Thread by @ijbailey

I said earlier the strongest element in media isn't bias, but narrative. That's what I've learned from 25 years in this industry. Let me give you a non-political example. Do you remember how journalists handled a "major" story in 2001? No, I'm not talking about 9/11. 1/

https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/1810684560935620646

I'm talking about the Summer of the Shark. In early July, an 8-year-old boy was attacked by a shark. That set off a frenzy in media that didn't abate until Sept. 11. I was in a Myrtle Beach, S.C. newsroom at the time. We had no shark attacks as far back as we could remember. 2/

There were no shark attacks even though we were attracting several million tourists every year. What was I forced to do as a young journalist? Write about shark attacks. I tried to talk my editor out of it, making the plain argument shark attacks weren't a thing in our area. 3/

She looked at me and said this: "But everyone is talking about them." That was literally the reason I wrote what was, I believe, a front-page news story about the non-existence of shark attacks. I kid you not. The narrative had to be adhered to no matter the facts. 4/

I did everything I could to add context, to put up high in the story there was no threat of shark attacks on our beaches, etc., even though I thought the entire story was totally made up and, frankly, stupid. 5/

I have never forgotten that article, even teach about it in my classes. That's how this NYT story reads. I suspect if you asked them to defend it, the writers would point to all the context showing this doctor was unlikely testing/treating Biden for Parkinson's 8 times. 6/

I strongly suspect that NYT article grew out of the NY Post and Guardian stories that were just about White House visitor logs and little more. It's the most irresponsible kind of journalism, the one with no context or related facts, but lots of speculation. 7/

That's the only reason you write a story like that, because others did first, not because it's actually a story. And to give it a lot of prominence to boot is doubly irresponsible by The Times. 8/

But as I said, narrative, not bias, is the strongest element in media. If other people are talking about it, we have to follow suit or be seen as missing out. I suspect the NYT tells itself they are simply trying to bring clarity to all that speculation. Hogwash. 9/

When you use prominent space in a news outlet like The Times, it gives the story a kind of weight/importance/seriousness it simply didn't have before. That was our mistake in 2001 in Myrtle Beach. We were the major news outlet, the only daily newspaper. 10/

Had The Times looked into this and found precisely what it found - a nothingburger - that would have been reasonable. But to give it prominent space even after finding that is irresponsible. Or at most, put it in the back of the paper and at the bottom of the website. 11/