THE POT REPORTING ABOUT THE KETTLE

Talk about an article that applies not only to the subject but the source.

Here are the first paragraphs from Michael M. Grynbaum’s article in the New York Times, about the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of President Trump (the bold print is mine):

Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, has faced unease and frustration in his newsroom over his stewardship of the newspaper’s coverage of President Trump, which some journalists there say has lacked toughness and verve.

Some staff members expressed similar concerns on Wednesday after Mr. Baker, in a series of blunt late-night emails, criticized his staff over their coverage of Mr. Trump’s Tuesday rally in Phoenix, describing their reporting as overly opinionated.

“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Mr. Baker wrote at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday morning to a group of Journal reporters and editors, in response to a draft of the rally article that was intended for the newspaper’s final edition.

He added in a follow-up, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”

That is not only excellent advice, it is an impereative for any news source that purports to offer neutral coverage of events.

But that advice is every bit as salient for the New York Times as it is for the Wall Street Journal.   And, every bit as necessary, given the quality of coverage The Times has provided during Donald Trump’s presidency.

Yes, there is a lot to cover negatively about this administration.  And, yes, it is the duty of a newspaper to provide this information fully and honestly.

But it is very hard to reconcile this ideal with the nonstop, very often un-referenced attack coverage The Times has relentlessly published about Mr. Trump.

How many articles on “Russian collusion” alone have we seen, based on anonymous, unnamed sources – without any hard evidence that such collusion took place?  To this day there is no actual evidence.  But there were dozens and dozens of stories about it.

By contrast, how many articles on the Clinton campaign’s evidenced collusion with Ukrainian nationals were there?

And how many articles on the Clinton’s deep ties to Russia – ties The Times itself wrote about two years ago, and then conveniently buried for an entire presidential campaign?

The article excerpted above mentions the concern Wall Street Journal editor in chief, Gerard Baker, has about the quality of his paper’s coverage.

I strongly suggest that Dean Baquet, his counterpart at The New York Times, read his words.  Several times, very slowly.