By Isaac Schorr
Tuesday, August 25, 2020
The greatest crime of the New York Times may not
be its abiding bias, but a consequence of that bias: It’s terribly boring. This
morning, the Times’ homepage greeted visitors with three topline stories
about the Republican National Convention (RNC). The first, a reported piece, is
called, “Nominating Trump, Republicans Rewrite His Record.” The second, filed
as “News Analysis,” is entitled, “The Republicans Promised Uplift and Then Tried
to Rewrite History.” The third is a link to an ostensible fact-check of the
evening that preempts any judgement of specific statements or claims last night
by priming readers. Per the arbiters of truth, Republicans “lashed out at
Democrats” by “repeatedly offering false or misleading characterizations” and
“tried to portray President Trump in a positive light . . . often exaggerating
his successes and glossing over the shortcomings in his handling of the
pandemic.” Did you get that? Republicans are lashing out — and rewriting
history.
Oddly, the Times’ reporters, “analysts,” and
fact-checkers have conveniently forgotten what they had recognized just a week
prior: Political conventions are designed to highlight the successes and mostly
ignore the shortcomings of their party’s nominees. The Times was
noticeably less worried about hyperbole after the first night of the Democratic
National Convention (DNC), which it described as “a vivid illustration of how
both the pandemic and widespread opposition to President Trump have upended the
country’s politics.” Its reporters saw little value in fact-checking a young
woman’s claim that Donald Trump was personally responsible for the death of her
father. Instead, they described it as “an arresting moment, and one that reinforced
the urgency the party hoped to impart.” Left-wing embellishment is captivating
and politically potent. Right-wing red meat is Orwellian.
The reason for the differential treatment is not, as
CNN’s Daniel Dale contends, that the GOP resorts to exaggeration, half-truths,
and outright lies markedly more often than their counterparts, but that the
media begins with the premise that reality has a liberal bias and works
backward from there.
Take for example their labeling of a claim by former
ambassador Nikki Haley that “Obama and Biden let Iran get away with murder and
literally sent them a plane full of cash” as “half true.” The fact-checkers
acknowledge that the Obama administration did in fact send a plane loaded with
over $400 million to Tehran, but balks because it is “it is doubtful that the
Obama administration could have stopped Iranian forces from killing” protesters
in the aftermath of the rigged 2009 Iranian elections. Yet it is common
knowledge that Obama was reluctant to issue a statement in support of the
protesters and mealy-mouthed when he did.
Similarly, they embraced Andrew Cuomo’s absurd and
contrived “European virus” pet theory to call Donald Trump Jr.’s claim that
COVID-19 arrived here “courtesy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)”
“misleading.” Deliberately misunderstanding Trump Jr.’s intent to convey that
the CCP failed to contain the virus in Wuhan and did not provide the
international community with accurate information on its origin and scope, the Times
explains that “many people in New York, for example, were infected by travelers
returning from countries in Europe.”
Compare the intentionally uncharitable parsing of every
claim made by RNC speakers with the preamble of the Times’s DNC fact-check.
While acknowledging that some speakers “veered” from the truth “at times,” it
asserted that “the substance of the remarks coupled with the scripted, vetted
and, in some cases, prerecorded nature of the convention left little to fact
check.”
The bias at the Times doesn’t just make for bad
journalism, it makes for convoluted, repetitive, and boring writing: think
“Republicans pounce,” or in this case “Republicans rewrite.” Partisan
gatherings such as the DNC and RNC are indeed rife with misleading claims and
unfair portrayals of opponents, but the Times has predictably decided to
hold only the latter to strict, even unattainable standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment