"To Kahn, democracy is a partisan issue and he’s not taking sides."
Think about that for a moment.
Dan Froomkin says the old guard at the New York Times has reasserted control "over the rabble," and Joe Kahn's interview with Ben Smith demonstrates it.
He’d do well to watch this ad from the European Parliament about the simple act of being allowed to vote. Democracy can’t be a partisan issue if you’re the press.
Joe Kahn is a disgrace to the profession. We had really expected so much better from a correspondent formerly posted in authoritarian China. english.cw.com.tw/article/arti...
Sure feels like a total abdication of what he should be doing. And it means people going into an election with no clear understanding of the actual implications. I wish other papers would step up and do better
Even if he believes democracy is a partisan issue his editorial choices do not make it sufficiently clear even in his own neutral party terms that Trumps goal is to subjugate democracy. It’s been core to American identify since its founding. (Duh.) Few stories could be bigger.
I've been thinking about it, and it's obvious that the NYT wants to be "the paper of record" for the authoritarians.
I think that is a grotesque abandonment of the central organizing mission of journalism, but it's what Khan (and Sulzberger) want.
he's right that it's a partisan issue but wrong to not take sides. If democracy has become a partisan issue, you take the side of the pro-democracy party. Really wish people would stop using "partisan" as a synonym for "bad"; there are many cases when being partisan is entirely the right thing to do
“And to the extent that Kahn has changed anything in the Times newsroom since Baquet left, it’s to double down on a form of objectivity that favors the comfortable-white-male perspective and considers anything else little more than hysteria.” #NailedIt
I wonder how much of this is the (weird, twisted) idea that “democracy” somehow equates to the party with the brand name “Democrat,” so “anti-democratic” simply means “anti-Democratic.”
Destroy democracy, and you just get its (obvious, natural, entirely partisan) opposite: a Republic!
Since the other party are not monarchists right now, but fascists, it's quite clear on whose side he is.
And if the fascists win, the democrats (and republicans too, even monarchists) will probably need to be partisans -- guerillas, that is.
Kahn should take note, the first thing autocracies dismantle is independent journalism. I mean, FFS, he should at least be thinking about self preservation
The idea of democracy being a 'partisan issue' is so boggling awful. It is not a case of policy, it is a political/legislative structure for society. The other structures like totalitarianism, communism, authoritarianism, socialism...are 'partisan issues'? Why do dumb people get to run big things?
We have our answer regarding the stakes vs the horse race.
Now we’ll see if their campaign coverage remains consistent with that aim.
Of course Biden balking at news interviews is part of the race.
So maybe they should refrain from their “special” scolding about the rights of an informed electorate.
The New York Times, one of those national newspapers that twisted itself into a pretzel rather than print the word "lie" between 2017-2021. They won't draw any political conclusions or look at the fact patterns of politicians who act like demagogues. That's not what they do.