In response to the video that Steven and Mark made discussing Joe Kahn's recent remarks about the priorities at the New York Times, let's break down the essentials. Joe Kahn, the executive editor, controversially suggests that preserving democracy isn’t the newspaper's primary focus. Instead, he shifts the spotlight to immigration, guided by poll data. Furthermore, Kahn proposes that taking a firm stance on Donald Trump and the threats to democracy might risk transforming the Times into a “propaganda arm for a single candidate”—a substantial assertion.
Steven and Mark, in their video, dissect these points with their characteristic depth and critical insight. They stress the importance of understanding the role of a major newspaper like the New York Times, which should prioritize truth and pressing societal issues. Among these, the erosion of democratic norms is undoubtedly crucial and should be at the forefront of journalistic scrutiny.
They highlight that sidestepping the responsibility to address threats to democracy, under the pretense of avoiding political bias, is a disservice to readers. Democracy, as Steven and Mark articulate, is not merely another issue to be ranked by public interest but is the foundation upon which all other societal debates and policies rest.
Echoing Steven and Mark’s conclusions, it's vital for media giants like the New York Times to remain steadfast in their commitment to upholding democratic principles. Facing political challenges head-on is essential for journalism, and minimizing the importance of these challenges does not equate to maintaining neutrality—it risks neglecting the newspaper's critical role in safeguarding democracy.
Not only upholding democracy but of truth. It is becoming difficult to discern stories from opinion columns. I guess for Kahn facts and truth are irrelevant.
Hi Gloria,I believe that freedom of the press might be an issue also. I have been sending letters to editorial@nytimes,com for several years now. It looks like the one iI just sent, quoting this video was not recieved. by Kahn. I'll have to resend to the staff email. I posted it here for Steve and Mark.
You might appreciate what I scolded him on if you scroll down.
Did it ever occur to them that immigration is high in the polls because MAGA Republicans are spouting it off -loudly - everywhere. And democracy is not high in the polls BECAUSE news organizations like the NYT aren’t reporting it?
It seems a bit ironic to me that talking about the threat to democracy is seen as “biased” toward one candidate.
You are so on target! This isn’t about them, favoring Biden. It needs to be about them favoring democracy, and warning the citizens about the threat to democracy. Do they not care about democracy? Do they not see that it’s threatened? I bet they know it. I’m wondering if they think Trump is going to win and they’re trying not to be on the bad side of Trump. Shameful.
Trump would be perfectly happy to shut down the New York Times if he got back into office -he doesn't want impartiality - the New York Times pretends to be impartial. That means THEY LIE-he wants total control- he is a fascist.What the hell are they thinking???
That Kahn interview was really useless. Journalists appear not to be able to think for themselves. Reminds me of how evangelists captivate their audiences. Let’s face the facts: these larger news titans simply will not give Biden or the Dems credit where credit is due. Their readership is lacking now because many writers, like yourselves are going to Substack or other mediums. Their bread and butter is now coming from the fascist party.
GAAA! I have weeds to pull before the seeds drop, but you forced me into action and here, before I head back out is my retort to Kahn :
Ransom Rideout
1:21 PM (2 minutes ago)
to joseph.kahn
Excuse me sir, but,
“Media Misses” looks at New York Times’ executive editor Joe Kahn’s interview in which he says the preservation of democracy is not the biggest issue for the Times. Kahn makes the questionable statement that immigration is more important, apparently based on polls. He also suggests, disingenuously, that to take a tougher line on Donald Trump and the dangers facing democracy would lead to the paper becoming “a propaganda arm for a single candidate.”
I believe the owner of your paper is calling the shots here. It is difficult to believe that a serious journalist, such as yourself, does not believe the fate of our nation is important enough for your readers to understand and have a need to hear. The serious issues we face, as our future as a democratic republic is in danger of being taken over by christian nationalist fascists, must be presented CLEARLY.
Does the fate of our nation mean anything to you? Or is it only advertising revenue?
As a paying subscriber, I expect the Paper of Record to present the issues of the day clearly and TRUTHFULLY. By omitting or obfuscating the truth, you show your bias clearly to the world. UNDERSTAND? Truth is not propaganda. Lack thereof IS!
The position of Joseph Kahn, the editor of the New York Times, is nothing short of despicable. He may try to parse his position in any way he wishes, but it is a clear display of his moral degeneracy. Has he learned nothing from his paper's abject failure regarding the war in Iraq?
Taking a broader view, however, how can we expect anything approaching real journalism - where truth matters above all - when our media outlets here depend on advertising to stay afloat? Several are also owned by individuals with their own agendas (Twitter, Fox). The one exception, of course, is the Guardian: though it earns revenue from a worldwide subscription base as well as from advertising, it is owned by The Scott Trust, which "exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity."
The paper has a marked anti-Biden slant to it and he is not fooling anyone that there is some bad blood between The NY Times and the administration. The same goes for the Gaza/ Israel war, with a slant in favor of Israel.
That Kahn is concerned about the NYT being the propaganda arm for one candidate is a bucket of bullshit. They already are. He’s gaslighting in that interview. The so called “paper of record” is currently pushing the Trump narrative. He relies on polling (polling of who?) and not the on the ground reporting by his reporters is as I see it journalistic malpractice. As stated in this video and underscored in Gloria Horton-Young’s remarks, what boils down to as a Fascist threat to our Democracy that provides the very opportunity for the NYT to exist must be its primary focus. As it is this that undergirds every other issue at hand.
In Ben Franklin's time, about 16% of the population were Loyalists. Loyal to the British Crown and opposed to Independence. (Ben's son William Franklin was a Loyalist.) Newspapers couldn't avoid choosing a side. Backed by the King, the Loyalists attacked the owners and editors of the Patriot newspapers. They risked their lives standing up for American Independence.
Today, journalists and editors who tell the truth about Trump and Putin are the PATRIOTS of our time.
A newspaper trying to be "neutral" adopts the philosophy that lies and truth, freedom and repression, are equivalent. They are not. A journalist or editor who twists and bends reality to attempt to be "fair to both sides" ends up supporting the criminals. Neutral means MAGA Loyalist.
If the New York Times fails to uphold democracy and the Constitution (including defending the First Amendment: Freedom of the Press), it is only harming itself. Neutral means they choose the MAGA Loyalist side and emulate the National Enquirer, Fox News and Russia Today TV. This would be dumb and the Times isn't dumb.
I don't take the NY Times seriously anymore. They are a big corporate mouthpiece with little relevance to the real problems in the US. You and other independent real journalists have filled my news gap they once left behind, very well.
We have a relative who thinks of herself as well informed because she subscribes to the NYT. Her habit, however, is to only read the headlines and the first 2-3 paragraphs of each article. She seldom gets past the third page.
Now consider the format of too many of these "fair and balanced" NYT articles, then tell me how well informed she really is. BTW, despite the fact that she's younger than we are, she will only accept the paper version despite the fact that she lives on the West Coast.
I read that interview. I do know that the NY times has reported somewhat on Project 2025. But is it not "impartial" to simply keep linking the aims of that to stuff trump is saying in his speeches? What is reporting other than telling us what people say or do and putting it in context? If immigration is the "top issue" how often do they report on trump's plans to put thousands of law abiding undocumented aliens in basically prison camps? What was the NYT reaction to the Time interview? I don't really know. They don't even have to say "well, prison camps are not a good idea." Readers can figure that out for themselves.
Dan Froomkin: "We’re asking the Times to recognize that it isn’t living up to its own standards of truth-telling and independence when it obfuscates the stakes of the 2024 election, covers up for Trump’s derangement, and goes out of its way to make Biden look weak."
Sad to say, but The NY Times is no longer “all the news that is fit to print”. When my subscription expires I don’t plan to renew it. I guess it’s okay for the Wall Street Journal to be not impartial. Joe Kahn is actually a coward.
Kudos, guys!
In response to the video that Steven and Mark made discussing Joe Kahn's recent remarks about the priorities at the New York Times, let's break down the essentials. Joe Kahn, the executive editor, controversially suggests that preserving democracy isn’t the newspaper's primary focus. Instead, he shifts the spotlight to immigration, guided by poll data. Furthermore, Kahn proposes that taking a firm stance on Donald Trump and the threats to democracy might risk transforming the Times into a “propaganda arm for a single candidate”—a substantial assertion.
Steven and Mark, in their video, dissect these points with their characteristic depth and critical insight. They stress the importance of understanding the role of a major newspaper like the New York Times, which should prioritize truth and pressing societal issues. Among these, the erosion of democratic norms is undoubtedly crucial and should be at the forefront of journalistic scrutiny.
They highlight that sidestepping the responsibility to address threats to democracy, under the pretense of avoiding political bias, is a disservice to readers. Democracy, as Steven and Mark articulate, is not merely another issue to be ranked by public interest but is the foundation upon which all other societal debates and policies rest.
Echoing Steven and Mark’s conclusions, it's vital for media giants like the New York Times to remain steadfast in their commitment to upholding democratic principles. Facing political challenges head-on is essential for journalism, and minimizing the importance of these challenges does not equate to maintaining neutrality—it risks neglecting the newspaper's critical role in safeguarding democracy.
Thank you for your first-rate summary, Gloria. Appreciated.
You are my go-to guy for sane commentary.
Very kind to say.
You are my go-to guy too. You inspired my just sent letter to Kahn, a copy posted here twenty minutes ago.
Thank you for the kind words. Appreciate your outreach to Kahn.
It’s true.
Absolutely terrific analysis
Thanks, Ira. I’m a major devotee to Steven’s Twitter and Substack accounts. Steven is a valued voice of reason in an age of howling gibberish.
Mark’s contribution on their videos adds depth and insight into the topics they explore.
Not only upholding democracy but of truth. It is becoming difficult to discern stories from opinion columns. I guess for Kahn facts and truth are irrelevant.
This is terrific Gloria.
Thank you. 🙏
Bravo👏
Hi Gloria,I believe that freedom of the press might be an issue also. I have been sending letters to editorial@nytimes,com for several years now. It looks like the one iI just sent, quoting this video was not recieved. by Kahn. I'll have to resend to the staff email. I posted it here for Steve and Mark.
You might appreciate what I scolded him on if you scroll down.
Looking forward to reading more from Gloria.
Did it ever occur to them that immigration is high in the polls because MAGA Republicans are spouting it off -loudly - everywhere. And democracy is not high in the polls BECAUSE news organizations like the NYT aren’t reporting it?
It seems a bit ironic to me that talking about the threat to democracy is seen as “biased” toward one candidate.
You are so on target! This isn’t about them, favoring Biden. It needs to be about them favoring democracy, and warning the citizens about the threat to democracy. Do they not care about democracy? Do they not see that it’s threatened? I bet they know it. I’m wondering if they think Trump is going to win and they’re trying not to be on the bad side of Trump. Shameful.
Ya, if trumpy wins they will lose their jobs and the Times will be burnt to the ground!
Trump would be perfectly happy to shut down the New York Times if he got back into office -he doesn't want impartiality - the New York Times pretends to be impartial. That means THEY LIE-he wants total control- he is a fascist.What the hell are they thinking???
That Kahn interview was really useless. Journalists appear not to be able to think for themselves. Reminds me of how evangelists captivate their audiences. Let’s face the facts: these larger news titans simply will not give Biden or the Dems credit where credit is due. Their readership is lacking now because many writers, like yourselves are going to Substack or other mediums. Their bread and butter is now coming from the fascist party.
They had better start resisting fascism immediately and stand up for democracy!
GAAA! I have weeds to pull before the seeds drop, but you forced me into action and here, before I head back out is my retort to Kahn :
Ransom Rideout
1:21 PM (2 minutes ago)
to joseph.kahn
Excuse me sir, but,
“Media Misses” looks at New York Times’ executive editor Joe Kahn’s interview in which he says the preservation of democracy is not the biggest issue for the Times. Kahn makes the questionable statement that immigration is more important, apparently based on polls. He also suggests, disingenuously, that to take a tougher line on Donald Trump and the dangers facing democracy would lead to the paper becoming “a propaganda arm for a single candidate.”
I believe the owner of your paper is calling the shots here. It is difficult to believe that a serious journalist, such as yourself, does not believe the fate of our nation is important enough for your readers to understand and have a need to hear. The serious issues we face, as our future as a democratic republic is in danger of being taken over by christian nationalist fascists, must be presented CLEARLY.
Does the fate of our nation mean anything to you? Or is it only advertising revenue?
As a paying subscriber, I expect the Paper of Record to present the issues of the day clearly and TRUTHFULLY. By omitting or obfuscating the truth, you show your bias clearly to the world. UNDERSTAND? Truth is not propaganda. Lack thereof IS!
Ransom W. Rideout
Altadena, CA
The position of Joseph Kahn, the editor of the New York Times, is nothing short of despicable. He may try to parse his position in any way he wishes, but it is a clear display of his moral degeneracy. Has he learned nothing from his paper's abject failure regarding the war in Iraq?
Taking a broader view, however, how can we expect anything approaching real journalism - where truth matters above all - when our media outlets here depend on advertising to stay afloat? Several are also owned by individuals with their own agendas (Twitter, Fox). The one exception, of course, is the Guardian: though it earns revenue from a worldwide subscription base as well as from advertising, it is owned by The Scott Trust, which "exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity."
The paper has a marked anti-Biden slant to it and he is not fooling anyone that there is some bad blood between The NY Times and the administration. The same goes for the Gaza/ Israel war, with a slant in favor of Israel.
Incredible and unsupportable!
That Kahn is concerned about the NYT being the propaganda arm for one candidate is a bucket of bullshit. They already are. He’s gaslighting in that interview. The so called “paper of record” is currently pushing the Trump narrative. He relies on polling (polling of who?) and not the on the ground reporting by his reporters is as I see it journalistic malpractice. As stated in this video and underscored in Gloria Horton-Young’s remarks, what boils down to as a Fascist threat to our Democracy that provides the very opportunity for the NYT to exist must be its primary focus. As it is this that undergirds every other issue at hand.
In Ben Franklin's time, about 16% of the population were Loyalists. Loyal to the British Crown and opposed to Independence. (Ben's son William Franklin was a Loyalist.) Newspapers couldn't avoid choosing a side. Backed by the King, the Loyalists attacked the owners and editors of the Patriot newspapers. They risked their lives standing up for American Independence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)
Today, journalists and editors who tell the truth about Trump and Putin are the PATRIOTS of our time.
A newspaper trying to be "neutral" adopts the philosophy that lies and truth, freedom and repression, are equivalent. They are not. A journalist or editor who twists and bends reality to attempt to be "fair to both sides" ends up supporting the criminals. Neutral means MAGA Loyalist.
If the New York Times fails to uphold democracy and the Constitution (including defending the First Amendment: Freedom of the Press), it is only harming itself. Neutral means they choose the MAGA Loyalist side and emulate the National Enquirer, Fox News and Russia Today TV. This would be dumb and the Times isn't dumb.
I don't take the NY Times seriously anymore. They are a big corporate mouthpiece with little relevance to the real problems in the US. You and other independent real journalists have filled my news gap they once left behind, very well.
We have a relative who thinks of herself as well informed because she subscribes to the NYT. Her habit, however, is to only read the headlines and the first 2-3 paragraphs of each article. She seldom gets past the third page.
Now consider the format of too many of these "fair and balanced" NYT articles, then tell me how well informed she really is. BTW, despite the fact that she's younger than we are, she will only accept the paper version despite the fact that she lives on the West Coast.
I have similar liberal friends, shocked that a trad liberal like me quit reading the NYTimes years ago.
I read that interview. I do know that the NY times has reported somewhat on Project 2025. But is it not "impartial" to simply keep linking the aims of that to stuff trump is saying in his speeches? What is reporting other than telling us what people say or do and putting it in context? If immigration is the "top issue" how often do they report on trump's plans to put thousands of law abiding undocumented aliens in basically prison camps? What was the NYT reaction to the Time interview? I don't really know. They don't even have to say "well, prison camps are not a good idea." Readers can figure that out for themselves.
Dan Froomkin: "We’re asking the Times to recognize that it isn’t living up to its own standards of truth-telling and independence when it obfuscates the stakes of the 2024 election, covers up for Trump’s derangement, and goes out of its way to make Biden look weak."
https://presswatchers.org/2024/05/new-york-times-editor-joe-kahn-says-defending-democracy-is-a-partisan-act-and-he-wont-do-it/
Sad to say, but The NY Times is no longer “all the news that is fit to print”. When my subscription expires I don’t plan to renew it. I guess it’s okay for the Wall Street Journal to be not impartial. Joe Kahn is actually a coward.