Fear of Flying

Once upon a time, I, like virtually anyone else who read a newspaper, thought that the New York Times was the finest daily in the United States - and, perhaps, in the world.  Splurging, I subscribed to the Times and relished its handsome Sunday Magazine, its lengthy, in depth reporting, its thoughtful editorials.  But, that was then.  This is now.

Like so many daily newspapers, the Times is beset with a model that appears to be dying.  Once upon a time, what you received on the doorstep in early morning hours really was "news."  Most of what you read was fresh and informative.  Today, however, the hunk of newsprint I open to peruse with my morning coffee has little that I haven't read at least eight to ten hours ago on the Internet.  The newspaper tells me someone was injured in a horrific automobile accident - but at 10:48PM the night prior, my computer told me that 2 passengers died and a third is in critical condition.  I mostly skim the paper for local tales of "human interest" - and to find out what's on sale at Macy's and Target.

A few years ago, I predicted the death of delivered papers.  It seems that this prediction may well come true.  Nevertheless, I have never anticipated that news delivery and the news organizations themselves would die.  And - although I still do not expect this at all, I am saddened at how quality has dropped significantly, both for my local paper, the Star Tribune, and for that gleaming icon, the New York Times.

Part of the problem is what I mentioned above; technological progress has rendered an earlier model obsolute.  But, models change.  So, let's say we stop getting the dead tree chunk-o-stuff on our doorstep, and instead read all our news and commentary on the Internet.  Fine.  We get our news, opinion, human interest and advertising on the computer instead of on paper; big deal.  Yet, a large part of the problem is that quality is nowhere near what it once was.

Just take a gander at these two examples with the NYTimes.  Both of these examples deal with the Times' honesty and equity in election reporting.  First, although the Times selected John McCain as their "pick" for the Republicans' candidate, since that time, about all they do is cook up fictional stories of affairs or false reports about what McCain is or is not doing.

Mark Salter is the long-time staffer for John McCain, as well as McCain's literary alter ego. I wrote about Senator McCain's memoir Faith of My Fathers (written with Salter) in "Reading John McCain, part 1" and "Reading John McCain, part 2."  He continues to serve Senator McCain in the current campaign.

Responding to my invitation to provide us occasional commentary related to the campaign, Mr. Salter has forwarded the following statement:

On Sunday the New York Times ran an absurd editorial demanding that the campaign release health records that the campaign had already publicly stated will be released in three weeks. Yes, you read that right: The Times was told that the records will be released on May 23rd, and ran the attack anyway. This comes after months of Times "news" stories attacking John McCain on all fronts, some earning the rebuke of the Times's own editors. At this point, the Times's effort really has become so transparent and juvenile that voters are sure to see right through it.

On the other side, coverage of Senator Obama has been mostly handled with kid gloves.  Positive reports glow; negatives ones are either minimal or non-existent.  Don't believe me?  Then ask the NYTimes' own public editor!

Peter Weltner of San Francisco wrote that he wished The Times had examined what he said were falsehoods in Wright’s remarks — like the claim that blacks and whites learn with different parts of their brains — instead of “merely guessing why Mr. Wright said it.”

I’m with Hebb and Weltner. For a newspaper that showed great enterprise on the subject last year — breaking the story that Obama had disinvited Wright to deliver the invocation at the announcement of his presidential campaign, and publishing a deep examination of their relationship before most Americans had heard of Wright — it was a performance strangely lacking in energy at a potential turning point in the election.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not at all saying that liberal papers should never print an unkind word about more conservative candidates - nor that they cannot be laudatory about liberal ones.  Although I am highly likely to vote for McCain come this fall, I myself (unfortunately) have a number of bones to pick with McCain.  And, when it comes to Obama, I surely can see positives about the man and understand completely why some are so smitten with this candidate.

Newspaper organizations have to get back to reporting the news:  timely, fully, and in a fair and forthwright manner.  Whether that reporting gets deposited on our front porch every morning, or shows up miraculously on our computer screen; matters not.  What matters is that every candidate receives equitable coverage.  What matters is that all the issues are addressed fairly.  What matters is that voices of all sorts are heard.

Once upon a time, the New York Times pretty much did that - and was rewarded for being "the" standard in its industry.  But - that was then and this is now.  We'll see what tomorrow brings. 

I'm hoping that their current "fear of flying" is replaced by a return to "flying high!"