What’s Going on At the New York Times?

Current Events

By Murray Friedman

Published December 03, 2004, issue of December 03, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Here’s a test for you: What publication carried a lengthy article on its front page in April, describing how conservative critic David Horowitz seeks to end discrimination against conservative students and faculty at colleges and universities through creation of an academic bill of rights? Was it the New York Post? The New York Sun? Was it Commentary or The Weekly Standard?

No, it was The New York Times.

In the short time he has been in his new post, Executive Editor Bill Keller — who took over for Howell Raines after the infamous 2003 plagiarism scandal involving Jason Balir — has initiated a number of curious changes:

• The announcement earlier this year of the appointment of reporter David D. Kirkpatrick to cover “conservative forces” in politics, religion, law, business and the media.

• The naming of David Brooks, a neoconservative who had served previously as an editorial writer at The Wall Street Journal and wrote for the conservative Weekly Standard, as a regular columnist.

• The appointment of a public editor, Daniel Okrent.

• The naming of Sam Tanenhaus, who had worked previously for The Times and has written extensively for various conservative publications and authored a widely acclaimed and sympathetic biography of Whittaker Chambers, as the newspaper’s book review editor.

Is The New York Times becoming more conservative?

For years, critics have charged “the old gray lady” with hewing to a liberal line not only on its editorial pages, but in its news stories, as well. In his book last year, “Off With Their Heads” (Regan Books), political pollster Dick Morris argued that the newspapers’ opinion surveys have been constructed to elicit views favorable to the newspaper’s ideology through a system of weighted responses and slanted questions. This has been especially egregious, he reported, in the run up to the wars against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rarely has The Times deigned to answer these charges. Like the gentleman with the top hat and monocle who presides over the The New Yorker’s table of contents, it simply has stood aloof. I suspect the suggestion that it has become even slightly less partisan would be met with similar silence. Nevertheless, something interesting is indeed going on at the paper of record.

The newspaper’s liberal, activist slant is said to have been accelerated with the ascension of Arthur Sulzberger Jr. as publisher in l992, according to Alex S. Jones and Susan A. Tifft, authors of “The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind the New York Times.” During the 1960s and 1970s, The Times ascended to a unique position of prestige, due to its victorious confrontation over its publication of the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal. The Times had “come to fulfill a new function,” veteran Times reporter Harrison Salisbury wrote in his book, “Without Fear or Favor” (NY Times Books, 1980). It had larger objectives that went beyond the slogan of its founder Adolph Ochs: “to report the news impartially without fear or favor.” It had become, Salisbury wrote “the fourth coequal branch of government.”

The younger Sulzberger was a product of the very era during which the paper acquired its gravitas: While at college he was arrested twice for civil disobedience, once for blocking the entrance to Raytheon Company. When young Sulzberger started out at the newspaper as a general assignment reporter in its Washington Bureau, he got into arguments with his Republican colleague Richard Burt, the bureau’s defense expert and conservative columnist William Safire over arms control issues. Unlike his father, Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger, who tended to walk away from conflict, the younger Sulzberger (called “Pinch” by some, perhaps not so affectionately) reached out for it.

“I distrust the appearance of surface calm,” Sulzberger, Jr. told the paper’s biographers. “The ’60s were a time when society debated itself in very open and sometimes harsh ways, and in the end we wound up a better place for it.”

By l997, Sulzberger felt that The Times had lost some of its fire. He found the man to stoke it in Howell Raines, an outspoken Southern liberal with an imperial manner. He had attended college 20 blocks from where the four black children were killed in an infamous church bombing in Birmingham, Ala., and earned his degree the year the Civil Rights Act was passed.

“I lived through this great confrontation and didn’t participate fully because I wasn’t brave enough,” Raines is quoted as saying in the Jones and Tifft book. Recognition of his own “cowardice,” Tifft and Jones write, “made him unusually interested in the moral questions of public life, and he determined never again to shrink from declaring his beliefs.”

In June 2001, Raines was made executive editor of a newspaper that he himself saw as having become stale and complacent. But his own chutzpah — and, some would say, liberalism gone awry — helped precipitate its greatest scandal. In the spring of 2003, the Times was forced to acknowledge in a l4,000-word, front-page story that it had been duped. A young black reporter, Jayson Blair, had fabricated portions of more than three-dozen articles. Suspicions of Blair’s unreliability existed earlier, but given the paper’s affirmative-action culture, the staff was reluctant to air them. (Raines later admitted in The Atlantic Monthly that as a Southern liberal, he gave Blair “one chance too many.”) Raines resigned shortly thereafter.

Op-ed page columnist Bill Keller, who initiated the changes listed previously — including, most interestingly, the conservative “beat” — succeeded Raines.

Keller denies that Kirkpatrick’s appointment means any change in direction at The Times. Some conservatives suggest it doesn’t mean much anyway: “‘The conservative beat’ is simply a clever new addition to its… Bush-bashing features,” The Weekly Standard wrote.

But Kirkpatrick is, in fact, doing a credible job, and Brooks is a far cry from the legendarily liberal Anthony Lewis, now retired, whose space on the op-ed page he now occupies. (One column recently attacked leftist tendencies at elite universities, quoting conservative Harvard University Professor Harvey Mansfield’s complaint that he cannot place most of his students.) And in an interview with me before he assumed his new post, the new book review editor, Sam Tanenhaus, told me that Keller has “remarkably and boldly addressed the conservative ascendancy” in America. Tanenhaus said he wanted his book review section to address this as well. “It doesn’t mean they’re going to win all the time and are right,” he said, “but if you look into the last half-century of politics, the conservative presence was always stronger than intellectuals knew.”

Finally, on July 25, Daniel Okrent, the newly installed public editor, wrote an astonishing article titled “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” Not only did he answer his question affirmatively, but he also attacked The Times for being ritualistically liberal. “[O]n such issues as gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others,” he declared, “if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”

Columnists Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Nicholas D. Kristof remain the dominant voices at The Times, and the paper’s traditional arrogance seems as fierce as ever (in analyzing Bush’s victory, Herbert asked, ‘How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put part of their brains on hold?)

Conservatives are particularly incensed at the paper’s coverage of the Iraq War; they are especially critical of its news columns and editorials insisting there were no connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; while it has not been conclusively shown that Hussein colluded with al Qaeda in the September 11 attacks, many believe that abundant connections have been documented in government reports and other materials. As a result, many conservatives have simply stopped reading the paper.

This is unfortunate, because whatever you think of The Times, it is difficult to understand the world without its edification. The new developments hardly suggest that the paper has turned away from its staunch liberalism. But it does appear to be making an effort to achieve greater fairness and balance. And given its role in shaping American thought, this cannot help but be good for all of us.






Find us on Facebook!
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • Former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror: “A cease-fire will mean that anytime Hamas wants to fight it can. Occupation of Gaza will bring longer-term quiet, but the price will be very high.” What do you think?
  • Should couples sign a pre-pregnancy contract, outlining how caring for the infant will be equally divided between the two parties involved? Just think of it as a ketubah for expectant parents:
  • Many #Israelis can't make it to bomb shelters in time. One of them is Amos Oz.
  • According to Israeli professor Mordechai Kedar, “the only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped."
  • Why does ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America receive its largest donation from the majority owners of Walmart? Find out here: http://jd.fo/q4XfI
  • Woody Allen on the situation in #Gaza: It's “a terrible, tragic thing. Innocent lives are lost left and right, and it’s a horrible situation that eventually has to right itself.”
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.