Addressing the assault on the media

This week marks a historic effort among newspapers across the country to warn and to denounce a disturbing assault on the media from President Trump and his administration, which has openly attacked journalists as the “enemy of the people.”

Two institutions, the office of the presidency and the national mainstream media, both historically respected, cherished and protected by our Constitution, are at war.

Now this column is not about a political persuasion (though you might read it that way due to your own personal bias), or whether this is a good or bad president; time will ultimately answer that question. This is about growing up, expressing what is acceptable and recognizing that national media outlets have allowed their pursuit of the Administration to become personal.

As a third-generation newspaperman, I find the language and persistent attack on a profession that reaches to every community in this country to be vial and un-American. There is little that compares to the patriotism offered by the true craft of journalism and its goal to keep the citizenry informed for the strength and protection of our republic.

We should be thoughtful and, at times, concerned if not gravely, about the actions and words of our president, the effects of his policies and our seemingly increased acceptance as a society of lying and moral transgressions.

We should also be deeply troubled by the loss of objectivity in our craft of journalism.

As editorial leaders from The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post and dozens of other outlets embark on a unified response this week to the president’s hateful language, I must ask whether we have reflected on our own actions and whether some of his comments have hit the mark, given the lack of objectivity in some of today’s mainstream media.

In our household, journalism was never about commentary. That had its place on the Opinion pages. It was the pursuit of understanding and informing about all aspects of an issue. It’s the best job in the world; a license to be a lifelong learner, asking questions and sharing knowledge with a community wanting and needing to be informed.

Unfortunately, bias and political intonation have become the norm in mainstream “news,” and so too has the loss of respect for our industry, not only from Trump, but from many in our audience – left and right – who bear witness to and understand what is happening. True journalism as a craft was hijacked as media outlets with political leanings moved from fact-based, objective findings to opinion-supported “fact” findings.

For some in our industry, this translated into millions of dollars in revenue as, unfortunately, this fodder appeals to the most basic us-vs.-them instincts of some consumers of news.

These changes have undermined the very principle of journalism and its purest pursuit. In an industry already crippled by poor decisions and lack of vision to evolve, we now see leading media organizations deluding the American people by going after one another, or mounting a sensational full-out battle with the Executive Branch.

That is not journalism.

Where do we go from here? First, I would ask what mainstream media could do better to inform our country, rather than trying so desperately to attack and disparage this president at every step. Focusing to better understand the reasons Trump, or those who are committed to his policies, elect to pursue an issue would be more productive than working to further divide us.

There is a difference between shedding "light" and "heat" on an issue or action.

Since 1851, The New York Times has been the stalwart of quality journalism. In a letter to readers days after Trump was elected, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Executive Editor Dean Baquet committed to “rededicate” the organization to the “fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives…”

Sadly, that mission to which we all should be dedicated in this industry is not easily discerned by scanning headlines and reading incessant attacks on the Administration and the lack of contextual referencing of diversified perspectives.

As an example, a cursory search of The New York Times in a quest to understand Trump’s concerns and frustrations with NAFTA turns up headlines with negative connotations and little substance denoting any tangible benefits for the United States if updates or changes are to be made to this agreement. There surely must be some benefits to at least updating and making NAFTA more relevant to today’s global economy compared to when it was inked on Dec. 8, 1993.

The Times, the Post or Globe are among those outlets considered the standard for the best of journalism. As such, their biases and underwhelming pursuit to be objective with this Administration impacts all journalists, including those of this newspaper company. To our reporters who cover everything from school boards, city councils and recreation district bonds to members of our community turning 100, the effects of those who lead are real — whether in our industry, on Capitol Hill or in the White House.

The blatant lack of pursuing our mission as described by Sulzberger and Baquet can, in some corners, be considered more treasonous than colluding with the Russians’ attempts to hack the election.