. Today, with stories by Maggie Haberman, Binyamin Appelbaum, and Eduardo Porter, I think the Times supplies evidence supporting Greenwald’s view.
Maggie Haberman, at the New York Times, emphasizes Donald Trump’s reneging of his vow to support the eventual Republican nominee. But, in fact, as the Washington Post put in its lede, “[n]one of the three remaining Republican presidential candidates would guarantee Tuesday night that they would support the eventual GOP nominee for president, departing from previous vows to do so and injecting new turmoil into an already tumultuous contest.” So why does the Times focus on Trump? From the URL, it looks like Jose DelReal and Sean Sullivan at the Post might also initially have written their story focusing on Trump. If so, DelReal and Sullivan updated their story, but while Haberman acknowledges that the Ted Cruz and John Kasich also hedged on the previous promise of support, she retains her emphasis on Trump. (The Washington Post story is listed in a following section, dubbed, “The Horse Race.”)
Maggie Haberman, “Donald Trump, Revoking a Vow, Says He Won’t Support Another G.O.P. Nominee,” New York Times, March 29, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/29/donald-trump-says-he-no-longer-vows-to-support-the-republicaninee/
I discuss Appelbaum’s article here.
Binyamin Appelbaum, “Simmering for Decades, Anger About Trade Boils Over in ’16 Election,” New York Times, March 29, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/trade-donald-trump-bernie-sanders.html
Jose A. DelReal and Sean Sullivan, “All three Republican presidential candidates back away from pledge to support eventual nominee,” Washington Post, March 29, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/29/trump-waffles-on-pledge-to-support-eventual-gopinee/
Ruth Marcus, “Why a no-indictment for Hillary Clinton would still be a problem for America,” Washington Post, March 29, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-if-clinton-isnt-indicted/2016/03/29/81a1033e-f5d7-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html
I discuss Porter’s article here (the same blog post as with Appelbaum’s article above).
Eduardo Porter, “Nafta May Have Saved Many Autoworkers’ Jobs,” New York Times, March 29, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html
Dan Walters does not delve into reasons why poorer and less educated Californians are less likely to vote. He simply argues that if they did vote, the state would lean “farther” left. But the takeaway is, nonetheless, left-leaning poor and less-educated Californians are effectively disenfranchised. We are, of course, not permitted to question the efficacy of voting. But we should be wondering what is going on here.
Dan Walters, “California’s nonvoters lean more to the left,” Sacramento Bee, March 29, 2016, http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article68869657.html
British Broadcasting Corporation, “Oxfam urges rich nations to take in more Syria refugees,” March 29, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35913972