A.G. Sulzberger on NYT, Objectivity, and Media Bias

"Journalism's essential value."

By and
70

The New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger  joins Steve Hayes and Sarah Isgur in a special interview recorded from The Times’ building in New York. They discuss Sulzberger’s recent CJR piece on objectivity in journalism (and its discontents), digging into the historically hostile relationship between right wing media and The Times, the challenges of fighting “bias” in news, and the possible paths to rebuilding public trust in institutional journalism.

Show Notes:

-A.G Sulzberger’s article for the Colombia Journalism Review

-Transcript available here

By and
Comments (70)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    SeanM76

    I know I am slow. I just got around to listening to this podcast. It is truly amazing thanks so much for during this interview. Also, I want to thank Mr. Sulzberger for doing what was probably not an easy interview for him to do.

    Collapse
  2. Charles Putnam

    Interesting interview. I'm surprised that Mr. Sulzberger chose to re-litigate the wisdom of publishing a 2008 piece on John McCain alleging marital infidelity. Interest piqued, I went down the Google and Wikipedia rabbit hole, because I admired Senator McCain and didn't recall seeing trustworthy evidence that he committed adultery. The 2008 article came out after NYT endorsed Sen. McCain for the nomination [I'm presuming that campaign staff murmuring started before the endorsement], was anonymously sourced, resulted in a libel suit settled with a public apology, and apparently was criticized by the (now former) Dean of the same journalism school that published the essay that occasioned The Dispatch interview. [Source: Wikipedia article]. That 2008 article doesn't bear the hallmarks of the kind of "independent journalism" that Mr. Sulzberger was championing in the interview. His evidence of the "truth" of the original reporting is a single source, who reports a single statement from Sen. McCain 5 years after his death, who has since switched party allegiance and is involved in a semi-public dispute with the Senator's daughter.

    None of this means that the 2008 NYT article wasn't "true" I suppose, but it seems to me that Mr. Sulzberger isn't even up to a "mistakes were made" kind of honesty about it. I'm far more comfortable with the editorial stance at The Dispatch, which regularly includes steel manning of arguments and large doses of humility in the conclusions that its reporters and pundits reach. For now, I'll spend my limited dollars for news subscriptions on The Dispatch, and continue to pass on NYT.

    Thanks again for a thoughtful interview.

    Collapse
  3. Israel.D.Gale

    .l
    No no. At my in n
    No j to

    No. 9t to, MO

    Collapse
  4. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  5. T.C

    Sarah is bang on when she says that times employees would be reluctant to reveal that they owned a gun, or were regular churchgoers. And Sullzburger is missing the point when he brings up his two conservative op-ed columnists as examples of folks that feel comfortable revealing their conservative habits.

    Gee, the two guys that got hired specifically to be conservative don't mind admitting that they're conservative, since they are already "out" (so to speak) as conservatives, as everybody already knows because it's the reason they got hired.

    But if I were an employee at the times, I know that I wouldn't reveal that I shoot birds and skeet. And while I don't go to church as often as my mom might like, I go more often than most people would suspect.

    But if I revealed that, I would start the countdown of mere hours until several of the younger staff started a slack channel entitled "T.C. owns guns and goes to church. And that makes the undersigned feel unsafe. So what is The Times management going to do? They've got a week to do something before we escalate this to a complaint to OSHA about an unsafe work environment".

    Collapse
  6. Emily.Misztal

    Absolutely fantastic interview. I have been sharing with all my friends and family ("Have you listened to that episode yet??").

    My only critique of Steve and Sarah were (1) calling the NYT out on something from the John Kerry presidential campaign was a bit of a cheap shot and (2) it was a little rich for the Dispatch to get on to them about diversity when their staff (at least appears to be) almost totally white. I do agree with Sarah that there are other forms of diversity that are important but harder to track.

    I think that Sulzberger could have answered more for incidents like the Tom Cotton editorial episode. I also thought it was cool that Sulzberger reads and likes the Dispatch.

    As others have commented, this type of content is why I subscribe. More like this, please.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Philbnichols

    And maybe KDW could have been roped in on the interview for some more push-back against the Old Gray Lady:
    (Debt, like homelessness, has a way of creeping up to the front page [of the NYT] from way back on A26 when Republicans are in power. It is a dismal tide, indeed.) The Times editorial being a Times editorial, it has a cheap—and erroneous—class-war element baked in, with the editors complaining: “Rather than collecting taxes from the wealthy, the government is paying the wealthy to borrow their money.” That is, as the economists say, horsepucky.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Philbnichols

    Excellent, loved this.
    My only 'Why didn't you...' is the Bari Weiss episode. Sulzberger asserts so strongly their independence, and the Weiss episode *so* speaks against that at an on-the-floor, root level, it would've been great to hear what consequences (if any) took place in response to this shameful behavior on the part of the lock-step rank-and-file, and the leadership vacuum in having no real response to it.
    Or did I not follow everything about that story and am wrongly lionizing and sympathizing with Bari Weiss?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Philbnichols

      This would've been a great couple sentences to read to him and ask for a response, from Weiss' resignation letter:
      But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    David Burke

    Fantastic interview. Just fantastic.

    As a 3+ year subscriber, I have asked many times, and this interview only makes me ask again with increased urgency, to get more clear thinking and intelligent conversations by those that may differ philosophically and politically on your podcasts.

    i.e. Jamal Bouie, Liz Bruenig, Matthew Yglesias, Michelle Goldberg, Brian Lehrer…

    Your readership and listeners need it and deserve it.

    I have asked this of PBS as well - to ditch the tired David Brooks(as much as I love him)/Jonathan Capehart Friday duo.

    For instance I have suggested Goldberg/Bouie in that slot. Both at pre crazy intelligent and very funny.

    As always, great job

    PS; Hayes, check out Alvar de Dios in Vaguera, if you haven’t already

    Collapse
    1. Keith Schooley

      It won't be Goldberg. It will be French. Which at one time I would have loved, but now, meh.

      Collapse
  10. Ellisrt1031

    Yes. Excellent interview. I was impressed by Sultzberger. For the most part. He engaged in a reasonable, philosophical discussion. Doesn't mean he is middle-of-the-road but certainly nothing like most of his opinion columnists, David French excepted.

    Collapse
Load More