We’re The New York Times and It’s Our Duty to Take the Middle Ground No Matter What
Because if we don’t draw false equivalencies, who will?
“The New York Times has garnered criticism over the year for its reporting on Donald Trump and the 2024 election. On Wednesday, that criticism led to in-person protests outside the building.” — Raw Story 9/20/24
As election day approaches, voters want the unvarnished truth about each candidate’s platform and how their plans would impact the lives of everyday Americans. That’s why we at The New York Times are committed to presenting Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’ policy agendas as two equally well thought-out, equally valid options. Because if we don’t draw false equivalencies, who will?
For instance, imagine that Donald Trump announced a plan to lower the cost of prescription medications by rounding up all of the nation’s puppies into burlap sacks and tossing them off of bridges into rivers. Which wouldn’t be that far fetched compared to, say, his plan for affordable housing. An independently-funded media outlet might say something like “Trump’s plan to drown the nation’s puppies would not only have zero effect on the cost of prescription drugs, it’s also unspeakably cruel and batshit crazy.”
But we at The New York Times would never stoop to such nakedly partisan lows. Instead, we might run a headline like “Trump and Harris Differ on Puppy-Drowning Policy; Here’s Why Drowning Half the Nation’s Puppies May be The Ideal Compromise.” It is our solemn duty to take the middle ground on any political divide regardless of how divorced from reality one side of that divide may be.
If The New York Times is to continue to be the paper of record in this country, we cannot favor one candidate over another. That is true even if one candidate is hell-bent on shoving litters of puppies into potato sacks and dunking them in water until the bubbles stop. Sure, it’s demented, but would it really be fair to criticize that plan without pointing out that it’s equally problematic to accidentally confuse two similar-sounding fertility treatments?
Ever since Donald Trump first ran for president in 2016, corporate media outlets have been committed to covering his campaign the same way we would any other – presenting the facts without appearing to take sides. That’s why, rather than discuss the threat he poses to democracy, we’ve stuck to articles weighing the pros and cons of his and Harris’ proposals.
Critics accuse us of conspiring to legitimize the Trump campaign the same way we did in 2016 and 2020 as part of a massive coordinated effort to keep the election close. But that could not be further from the truth. The reality is that corporate media outlets like ours are all simply trying to maximize revenue by turning each election into a horse race. Because scandalous headlines, outrage politics, and nail-bitingly close elections all draw eyeballs, which in turn draws in revenue, which is the only metric the multinational corporations that own us care about. So please stop accusing us of having an “agenda” when we’re actually just brazenly optimizing for profit.
That is why we will continue covering the Trump and Harris campaigns as if they are both sane, viable candidates who wouldn’t spell the end of American democracy. Unless, of course, Donald Trump wins and establishes control of the press. In that case, we’ll obviously capitulate.
Comments
Was this satirical take too harsh? I wouldn’t want to be accused of taking sides!
Could puppy drowning be the solution to affordable healthcare we’ve been waiting for? Sound off in the comments!