After reading New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger’s long essay, “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America,” in The Washington Post last week, I say give the man a stuffed panda from a “heartland” state fair for his audacity. Unlike his Boomer father, and predecessor as publisher and chairman of the Times Co., Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the younger Sulzberger (44) isn’t a “sensitive male,” symbolized by Alan Alda decades ago (before Woody Allen resurrected Hawkeye’s career), and is willing to pull an all-nighter, defiantly playing poker at a table filled with representatives of the media, government and business. He doesn’t care if he’s got a losing hand, it’s crucial that his “learned truth” is on the record. (Never mind that the reporters and commentators he employs increasingly rely on anonymous sources, perhaps imaginary friends, and rarely quote men and women “on the record.”)
At first glance it’s odd that Sulzberger wrote his “We Won’t Back Down” for the troubled Washington Post, an “esteemed competitor” (no longer, but manners are manners), instead of his own organ, but I’d guess it was a perceived favor to the Jeff Bezos-owned company, and maybe an internal admission that publishing yet another paranoid anti-Trump jeremiad in the Times would be redundant.
Sulzberger attempts a clever opening, writing, “After several years out of power, the former leader is returned to office on a populist platform. He blames the news media’s coverage of his previous government for costing him reelection.” He’s referring to Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as the set-up for his tortured thesis that Trump could—will!—disable the media, much like Orban, who has made the pilgrimage to Mara-a-Lago and has received praise from Trump and running mate J.D. Vance. (Trump’s approbation is doled out indiscriminately and doesn’t mean much; he called the owner of the dry cleaner I use in Maryland the other day, and told him to keep up the good work!)
The First Amendment and freedom of the press, as I wrote about last week in connection with the media’s blackout of coverage on 1A-busting prosecution of the Backpage.com principals, is a fungible concept to sanctimonious political liberals like Sulzberger in particular and Big Media in general, a pick-and-choose situation. It’s hardly ideal, and nothing like the less-flawed media of decades ago, but you can only deal with present reality.
Sulzberger trips over himself many times in his “white paper,” at first claiming the Times doesn’t show favoritism in its coverage of this year’s presidential election, even while he excoriates Trump—he blames him for popularizing the phrase term “fake news,” an “offense” that could lead to another indictment—and warns that his return could plant the United States in the same media-curtailment yacht as India, Brazil and Hungary. No mention of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose “liberal” administration has arrested citizens for social media comments.
First: “As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence, I have no interest in wading into politics. I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection. It is beyond shortsighted to give up journalistic independence out of fear that it might later be taken away. At The Times, we are committed to following the facts and presenting a full, fair and accurate picture of November’s election and the candidates and issues shaping it. Our democratic model asks different institutions to play different roles; this is ours.”
That’s not true. A Times editorial, which presumably the publisher got around to reading, on Sept. 9 is hardly neutral: “The most important distinction between the two candidates for the White House is that Vice President Kamala Harris is committed to democracy and the rule of law and Donald Trump is not. It’s a race that is, fundamentally, about who has the right temperament and is fit to be the next president, and the answer is not in question.”
Sulzberger all but predicts that Trump will win in November, unless he’s unconsciously admitting that Kamala Harris, who has already bandied about censorship of social media, could—Dick Cheney endorsed her!—be just as dangerous. Probably not.
He writes: “We are taking active steps to prepare ourselves for a more difficult environment at home, as well: Ensuring our reporters and editors know how to protect their sources and themselves. Preparing for legal fights, from budgeting for increased expenses to understanding how outside vendors will respond if federal agents make secret demands for phone logs or emails.”
Finally, Sulzberger gives Joe Biden a pass on his interaction—or lack thereof—with the media. “Even with an imperfect record, both Republican and Democratic presidents, lawmakers and jurists have consistently defended and expanded protections for journalists. Over the past century in the United States, Trump stands out for his aggressive and sustained efforts to undermine the free press.”
How has Biden “expanded protections” for journalists? The Times, like most of the media, willfully concealed from the public Biden’s deteriorating physical condition, and only called for him to step aside after the June 27th debate with Trump. Also, Biden’s the first president in modern history who hasn’t invited representatives of the Times to kiss his forehead in an Oval Office interview. Trump, who’ll talk to anyone, met with Sulzberger (and plus-ones) twice while he was president. Mr. Neutrality could’ve mentioned that not unimportant fact, but perhaps he’s preparing a new essay for The Los Angeles Times. Busy days!
—Follow Russ Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER2023