NYTimes: Journalists Drop Objectivity to "Get Trump"

The NYT writes a think-piece -- rather, a feel-piece -- explaining why they think journalistic ethics they used to pretend to follow are no longer operative, and offers a defense as to why they shouldn't pretend any longer.

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?

Spoiler alert: The rest of the article makes the case that the standards don't apply.

posted by Ace at 03:35 PM

| Access Comments