Sulzberger calls for a Lippmanian approach to journalism, whereby “journalists do not serve a cause no matter how good.” But instead of merely stressing objectivity, the Times publisher emphasizes journalistic independence. The ability to craft stories that state all the facts and recognize uncertainty, stories that allow readers to see the full picture for themselves is critical for the survival of liberal democracies. Classic political theory tells us that liberal democratic polities require dynamic consensus-building, dialogue, and disagreement to endure. In this ecosystem, journalists do not pose as mere stenographers of the dominant narrative; rather, as Sulzberger mentions, their role is to “challenge and complicate consensus with smart questions and new information.” There is no Hippocratic oath for journalism, but Sulzberger’s commitment to following the facts, embracing uncertainty, and being ready to “exonerate someone deemed a villain or interrogate someone regarded as a hero” should be the guiding axiom of every media professional. In the contemporary hyperpolarized world, where divisions cut deep into the social fabric and the other side is demonized, the embodiment of this maxim by journalists who carry their own biases is becoming increasingly difficult.
My country has been consistently ranking last among EU members in press freedom indexes, and maybe that is why I often catch myself being deeply cynical about the media. Yet, reading that even respected information titans like the New York Times or the Washington Post not only failed to thoroughly investigate the Trump-Russia affair and fell pray to partisan narratives, but also intentionally omitted evidence that would add nuance to their coverage and perhaps dampen political tribalism, disappointed me. Learning that the Clinton campaign manufactured conspiracy stories related to Trump’s involvement with Putin and then tipped off researchers to pitch stories to mainstream editors did not shock me; politics is a dirty, zero-sum game, where each candidate employs any and all means to victory. Journalists, however, must position themselves outside of this game. But what Gerth’s piece illustrates is that they instead put on gladiator armor, too, and entered the arena.
The readings’ assigned order, with Gerth’s piece preceding Sulzberger’s, nurtured an intensely ironic, almost Oedipian, atmosphere. As the former’s extensive exposé revealed all the mishaps and errors that traditional media like the Times committed in their treatment of Trump’s alleged Russian ties and poured fuel on the fire of division and polarization spreading in America, the Gray Lady’s publisher extolled his organization’s commitment to journalistic independence “without fear or favor” and ultimately failed to pursue what the Post’s Bob Woodward called the “painful road of introspection.” In Sophocles’ ancient tragedy “Oedipus Rex,” young King Oedipus searches for his father’s murderer unaware that the man he seeks is none other than himself. So, even though Sulzberger’s perception of journalistic objectivity and independence is warranted and necessary for the industry, the other piece demonstrates that his own publication has failed to look in the mirror and recognize that they are, too, guilty of journalistic dependence, and do not always live up to their commitment to “only publish what we know; we would rather miss a story than get one wrong.”
ps: There were many times in this reflection when I felt the need to clarify my own political allegiances. I think this is the product of the society we live in where an intense competition of us vs. them unravels, and where there are times that I think to criticize your own is to stand against them. But only through honest introspection, acceptance of mistakes, and correction can the media regain its trust among the public and strengthen liberal democratic trends.
