Two remarkable pieces this week—each earth-shattering in its own way

The press versus the president, part one  

Columbia Journalism Review 

By Jeff Gerth 

     ...My main conclusion is that journalism’s primary missions, informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable, have been undermined by the erosion of journalistic norms and the media’s own lack of transparency about its work. This combination adds to people’s distrust about the media and exacerbates frayed political and social differences. 

     One traditional journalistic standard that wasn’t always followed in the Trump-Russia coverage is the need to report facts that run counter to the prevailing narrative. In January 2018, for example, the New York Times ignored a publicly available document showing that the FBI’s lead investigator didn’t think, after ten months of inquiry into possible Trump-Russia ties, that there was much there. This omission disserved Times readers. The paper says its reporting was thorough and “in line with our editorial standards.”.... 

Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust 

Washington Post editorial

Leonard Downie Jr.

     …More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view. 

     “There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.” 

     “The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.”....

     Gerth's blockbuster piece—it comes in four parts—is a near book-length assessment, by this veteran New York Times journalist, of the mainstream press's handling of "Russiagate" (Steele dossier, etc.), perhaps the biggest story of the early Trump era. 

     Gerth's assessment: A complete fiasco suggesting an abandonment of time-honored standards of objectivity. (The mainstream press clearly got the story wrong and then doubled-down instead of acknowledging error.)

     Gerth's remarkable piece is devastating; naturally, it is being ignored.

     Downie's piece announces that the Washington Post no longer seeks objectivity in its reporting. I.e., it is a declaration of rejection of the old "objectivity" standards.

     Golly.

"Be it resolved, don't trust the mainstream media." On the PRO side of the debate were Douglas Murray (The Spectator) and Matt Taibbi (TK News on Substack). On the CON side of the debate were Malcolm 'Malc' Gladwell (The New Yorker, Revisionist History) and Michelle Goldberg (The New York Times).