Thread: Memo to “all company employees” from @nytimes publisher A.G. Sulzberger regarding this: nytimes.com/2019/08/25/us/…. “This unprecedented campaign appears designed....More
...to harass and embarrass
anyone affiliated with independent news organizations that have asked tough questions and brought uncomfortable truths to light...
...The New York Times, which has distinguished itself
with fearless and fair coverage of the president, is one of the main targets of this assault. Unable to challenge the accuracy of our reporting, political operatives have been scouring social media...
...and other sources to find any possibly embarrassing information
on anyone associated with The Times, no matter their rank, role or actual influence on our journalism. Their goal is to silence critics and undermine the public’s faith in independent journalism...
This represents an escalation of an ongoing campaign
against the free press. For years the president has used terms like “fake news” and “enemy of the people” to demonize journalists and journalism. Now, the political operatives behind this campaign will...
will argue that they are “reporting” on news organizations
in the same way that news organizations report on elected officials and other public figures. They are not. They are using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain...
I want to thank the journalists at The Times and elsewhere
who brave this type of pressure daily to bring essential information to the public. Under intense scrutiny and routine harassment, they remain undeterred....
When our reporters learned of this campaign to attack journalists, they did what our colleagues around
the globe always do. They went to work and started reporting....
But I also want to be clear: No organization is above
scrutiny, including The Times. We have high standards, own our mistakes and always strive to do better. If anyone — even those acting in bad faith — brings legitimate problems to our attention...
we’ll look into them and respond appropriately. It is imperative that all of us remain thoughtful about how our words and actions reflect on The Times, particularly during this period of sustained pressure and scrutiny...
We all play a part in upholding our commitment to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”
What’s the proper response to a campaign like this?
Even in periods of pressure and change, The New York
Times has the benefit of the long view. We have served the public for 168 years now. We’ve covered 33 presidents. We know that a free press is a vital guardian of all other freedoms in our society.
We have been attacked and threatened before, and we know how
to do our jobs under fire.
So our response is the same as always. We will continue
to cover this administration like any other: fairly, aggressively and fearlessly,
wherever the facts lead.” END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Under the radar but interesting (and maybe important): NewsGuard, which (quite fairly) rates news organizations for credibility and quality, has downgraded the @nytimes for the first time. It said it did so because…More: dropbox.com/scl/fi/nmem5n9…
…the Times failed on one key measure (among the nine it uses to assess journalistic quality): Separating news and opinion.
NewsGuard said the Times “often” presents opinion pieces in its news columns without labeling them as analysis, commentary or opinion. It said “an impression of partisanship lingers, especially among conservatives.”
The Supreme Court will decide whether a former president, who appointed three of the court’s nine members, is immune from prosecution by a special counsel appointed by a man who was nominated to the Supreme Court…More…
…but didn’t get a hearing because it was blocked by the former president’s party, enabling the former president to appoint all those justices….
The guy who appointed the special counsel was himself appointed by the president, who defeated the former president in the last election. And those two presidents are running against each other in the next election to be president again.
—Makes child rapists eligible for the death penalty.
—Increases prison sentences for transporting undocumented individuals.
—Bans TikTok on govt/public school devices, prohibits China and “other foreign countries of concern” from buying land w/in 10 miles of military sites…
—Restricts gender-affirming treatments for minors, drag shows, public bathroom use, and pronoun use by teachers, administrators and students in schools. Law also affirms that sexual orientation and gender identity can’t be taught up to eighth grade….
Cable-news networks are seeing near-record profits right now. But the economic/financial parallel might be the newspaper industry in 2005. That was one of the best years for newspaper profits/revenues. After that? The roof caved in and the floor went with it.
There’s a doom cycle to all this: widespread cord cutting reduces cable-operator revenue at a time when basic cable networks are demanding higher license fees. So cable operators raise consumer prices—making cable less affordable and leading to more cord cutting. Repeat.
A lightly edited transcript of an audio file of @CNN chief exec Chris Licht's comments to staff this morning about CNN’s town hall telecast with Trump:
"I am aware that there has [sic] been people with opinions-slash-backlash, and that is absolutely expected….MORE
“And I'll say this as clearly as I possibly can: You do not have to like the former president’s answers but you cannot say we didn't get them…”
He praised moderator @kaitlancollins and said her questions elicited newsworthy responses from Trump about Ukraine, Jan. 6, abortion, the election results and pardons…