Yves here. For better and as this story reveals, often worse, the New York Times has conceived of itself as elite, and that’s included having reporters come from Ivy League schools. For instance, when I was a mere child, being the editor of the Harvard Crimson assured a job offer from the New York Times. By contrast, with most city papers back then, being a reporter was a way for smart articulate members of blue collar families to secure a white collar position. And having no class loyalties to local notables and pols meant that those reporters could be ferocious.
By Paul Jay. Originally published at theAnalysis.news
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 26:59 — 37.2MB)
Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Android | iHeartRadio | Stitcher | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | Deezer | RSS
Hi, I’m Paul Jay. Welcome to theAnalysis.news, be back in just a few seconds with retired former New York Times correspondent Bob Smith. He’s going to talk about his new book Suppressed. And please don’t forget the donate button, and the share button, and the subscribe button, and all the buttons.
Bob Smith has written a book titled Suppressed: Confessions of a former New York Times Washington correspondent. Smith writes, “This is a story of when innocence meets reality and when bias makes its way into the most respected journalistic temples.” Smith says, “that bias continues today.” He writes, “that the Times lost its impartiality when confronted with the challenges to objective journalism presented by Donald Trump.” He also says “the Times failed to report on Watergate and refused to cover the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.”
Of course, I’d add, Judith Miller’s so-called reporting that helped the Bush government with their fraudulent claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there’s a bunch of other examples. Now joining us is Bob Smith. He’s a retired journalist who became a leading lawyer in the U.S. and Europe and held a senior position in Jimmy Carter’s Justice Department. Thanks very much for joining us, Bob.
Thanks, Paul. Glad to be here.
So start off by telling us what were the years you were working in Washington for the Times? And then how did you balance serious investigative journalism with what I call the tyranny of access? Because usually the more seriously you investigate, the less your phone gets picked up by people, often your job depends on talking to.
Well, it’s interesting. I’ve never heard anybody call it tyranny. That’s a good way of putting it, I suppose. By the way, you mentioned Judy. No, I don’t personally know that incidence, and the rest of the incidences in my book I do know firsthand, because what’s in the book are things I experienced and lived through firsthand. Obviously, that wasn’t one of them. It depends on what your beat is, so to speak, in Washington. If you are assigned to cover financial regulation, or the Pentagon, or even the State Department, a particular entity with a particular set of sources, then you might be punished in a way for unearthing stories that the people at the Pentagon or the State Department don’t like, and they may not cut off your access, but they may reduce it or choose to give their stories elsewhere.
But there’s another side to that, and that is there’s an entire cadre or world of sources in those institutions. And they are waiting, in my experience, to talk to somebody like you who is not so tied to, sometimes their bosses, but in any event, the people you might otherwise see is the senior sources there, and they are encouraged rather than offended by what you’re calling the tyranny of access. That is to say, they’ll feed you the stuff that their bosses, or others in the department, or wherever it is don’t want to give. So there’s a countervailing balance. If you have to every day cover the Pentagon, then you might just have some difficulties, in perhaps, in doing a sharp investigative reporting there. But, when I covered the Justice Department at one point…
What years were you a correspondent in Washington?
Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, roughly 1967 or 1968 until 1972 or 1973. And then I came back in 75 or 76 for another couple of years. So that’s the timeframe more-or-less. I interrupted for three years at Yale Law School and went back to the paper. Anyway, there is a countervailing and much more important cadre of folks who would be willing to talk to you, especially if you show some initiative and steel, whatever one calls it, and reported on the things that the department or entity didn’t want you to. So it cuts both ways.
I’ll tell you, for example, in the book I talk about the fact that I covered the My Lai massacre. I broke it at the same time as Sy Hersh. His story first appeared in London, the next day it might appear in the New York Times. And I say with regret because I liked the reporter and he was a really nice man. The Pentagon reporter for the Times, who sat next to me, four feet away or something, would not right or did not write, about the My Lai massacre all the way through when I was covering it. The first thing he covered was a news conference by the Pentagon when it was releasing its own internal investigation of the massacre, of the so-called Peers Report. And don’t misunderstand, I’m not blaming him individually or personally, but that’s what’s happened when your job is to find out what’s going on in the institution, as you point out, there’s some risk in defending the institution. I got … Paul, one a really good break. I didn’t realize when I got it. I was asked to come down to Washington to interview with the Bureau Chief and the news editor, the Washington bureau of the Times. They took me to lunch at this place next door to the bureau. When I was there, they said they were looking for somebody who was not tied to a particular, and who wouldn’t be tied to a particular institution or beat as everybody else was in the bureau. I have a feeling they were looking for a youngster who was fresh to it and that was certainly me. I was naive because who would go into an interview with the Washington Bureau Chief for the Times and say somewhere along this pub meal, you know, I’m not very interested in politics I just sort of need to be upfront about that. I mean, what’s a worse thing you could say? But it was honest and they hired me, moved me down from New York. And so I had the advantage of not being tied to a particular institution.
And just to explain to people, tied to a particular institution meant, justice or Pentagon or White House. So you could write about whatever you wanted.
Well, where the action was so to speak? Not exactly what — Later on, what I wanted to do at the beginning, it was more what was happening here, there, what reporter was on vacation from the State Department, that sort of thing? Yes, that’s right. But I did not have to curry favor with the people who were handing out the news in the State Department.
So did you ever ask this guy why he wasn’t covering My Lai?
No. I thought I knew why I was covering it. It didn’t, therefore, matter to the readers, which is the whole point.
But in theory, such an important story, you’re covering the Pentagon, you should be doing it, so he’s not doing it because he doesn’t want to piss off the Pentagon.
Can’t read his mind, but he didn’t do it for months.
And that’s the time of the Vietnam War, where I don’t know if there’s ever been more lying than during the Vietnam War, coming out of the Pentagon.
Right. Yes, that’s true. But, when I was just filing, at one point I was assigned to cover the Justice Department. And in my regard, I was covering justice. My concept of the beat was that I was covering justice in the United States, not a building, not a cadre of people in this building in Washington. First off, because I didn’t think I’d get much news that way by sitting around a newsroom in this building. And secondly, because it’s too narrow a definition of what you’re doing. And thirdly, it makes you focus on the wrong folks in a way, if you’re focusing on just the people sitting in that building. And fourthly, it leaves out the, what J. Edgar Hoover, of all people, called SOG. That is the Seat of Government, the contrast between the seat of government and what was happening actually in the field. So I was free. If they were saying something about justice at Justice or the White House or whatever, I could take what they were saying and then go out to Kansas City and see if it had any relationship to reality.
So, again, I say your view is correct and it’s dangerous. It’s the way it is.
Now, this is what I’ve always thought is interesting about the New York Times. They’ll have someone like you, who will do investigative work, they’ll publish it, even though if it goes against the grain of what official Washington wants. On the other hand, they will let this guy at the Pentagon act like a stenographer for the Pentagon and the way Judith Miller was, I keep bringing it up because it’s a more recent example and helped lead to the Iraq war. But it’s not just the Judith Millers of this world. It’s almost the majority of the press core that is institutionally bound and is so concerned about access that they do wind up becoming stenographers for the official line on stuff until you get some like Snowden breaks, these videos of what went on in Iraq. It’s not like – you’re a guy who’s covering the Pentagon and won’t cover the My Lai massacre. It’s not like your editors didn’t know he wasn’t doing it.
But they had me doing it.
Yeah, but I’m using that as an example. There was a whole whack of other stuff that —
I completely understand. The readers still got the story.
I got it. So this brings me — kind of well, while we’re back in those years let’s pursue this.
Can I say one thing before you ask the next question? As you mentioned, Judy Miller, I knew I met Miller a very long time ago. With regard to the story, you’re talking about the wrong story, you’re talking about the story of [inaudible 00:11:39]. Well, I don’t know if that was born of an attachment to certain sources or misplaced trust, coupled with the desire to get this enormous story out there. So there are competing things going on at the same time. I have no idea what activated her, but it was a terrific story, if true. Right, and she placed trust where she obviously shouldn’t have — in my mind.
OK, let me just for some of the younger viewers and who don’t know what we’re talking about, what we mean by Judith Miller. So Judith Miller was an important journalist for New York Times and started reporting, quote-unquote, on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and essentially repeating what she was being told by Dick Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, which was all a bunch of B.S. And frankly, I mean, I was running a debate show on Canadian television at the time, and we had guest after guest on the debate show saying this is all B.S. Hans Blix, the U.N. inspector, was saying it’s B.S. He kept saying over and over again, if you know where the weapons are tell me, I’ll go look. So it’s not like Miller couldn’t have known, there was, at the very least, the contrary view that was credible. Yet she keeps repeating this shit.
But I don’t want to just make a point of her. It’s you know, the editors of the New York Times keep publishing her, when an editor’s job is to say to Miller, well, hold on here, how do you report this stuff when Blix and others are saying such and such?
The answer to that. I mean, if you’re in the Times in the moment with the editors, they might — it depends on their confidence in the correspondent and the trust based on experience, and so on. So they might say to Miller, well, listen, there’s a lot of disagreement on this point. How certain are you of your correctness? How sure are you of your sources? How many sources do you have? What level are they at? And this dialog would take place. And obviously, she had misplaced great confidence in her sources, but I just didn’t want to let the point go without saying there is a sort of internal testing. But it relies, at the end of the day, on your confidence in the correspondent who’s covering that stuff.
OK, you’re very generous. I go the other way, I think I look at the New York Times editorial policy like a hedge fund. They’ll have certain reporting that will say this, but they’ll hedge their bets and make sure the official line also gets reported. And this is what’s interesting, I think what happened with Trump, and you make this point, but well, actually, let me read a piece from how you close your book here. Let me get this in front of me. You close the book. You write this:
“I’ll let the New York Times have the last word.” This is Bob Smith writing. “This is what Peter Baker wrote in July 2019 in an article on page one labeled News Analysis Washington. President Trump woke up on Sunday morning, gazed out at the nation he leads, saw the dry kindling of race relations, and decided to throw a match on it. It was not the first time, nor is it likely to be the last. He has a pretty large carton of matches and a ready supply of kerosene.” And then that’s the end of your quote. And then you write, “This was not an editorial. It was an article. Who is Baker? He’s not a member of the paper’s editorial board, the part of the paper that is permitted and paid to voice opinions. No, he’s the Times chief White House reporter.” And that ends what you were writing.
But I’d argue most of mainstream journalism’s objectivity was a pretense long before Trump. That with Trump the need to compete with the Fox business model, they dropped even the pretense. Was there ever a time where the New York Times was without such bias? And this speaks to what we’re talking about, that even if they allowed people like you to report on the My Lai massacre, the overall editorial direction, guidance, decision-making had a whole lot of built-in agenda and bias.
Well, less than now. This is an age when I don’t live in the media world, I went on to be many — I had different careers after journalism. The most recent decades here and in Europe was as a media commercial mediator. But, clickbait, the digital era, the fight for every single click, this sort of stuff, and it’s very interesting because — you mentioned the tie was nice. I assure you, the New York Times now does not find me nice. They are not saying this is an important book, read it sort of thing, because it’s critical of the paper. Who’s, by the way, the readership of the New York Times, if you look at the statistics, is 92% Democratic. Their base, their readership base is 92% Democratic.
So has it always been thus? I don’t know. But there are degrees here. The reporters have their own values. You bet. Where should they stay? Not in their stories, wherever else they are, and there’s a range. When I was in Law school, they taught us that — this professor taught me that evidence comes in different kinds. There’s a solidity of the desk next to me here. There’s a desk. It’s hard. There’s the, I don’t know, a rainbow out there. Some people may see it and some nod with different degrees of clarity. There’s a whole range. And the same thing is true in my mind about what reporters — how much reporters’ values intrude in the story. But we’re in a completely different era, Paul, and that’s the problem. From my point of view, that’s the problem. We’re in the advocacy era. We’re in an era where reporters of, roughly 20-35 or something, or other, believe and were taught, many of them in journalism school, that journalism is about advocacy.
After, what Woodward and Bernstein did so superbly and Watergate, that was not advocacy. That was investigative reporting. And there’s one hell of a difference between the two. Investigative reporting, you start out and you’re going to find out what happened and you have no idea where it ends up. In advocacy journalism, you start out and you go after it, but you know exactly where you’re going to end up. We’re now in a modality where the second, the advocacy journalism mode, seems to be kind of running the show and that’s exceptionally unfortunate. It has led, and this is the essential point I’d like to make — heck, I’m a mediator, right, and I’ve done it in different cultures — we’re in a divided country, 50/50, or whatever it is, the media are completely divided all over the place, right. The United States is dead last in trust of the media.
It was just two weeks ago, I think it was, an Oxford Reuters Institute of Journalism study about this, and the United States was 41st in trust of readers or citizens in the media. This means that the press, which could help the country see itself, see the rights to the left and vice versa, show us what we have in common, can’t do it. People don’t trust the media. And if they watch, read or listen to the media, if they’re conservative, they go to Fox and so on, and so on. So this advocacy journalism has brought rewards to advocacy journalists, but it is at the expense of all the rest of us.
Yeah, I think part of what’s happened is Fox was so successful in the business model of not — first of all, of course, not caring at all about journalism or facts, but just throwing red meat to a base that in this new Internet media broadcast world, you need to create a segment that you can own and forget about everybody else. And you do that by throwing political red meat to them. So CNN has become that, MSNBC became that, Trump became the way for those guys to transform into FOX models, it’s just anti-Trump models. New York Times has more or less followed suit. I don’t think it’s as bad as CNN and MSNBC, but certainly to a large extent.
I think a lot also has to do with how the ownership has changed. I was seeing the other day, I was looking at BlackRock, the big asset management company, and Vanguard and State Street, these big three and other financial institutions, if I’m getting it correctly from the stats I’m seeing, they own 93% of the New York Times, financial institutions.
So, it’s not that they dictate the politics of the New York Times, they dictate the profit-making, in the most aggressive sense has to be the agenda of the New York Times. And the way you make money during the Trump era is throw red meat to the anti-Trump people. The same way Fox does from the other side.
Well, except — I don’t know the answer these days, I haven’t looked for a while. You have to look at which stock shares actually have control. It may be that the folks you’re talking about have a lot of shares, but what shares and what control, if any?
Oh, no, no. They actually get the vote, those shares, those asset management companies.
And it’s not a different class or something.
No, no. They have — the financial institutions have controlling interest at general meetings. They get to decide who the management’s going to be. That’s my understanding of it anyway. And not just the New York Times. These same financial institutions have the same power with almost every media company and every other company. The only companies they don’t have the same kind of interest in is the Washington Post, because Bezos owns it, and Bloomberg because they have private ownership. But practically every other media company is controlled by the same financial institutions. Not controlled, that the day-to-day operations are dictated in any way.
And the interesting thing, you mentioned the Post, I don’t know a lot of the Post, except that their new Executive Editor, the person who runs the joint editorially, just came from the Associated Press. And in my book, in an effort to provide evidence, and since I am a lawyer, as to what I’m saying, is this persistent bias in the Times, it wasn’t clear on its face to everybody. I take coverage by the Times, stories that the Times ran about Trump, and compare it with the Associated Press stories of exactly the same event. And really sometimes you would know it was the same event.
The reason I do that is the Associated Press has hundreds, I don’t know, thousands, I suppose, of clients who buy the news and those clients are across the spectrum. From Right to Left, they’re international, they’re all over the place. So if the A.P. wants to retain those clients who can’t defend the ones on the Right or the ones on the Left, it has to put down the middle.
That’s very interesting because I go to A.P. first when I want to look at a news story. My first thing is my A.P. app. For exactly — I hadn’t understood the reasons why A.P. was better, but I knew they were better.
Right, and there were other publications that are less and admixture of news and opinion. My first job out of journalism school was — they recruited me as a correspondent for Time magazine, in that day, and I could stand in for only a year then I left. But I left because of this undifferentiated mixture, admixture of news and opinion, and now it’s everywhere.
Thanks very much for joining me, Bob. And please join me for part two with Bob Smith as we continue our discussion about his book, Suppressed: Confessions of a former New York Times Washington correspondent. Please don’t forget the donate button, subscribe, and share, and all the buttons. We can’t do this without your support.
Comments are closed.
Anyone who reads the New York Times gets exactly what they deserve.
I strongly agree. After years of reading it I finally realized it’s all controlled by those with the most money and or power. Military Industrial Complex propaganda. Dumping on Bernie sanders and praising Hillary Clinton was the straw that broke any trust I had in the NYT.
In 1967 I was working for the NY Times. I found myself in an elevator with Seymour Topping, then foreign editor. Not one to let such an opportunity go by, I asked him why the Times wasn’t writing anything about the bombing of the dikes in N. Vietnam, since the story had been picked up by Agence France-Presse. His calm reply was that the Times had a policy: it would never publish anything contradicting the position of the US government unless it could back it up with its own reporting, and they didn’t have any reporters in NVN.
I remember being struck by this double standard. The paper would routinely print claims by government officials without any supportive evidence at all, but had extra hoops to jump through to print rebuttals. And the interesting thing is that someone like Topping, who in his way was highly competent, didn’t see the problem at all. Cognitive capture.
I’m curious what people’s thoughts are about their assertion at the end there regarding AP.
As to reported current events, Jay’s comment about the value of AP reporting vis-a-vis other mainstream media news stories has merit. However, the AP, like mainstream media, doesn’t have extensive global coverage. I don’t know if this was different in the past or were international affairs the province of United Press International?
I have not been attentive to AP Washington reporter Jonathan Lamire’s reports. His designation as an “analyst” on the MSNBC Morning Joe show is a cautionary sign.
I have read a few memoirs by old reporters. They say that the AP is a gatekeeper. If it carries a story, that will be reproduced automatically in thousands of downstream outlets, so it becomes legitimate news. If the AP does not carry a story, the downstreamers will be cautious about running it no matter how confident they are in the reporting, and usually just don’t.
That point about the AP is interesting and reminds me of why some of the financial papers seem to have better reporting than, say, the NYT etc. at the moment; because their target audience just wants to know what’s going on. Bullshit isn’t very useful to them (unless and until they’re propagating it themselves, of course). I always find it interesting whenever Yves hoists some selections from the FT comments.
I feel like a bit of a goober when I repeat myself in comments in a short space of time, but it is emonently relevant here. In Sy Hersh’s memoir, which I just read (that’s the repetition), he was the AP’s reporter at the Pentagon around 1970. He speaks quite unfavourably about the Pentagon press room, and their complacency/complaisance, which Smith alludes to above. I looked up Smith in the index but he wasn’t there. Hersh was in the Times’ Washington Bureau from 72 to 75, so it looks like they missed each other. I’ll be sure to check out this book.
Did the NYT have reporters on the ground confirming Iraq’s aledged wmd?
Ismoe’s statement, “Anyone who reads . . .” warrants some editing and elaboration. For example I conjecture that there are people like Paul Jay who reads or has read the New York Times but don’t uncritically consume and transmit distinction-affirming memes based on Times or other media sources. And what is it readers, Jay as well as uncritical consumers, “exactly” deserve for attending to such outlets?
Reading Naked Capitalism’s selections, comments and links provide ways to correct and critique party-line like media representations as well as get prompts for the democratic acquisition of power. For those of us whose lives are proscribed in significant ways by virtual realities, including reading Naked Capitalism, there are nonetheless challenges as well as encouraging reports on ways to cultivate such an acquisition.
Yes, anyone who relies on the NYT, hell, the mainstream press, deserves what happens to them.
So, there’s a missing piece in this otherwise very good story. The NYT
went to the subscription model a good while ago. There should be excellent
public information about exactly what demographic groups are willing
to pony up for the ‘paywall’. I had read earlier that in addition to being heavily Democratic, the great majority came from the ’10 percent’, the
so called ‘professionals’ who are the next wealthiest after the fabled ‘1 percent’ financially. Their views and values, therefore, would logically
be strongly reflected in the NYT’s core reporting.
Tyranny of access applies to consultants as well. Good ones seek truth on behalf of clients. Wealthy ones tell clients what they want to hear. The overlap is often small.