NYT Editor Kahn says: "the role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters." True, but far too often (perhaps even daily but certainly weekly), the NYT coverage of Biden, especially HEADLINES which garner the most attention and set the narrative, casts Biden as old and weak. Case in point today - headline "White House Scrambles to Keep Shifting Gaza Peace Talks Afloat" could have read something more like "Biden Searches for a Pathway to Peace" (as Robert B. Hubbell's newsletter does). In contrast, the NYT has often portrayed Trump as strong and decisive, even if that energy is used to undermine the very foundations of our society. The NYT's word choices matter and disappointingly often do not match up to their stated goals.
On the topic of subscription. Is there anyway on Substack to subscribe to a “bundle” of authors? I pay for several but can’t afford to subscribe to all of the ones I read.
It really is! There is so much good content and I wish I could subscribe to more, but at this point I feel like if I add a paid subscription I have to drop another paid subscription. Otherwise it gets out of hand very quickly!
I miss when people used to post on Medium. One subscription price and I could follow multiple people. It's simply not possible for me to directly support everyone whose work I want to read.
Well.... it sure is discouraging to see the Editor of the NYT fall prey to black-and-white thinking. Is he truly unaware of how much harping the paper has done about Biden's age, for example? It seems to me that Kahn has forgotten that a paper isn't supposed to simply reflect what the people think -- it's supposed to INFORM! That is especially true regarding the issues Kahn noted -- immigration, inflation, and the economy. There is a pretty vast amount of ignorance among the populace about these issues, and just because people are 'concerned' about those issues doesn't mean the NYT doesn't have a duty to actually inform the public of the truth, e.g. that Biden is not solely responsible for the inflation of recent years. I have a feeling that the real issue is this: if the NYT were to report truthfully on all these issues it would probably LOOK like they were on the 'Biden team'. (Not that Biden is perfect or hasn't made mistakes.) Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem like the NYT has gone out of its way to be harder and more critical of Biden -- and Dems in general -- than on Trump or Republicans. In fact, in stating that issues like immigration, the economy and inflation are more favorable to Trump, Kahn seemed to be reflecting the ignorance of many Americans and regurgitating Republican talking points.
Yes! The reason I don't subscribe to the NYT isn't because of any one of the many very bad articles they have published over the years, it is because of the black and white thinking and that they have proven time and again as an institution that they are unable to take any criticism seriously. Your point about informing is so good. I think about this a lot regarding immigration. It feels like everyone has just taken as gospel that the border is in crisis and the evidence for that is that x people cross the border every day. Okay, why is that good or bad? I live less than 100 miles from the US Mexico border and my day-to-day is completely unaffected by how many people cross the border. So what is the crisis? And that isn't to say that our immigration policy doesn't need to be fixed, just that the concept of the border in crisis is just wholesale accepting of the Republican/right-wing framing of what is happening. What does x border crossings mean? I can't even easily find what the border crossings numbers include. Does it include Americans coming back from vacations in Mexico? Business travelers? People walking across the border to shop and eat in border towns? Asylum seekers? Undocumented workers? All of the above? Does the NYT think that this is irrevelant in terms of the immigration debate? Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent, but it's what I think about a lot when the media says that they are talking about what is important to people.
I think the NYT misses the story so much because they are lazy. Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations and have been for over 40 years. The statistics are there. Yet so many Americans believe the reverse. Why is that? How do these kinds of popular mistakes affect the polls? Are newspapers, by reporting polls of people who believe wrongly, supporting and spreading the problem. That's the true story. Maybe the NYT pollsters should examine themselves and their own misleading polls.
Just popping in to say that your mom *definitely* cares about how Joe Kahn responds to your critique and she is almost certainly bursting with pride (like I am) at your well-crafted response. Go get 'em, Dan!
Well done, Dan. Kahn's attitude, as reflected in his paper, is the reason I no longer subscribe to the NYT and instead use my money to support many of the individuals that you mentioned. Each of the substacks I read challenges my thinking, teaches me new things, gives me skills for effective conversations and keeps me a little more sane! The NYT never did that.
I was waiting for you to respond to this. Well said. As a - shall we say "somewhat older" subscriber -- I find it very hard to accept and participate in the reality you describe. I'm doing it, because keeping our democracy is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING to me, mainly because I care about my kids' futures. But I'm haunted by the fact that to maintain a healthy democracy, we need to have a shared set of facts, and an ability to talk to each other with civility, and to make compromises. That's just the bread and butter of our system. Creating two distinct messaging ecosystems just pulls everyone further apart. I wish we could put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but I fear we can't. If I'm looking at it all wrong, someone tell me. I do support progressive media for all the reasons you state, in the urgency of the moment, but I don't like what's happening one bit.
Maybe my favorite ever NYT Pitchbot one-liner: "It's important to write more articles that conservatives would like, even though conservatives don't read our paper"
Cheap shot? Yes.
Does it strike right at the heart of how Biden fans *feel* about the Times? Hell yes, and maybe since we're talking about the way perceptions are being shaped then the Times should start thinking about ways to change the ones held by the people who actually subscribe.
I just can't be as generous to Kahn as Dan is. I hear his argument as, "Telling the truth makes Trump look worse and Biden look better, so we can't tell the truth. We have to put our thumb on the scales so that Trump voters don't get the idea that they might be wrong."
And with this sentiment at the top, I feel like I can't trust the rest of the paper's output to value truth...which is a real shame, because there's a lot of good reporters doing good work elsewhere in the Times.
Great newsletter today Dan - and excellent that you have the ear (clearly) of the NYT. You can bet they will be reading what you wrote today and maybe, just maybe, some of your excellent points will sink in.
Speaking of the stakes of this election, I found it “interesting” that immigration was listed as what the NYT considers the top issue followed by the economy/inflation for voters.
Where was abortion right & reproductive freedom on the list of top issues? Telling that it didn’t even show up as a top issue for the NYT. I wonder how women everywhere feel about that - and all that Trump and Republicans plan to do if they are given the chance. And what about the existentialist issue if climate change (a top issue for the youth vote ) or gun reform (another major issue….just ask any parent who drops their kid off at school).
I’d suggest that immigration is a top issue for Republicans - and an issue that they have tried to exploit for political gain. THas the NYT done an above the fold story on how Trump put the kabosh on the bipartisan immigration bill for political purposes? Don’t think so.
As a long time subscriber to the NYT, I’ve been beyond disappointed in their coverage of the stakes of this election. It is so infuriating that I keep imploring my husband to cancel our subscription.
💯You are actually more charitable to NYT Joe Kahn than I would have been, having cancelled my 30 yr subscription in Oct 2020 when it was clear that the NYT would try to do to Biden what they did to Clinton in 2016 and are still doing: Pushing a negative narrative which people then repeat and then covering the repeated narrative like it’s organic. Your ultimate conclusion is dead on: supporting good (of which there are many) independent journalists is critical to the survival of our democracy. I’ve never looked back after cancelling my NYT sub - instead I subscribe to WaPo, some other big media and many Substack accounts. I would add to your list: Jay Kuo, Robert Hubbell and Judd Legum’s Popular Information.
"...And that would accomplish — what?" - it would accomplish the saving of democracy as we know it today, that's what. And I don't blame Biden for not sitting down for a written interview, if I were running for office I wouldn't either. Too much can lost in translation, and as one who is seeing the interview I depend on not only what is said, but how it is said. You can't get that in print. I would like to see Biden justify and defend democracy, and I would like to see trump say and defend what he wants to see happen in Project 2025, because that is downright scary.
P.S. Did you see the ridiculous Politico headline -- "Pro Palestinian protesters are backed by a surprising source: Biden's biggest donors" -- that got restated by Jake Tapper on Sunday? Made me so mad I wasted half my day researching the facts based on one foundation's 990 form. It was a completely misleading headline. Ugghh.
What a waste of my time. It made me feel better though.
You almost lost me with "The idea of a free and independent press is integral to American democracy," but I kept reading anyway to see if you elaborated on that. You didn't. What you missed is that what we have is a pay-to-play press, and the bigger the audience you want to reach, the more money you need. This is why so much of the media worth reading is off on the fringes and doesn't reach all that many people.
"Saving democracy" or "battling for the soul of the nation" both require dealing with our economic system, which has been running amok since the Reagan administration, and don't forget the Supreme Court decisions that have helped it along. Of course I'm voting for Biden-Harris, and trying to persuade my cohorts who are royally pissed off about what's happening in Gaza to do likewise, but I'd really like to see more public acknowledgment of what's *really* at stake here.
Kahn: "But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them?"
You will never find a better quote that asks the question: Is the executive editor of the NYT being deliberately disingenuous, or is he a credulous fool? And by the way, a full and honest examination of those issues would show they are really favorable to Biden, given the "solutions" that Trump has (somewhat incoherently) put forward. There is nowhere else that Kahn reveals his bias than with the phrase "favorable to Trump".
Focusing on poll-driven news reporting is something I would expect of a small-town media outlet. There's a place for such in the NYT, but surely it is after spending some mental energy on whether the Trump team is finding issues that poll well and taking populist positions merely to get elected so that they can roll out their authoritarian agenda. Getting to a layer of news behind the horse race and behind the top-polling issues is better journalism, right? So I guess the answer is credulous fool.
Is it skewing your coverage to start with a skeptical framing of Trump, report that his opinions on big topics shift continuously, change radically with the political mood, and so hardly seem as the true issues energizing his candidacy? What if you started with a framing of Trump's true intent based on what he speaks to the most? Then you might say to yourself, this guy's whole notion of why he's running seems to be based on revenge for an election he lost in 2020, escaping accountability for the laws he is accused of breaking, severing meaningful relations with liberal democracies around the world, and making himself and his friends even richer. That's what's tops in his personal polling list.
But arguing with this supercilious fool feels like arguing with a lawyer who has a losing case. A lawyer in that position is skilled at switching the discussion to arguing about the quality of your argument, not the right or wrong of the issue.
At a time when many respected media outlets and journalists are declaring a need to speak, think, and report very differently about Trump and this election, Kahn is falling back on a hack approach. What a waste of resources.
Please, folks, let's take every instance of this kind of stupidity as motivation to work harder on winning the 2024 election.
If this was a fight, we'd be able to say that you landed one right on be kisser, Dan, (with your original comment) Well done! (Even if not your intention)
"I wish they would take good faith criticism from the Left with as much seriousness as they take bad faith criticism from the Right. "
They kinda did! The guy went on and on about it with piles of Boomer bla bla bla.
Crooked has taken another not insignificant step in the direction you'll are trying to move. To use a video game analogy, you've stepped into the chamber and The Boss has noticed you.
(I keep going to cancel my subscription to the Gray Lady but every time they lower the price. I'm now paying a dollar a month.)
Nice to have a one word shortcut for saying something. I would say more, but—as a boomer—I need to go count my money, wander around my mortgage-less house, and manipulate my personal levers of power.
Dan, thank you. I've struggled with my long-standing NYT subscription (since 1991) and finally canceled it a month ago. There was nothing new and I fact, I get better and more helpful info from Crooked, The Atlantic, New Yorker and others that I also subscribe to. I felt I wasn't really losing anything by not reading and in fact I feel better. Thanks for bringing your voice to this discussion. There's a ton to do and I'm committed to doing all I can.
My personal first-read of the day is The Guardian, which aside from Crooked, probably does the best job on not just world/over-there reporting, but also on the U.S.! Highly recommend, along with many sources everyone has mentioned.
Way to get coverage in the national MSM, Dan!
NYT Editor Kahn says: "the role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters." True, but far too often (perhaps even daily but certainly weekly), the NYT coverage of Biden, especially HEADLINES which garner the most attention and set the narrative, casts Biden as old and weak. Case in point today - headline "White House Scrambles to Keep Shifting Gaza Peace Talks Afloat" could have read something more like "Biden Searches for a Pathway to Peace" (as Robert B. Hubbell's newsletter does). In contrast, the NYT has often portrayed Trump as strong and decisive, even if that energy is used to undermine the very foundations of our society. The NYT's word choices matter and disappointingly often do not match up to their stated goals.
Yes. And Kahn’s characterization of NYT coverage of Trump as hard-hitting is pretty laughable. Looking at you, Editors, and Haberman, and Baker
Is the NY Times at 172 years old too old to be an effective newspaper? Inquiring minds want to know.
On the topic of subscription. Is there anyway on Substack to subscribe to a “bundle” of authors? I pay for several but can’t afford to subscribe to all of the ones I read.
This is the key problem w Substack.
It really is! There is so much good content and I wish I could subscribe to more, but at this point I feel like if I add a paid subscription I have to drop another paid subscription. Otherwise it gets out of hand very quickly!
I miss when people used to post on Medium. One subscription price and I could follow multiple people. It's simply not possible for me to directly support everyone whose work I want to read.
Well.... it sure is discouraging to see the Editor of the NYT fall prey to black-and-white thinking. Is he truly unaware of how much harping the paper has done about Biden's age, for example? It seems to me that Kahn has forgotten that a paper isn't supposed to simply reflect what the people think -- it's supposed to INFORM! That is especially true regarding the issues Kahn noted -- immigration, inflation, and the economy. There is a pretty vast amount of ignorance among the populace about these issues, and just because people are 'concerned' about those issues doesn't mean the NYT doesn't have a duty to actually inform the public of the truth, e.g. that Biden is not solely responsible for the inflation of recent years. I have a feeling that the real issue is this: if the NYT were to report truthfully on all these issues it would probably LOOK like they were on the 'Biden team'. (Not that Biden is perfect or hasn't made mistakes.) Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem like the NYT has gone out of its way to be harder and more critical of Biden -- and Dems in general -- than on Trump or Republicans. In fact, in stating that issues like immigration, the economy and inflation are more favorable to Trump, Kahn seemed to be reflecting the ignorance of many Americans and regurgitating Republican talking points.
Yes! The reason I don't subscribe to the NYT isn't because of any one of the many very bad articles they have published over the years, it is because of the black and white thinking and that they have proven time and again as an institution that they are unable to take any criticism seriously. Your point about informing is so good. I think about this a lot regarding immigration. It feels like everyone has just taken as gospel that the border is in crisis and the evidence for that is that x people cross the border every day. Okay, why is that good or bad? I live less than 100 miles from the US Mexico border and my day-to-day is completely unaffected by how many people cross the border. So what is the crisis? And that isn't to say that our immigration policy doesn't need to be fixed, just that the concept of the border in crisis is just wholesale accepting of the Republican/right-wing framing of what is happening. What does x border crossings mean? I can't even easily find what the border crossings numbers include. Does it include Americans coming back from vacations in Mexico? Business travelers? People walking across the border to shop and eat in border towns? Asylum seekers? Undocumented workers? All of the above? Does the NYT think that this is irrevelant in terms of the immigration debate? Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent, but it's what I think about a lot when the media says that they are talking about what is important to people.
I think the NYT misses the story so much because they are lazy. Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations and have been for over 40 years. The statistics are there. Yet so many Americans believe the reverse. Why is that? How do these kinds of popular mistakes affect the polls? Are newspapers, by reporting polls of people who believe wrongly, supporting and spreading the problem. That's the true story. Maybe the NYT pollsters should examine themselves and their own misleading polls.
Just popping in to say that your mom *definitely* cares about how Joe Kahn responds to your critique and she is almost certainly bursting with pride (like I am) at your well-crafted response. Go get 'em, Dan!
Well done, Dan. Kahn's attitude, as reflected in his paper, is the reason I no longer subscribe to the NYT and instead use my money to support many of the individuals that you mentioned. Each of the substacks I read challenges my thinking, teaches me new things, gives me skills for effective conversations and keeps me a little more sane! The NYT never did that.
I was waiting for you to respond to this. Well said. As a - shall we say "somewhat older" subscriber -- I find it very hard to accept and participate in the reality you describe. I'm doing it, because keeping our democracy is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING to me, mainly because I care about my kids' futures. But I'm haunted by the fact that to maintain a healthy democracy, we need to have a shared set of facts, and an ability to talk to each other with civility, and to make compromises. That's just the bread and butter of our system. Creating two distinct messaging ecosystems just pulls everyone further apart. I wish we could put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but I fear we can't. If I'm looking at it all wrong, someone tell me. I do support progressive media for all the reasons you state, in the urgency of the moment, but I don't like what's happening one bit.
Maybe my favorite ever NYT Pitchbot one-liner: "It's important to write more articles that conservatives would like, even though conservatives don't read our paper"
Cheap shot? Yes.
Does it strike right at the heart of how Biden fans *feel* about the Times? Hell yes, and maybe since we're talking about the way perceptions are being shaped then the Times should start thinking about ways to change the ones held by the people who actually subscribe.
I just can't be as generous to Kahn as Dan is. I hear his argument as, "Telling the truth makes Trump look worse and Biden look better, so we can't tell the truth. We have to put our thumb on the scales so that Trump voters don't get the idea that they might be wrong."
And with this sentiment at the top, I feel like I can't trust the rest of the paper's output to value truth...which is a real shame, because there's a lot of good reporters doing good work elsewhere in the Times.
Great newsletter today Dan - and excellent that you have the ear (clearly) of the NYT. You can bet they will be reading what you wrote today and maybe, just maybe, some of your excellent points will sink in.
Speaking of the stakes of this election, I found it “interesting” that immigration was listed as what the NYT considers the top issue followed by the economy/inflation for voters.
Where was abortion right & reproductive freedom on the list of top issues? Telling that it didn’t even show up as a top issue for the NYT. I wonder how women everywhere feel about that - and all that Trump and Republicans plan to do if they are given the chance. And what about the existentialist issue if climate change (a top issue for the youth vote ) or gun reform (another major issue….just ask any parent who drops their kid off at school).
I’d suggest that immigration is a top issue for Republicans - and an issue that they have tried to exploit for political gain. THas the NYT done an above the fold story on how Trump put the kabosh on the bipartisan immigration bill for political purposes? Don’t think so.
As a long time subscriber to the NYT, I’ve been beyond disappointed in their coverage of the stakes of this election. It is so infuriating that I keep imploring my husband to cancel our subscription.
Keep your the good work Dan!
Post of the day. Excellent message.
💯You are actually more charitable to NYT Joe Kahn than I would have been, having cancelled my 30 yr subscription in Oct 2020 when it was clear that the NYT would try to do to Biden what they did to Clinton in 2016 and are still doing: Pushing a negative narrative which people then repeat and then covering the repeated narrative like it’s organic. Your ultimate conclusion is dead on: supporting good (of which there are many) independent journalists is critical to the survival of our democracy. I’ve never looked back after cancelling my NYT sub - instead I subscribe to WaPo, some other big media and many Substack accounts. I would add to your list: Jay Kuo, Robert Hubbell and Judd Legum’s Popular Information.
"...And that would accomplish — what?" - it would accomplish the saving of democracy as we know it today, that's what. And I don't blame Biden for not sitting down for a written interview, if I were running for office I wouldn't either. Too much can lost in translation, and as one who is seeing the interview I depend on not only what is said, but how it is said. You can't get that in print. I would like to see Biden justify and defend democracy, and I would like to see trump say and defend what he wants to see happen in Project 2025, because that is downright scary.
P.S. Did you see the ridiculous Politico headline -- "Pro Palestinian protesters are backed by a surprising source: Biden's biggest donors" -- that got restated by Jake Tapper on Sunday? Made me so mad I wasted half my day researching the facts based on one foundation's 990 form. It was a completely misleading headline. Ugghh.
What a waste of my time. It made me feel better though.
You almost lost me with "The idea of a free and independent press is integral to American democracy," but I kept reading anyway to see if you elaborated on that. You didn't. What you missed is that what we have is a pay-to-play press, and the bigger the audience you want to reach, the more money you need. This is why so much of the media worth reading is off on the fringes and doesn't reach all that many people.
"Saving democracy" or "battling for the soul of the nation" both require dealing with our economic system, which has been running amok since the Reagan administration, and don't forget the Supreme Court decisions that have helped it along. Of course I'm voting for Biden-Harris, and trying to persuade my cohorts who are royally pissed off about what's happening in Gaza to do likewise, but I'd really like to see more public acknowledgment of what's *really* at stake here.
Kahn: "But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them?"
You will never find a better quote that asks the question: Is the executive editor of the NYT being deliberately disingenuous, or is he a credulous fool? And by the way, a full and honest examination of those issues would show they are really favorable to Biden, given the "solutions" that Trump has (somewhat incoherently) put forward. There is nowhere else that Kahn reveals his bias than with the phrase "favorable to Trump".
Focusing on poll-driven news reporting is something I would expect of a small-town media outlet. There's a place for such in the NYT, but surely it is after spending some mental energy on whether the Trump team is finding issues that poll well and taking populist positions merely to get elected so that they can roll out their authoritarian agenda. Getting to a layer of news behind the horse race and behind the top-polling issues is better journalism, right? So I guess the answer is credulous fool.
Is it skewing your coverage to start with a skeptical framing of Trump, report that his opinions on big topics shift continuously, change radically with the political mood, and so hardly seem as the true issues energizing his candidacy? What if you started with a framing of Trump's true intent based on what he speaks to the most? Then you might say to yourself, this guy's whole notion of why he's running seems to be based on revenge for an election he lost in 2020, escaping accountability for the laws he is accused of breaking, severing meaningful relations with liberal democracies around the world, and making himself and his friends even richer. That's what's tops in his personal polling list.
But arguing with this supercilious fool feels like arguing with a lawyer who has a losing case. A lawyer in that position is skilled at switching the discussion to arguing about the quality of your argument, not the right or wrong of the issue.
At a time when many respected media outlets and journalists are declaring a need to speak, think, and report very differently about Trump and this election, Kahn is falling back on a hack approach. What a waste of resources.
Please, folks, let's take every instance of this kind of stupidity as motivation to work harder on winning the 2024 election.
If this was a fight, we'd be able to say that you landed one right on be kisser, Dan, (with your original comment) Well done! (Even if not your intention)
"I wish they would take good faith criticism from the Left with as much seriousness as they take bad faith criticism from the Right. "
They kinda did! The guy went on and on about it with piles of Boomer bla bla bla.
Crooked has taken another not insignificant step in the direction you'll are trying to move. To use a video game analogy, you've stepped into the chamber and The Boss has noticed you.
(I keep going to cancel my subscription to the Gray Lady but every time they lower the price. I'm now paying a dollar a month.)
When did Boomer become a synonym for specious, defensive, or transparently bad faith?
With the election of Ronald Reagan, then again, the election of Ronald Reagan.
The Boomers went from "Love Everyone" to "Take Everything"!
November 2019 on Tik Tok, according to Wikipedia.
Nice to have a one word shortcut for saying something. I would say more, but—as a boomer—I need to go count my money, wander around my mortgage-less house, and manipulate my personal levers of power.
January 20th, 1981, the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the Boomer God.
Dan, thank you. I've struggled with my long-standing NYT subscription (since 1991) and finally canceled it a month ago. There was nothing new and I fact, I get better and more helpful info from Crooked, The Atlantic, New Yorker and others that I also subscribe to. I felt I wasn't really losing anything by not reading and in fact I feel better. Thanks for bringing your voice to this discussion. There's a ton to do and I'm committed to doing all I can.
My personal first-read of the day is The Guardian, which aside from Crooked, probably does the best job on not just world/over-there reporting, but also on the U.S.! Highly recommend, along with many sources everyone has mentioned.