I can’t endorse the New York Times’s approach
The New York Times provided lessons in both journalism and television Sunday night by way of bad examples.
First, If a newspaper believes in making political endorsements, it shouldn’t balk when a tough call comes along, leaving voters more mystified than before. Second, the ingredients that create a compelling reality-TV show (“The Apprentice” comes to mind) are not the same as those that make for honest political opining.
After spending “more than a dozen hours” interviewing most of the major candidates seeking the Democrats’ nomination for the presidency, the Times declared itself unable to choose between Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, so it endorsed both. Readers were advised to deal with it “in the privacy of the voting booth.”
That, of course, is the essence of the argument many publishers use to explain why they do not make political endorsements in the first place. The Times, however, has a long history of issuing pointed recommendations — going back to 1860 when it endorsed Abraham Lincoln.
More troubling, however, is the way the paper unveiled its non-endorsement in a competition-style episode of the television series it produces for FX, known as “The Weekly.” Much like “Shark Tank,” the long-running ABC series in which contestants are interviewed by a panel of successful business tycoons for a chance to make a deal and become wealthy, the Times’s program faced a common dilemma. Should hours of material be edited for insight and clarity — fair but often dry — or should the producers go for pacing and entertainment value?
The episode of “The Weekly” went heavily for the latter, as best illustrated by the clips selected for the segment on businessman Andrew Yang. Although the full transcript of Yang’s interview, published by the Times, shows a reasonable depth of thinking on pressing issues of the day, he was asked on the TV show “what government secret” he would like to know (“UFO evidence,” he said with a laugh). And he was asked which of his opponents “understands the Internet” (answer: none).
In his few edited minutes, Yang was given what a former guru of schlock TV, Chuck Barris, liked to call the “zonk” treatment. Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg got a taste of it as well when confronted with the fact that some trolls of social media refer to him as “Mayo Pete,” an apparent reference to either his whiteness, or blandness, or both.
Just about every twist from the reality-TV handbook was employed, from hearing the editorial board members offer unkind jabs after candidates left the room to having secret ballots written on slips of paper as a means of whittling the decision down to the final four (Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Sen. Cory Booker, who has since dropped out of the race). Then, a pause for a commercial while Kathleen Kingsbury, the paper’s deputy editorial page editor, mulled.
In the past, these Times interviews with candidates were off the record — at least to the extent that full transcripts were never released and TV cameras were not present. In an admission that those of us who work in television understand all too well, Kingsbury told the Washington Post, “The reality is when you bring TV cameras into any meeting, people’s behavior changes. I’m still wondering if we should have done this on TV or if we should have just released the transcripts.”
If the Times’s goal was to boost ratings for its TV show, the endorsement competition probably succeeded. However, to the extent that the paper was out to guide Democrats, who will begin the long voting and caucusing process on Feb. 3 in Iowa, the dual recommendation was little more than frustrating.
The 2020 election and the presidency itself have already been stained by a reality-TV mentality, along with the distortions that come with abbreviated takes on social media, and the form-over-substance nature of cable TV.
When the New York Times emulates such things, it loses my vote.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “I can’t endorse the New York Times’s approach”
Mormon’s petition demands New York Times apologize and rewrite LDS President Monson’s obituary
