,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I agree that most of the criticism of Haberman is overwrought & misplaced. But the core problem is that the protocols of access journalism, which are dodgy even in a normal presidency, seem grotesque when used for Trump administration.
I'm told "access journalism" is too pejorative. Okay, let's call it beat journalism. Same issue applies: does the normal protocols of beat journalism really work when dealing with Trump & his crew? It's an open question.
Haberman is a terrific reporter in no small part because she has great sources, assiduously cultivated. In this case that means Trump & his cronies. This has been crucial to some of the most vivid & damaging reports we have about Trump's court. But it comes at a price.
This is very true & is why I think the freak-out over Haberman is wrong-headed. Times has a variety of approaches to Trump: Haberman's beat coverage is one but there's also non-beat investigative reporting (like the great tax articles):
One other dynamic at work is liberals tend to over-obsess about the NY Times & its coverage. My former colleague @GrahamVyse wrote a good piece on this: newrepublic.com/article/146828…
