Some unsolicited advice for Joe Kahn of The New York Times and other editors

As November's hugely consequential election looms, I propose a mindset adjustment

A lot of people are upset about an interview that top New York Times editor Joe Kahn did recently with Ben Smith of Semafor.

Understandably so, since Kahn said that democracy-related coverage wasn’t the Times’s most important focus, even though we’re in an incredibly dangerous moment for American democracy.

What’s more, Kahn suggested that the Times is making coverage decisions based on public opinion polls. (He told Smith: “It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top (of polls), and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them?”)

Whew. One could write a book about that quote and its implications.

But first, disclosures: I have been acquainted with both Smith and Kahn for years. I was Times public editor when Kahn was the paper’s international editor; and when Ben Smith was Times media columnist, I was the media columnist at the Washington Post. I run into them both in New York City from time to time and — so far — I’m on good terms with both, though neither is a close friend

The New York Times headquarters in Manhattan/ Getty Images

Ben, who is famous for stirring things up — in his longtime Twitter bio, he called himself a “fireworks enthusiast” — started off provocatively, and, to my mind, a bit unfairly. His first question to Kahn went like this: “Dan Pfeiffer, who used to work for Barack Obama, recently wrote of the Times: ‘They do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.’ Why don’t you see your job as ‘We’ve got to stop Trump?’ What about your job doesn’t let you think that way?” (Smith’s lead-in made that line of questioning more provocative: “I stopped by Joe Kahn’s modest office … to ask him what some of his readers want to know: Why doesn’t the executive editor see it as job to help Joe Biden win?” )

That disingenuous framing is not really what’s going on, and it pushed Kahn into a defensive posture immediately, since he interpreted it as “Why aren’t you in the tank for Biden?”

The readers of this newsletter, and most other sensible people, know the difference between, “Shouldn’t the New York Times be vitally interested in preserving democracy and shouldn’t its news coverage reflect that?” and “Why isn’t the New York Times joining forces with the Biden campaign?”

---

---

But once this frame was in place, fireworks were bound to go off, and they have. If you want to read some of the reactions, I recommend Parker Molloy’s post on “The Present Age,” titled “7 Smart Responses to Semafor’s Interview with Executive Editor Joe Kahn.”

Here’s the thing: The Times goes to great lengths to assert its independence; it’s practically the company’s mission statement.

Some of this, undoubtedly, is driven by business interests. The Times, already extremely dominant and financially successful, wants to stay that way, and to expand its reach. So it wants the largest possible audience — including those on the right or those who don’t care about politics at all. Hence, the Cooking app; Wordle and other puzzles and games; the 2022 purchase of The Athletic; and a lot of other things that aren’t news but that promise (and deliver!) audience growth.

A big tent, if the entry fee is high enough, is a lucrative tent.

That’s one of many reasons for this emphasis on “independence,” which is both a journalistic virtue and code for Big Tent. But to my mind, that stance can tip over too easily into a kind of performative neutrality in politics coverage in which unequal candidates, parties and positions are equalized. (Trump has been charged with dozens of crimes and is sitting in a courtroom defending himself in a hush money/campaign finance case involving a porn star? Well, let us restate that Joe Biden is old!)

It is as if to say: “See! We are independent and nonpartisan. You can tell because we treat everyone the same, whether they are traditional, pro-democracy candidates like Joe Biden, or extremist, anti-democracy candidates like Donald Trump.”

And that, I believe, is what Dan Pfeiffer was objecting to. He wants the Times to make the preservation of American democracy its core mission at a critical time. And, in his heart, I think Joe Kahn doesn’t really disagree. As a longtime China correspondent and Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, Kahn knows better than most what an authoritarian government can mean for democracy and the free press.

So I’d like to suggest a pivot for Kahn and for the top decision-makers in mainstream media — the ones at the three broadcast networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), at CNN, at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic and others.

No one is asking you to join the Biden campaign, stop covering the flaws and foibles of Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, or to run a bunch of puff pieces about those candidates.

But we are asking you to make it clearer — in coverage, and in emphasis and framing, and, yes, in your public statements — that your news organization is aware of the threats to democracy on the ballot in November. And that it is a core part of your mission to stand for democratic principles and to have news coverage reflect that consistently.

While you’re at it, you could also stop doing everything possible to put a negative spin on Biden’s legitimate accomplishments, as these two news alerts — one from the Times, one from the Guardian — illustrate. This is one of innumerable examples.

No top editor is going to be able to make everyone happy; I ran a newsroom once myself so I know. When everyone is criticizing you — whether in good faith or bad, from the left or the right — there’s a great solution. Get out of the defensive crouch and do the right thing. The thing that history will judge wise and brave and public-spirited.

I talked about this last week in a keynote speech for World Press Freedom Canada. If you want to hear my more detailed critique of the American press, and more encouragement for news leaders before the election, my brief speech begins about 50 minutes in; stay for the smart audience questions.

Thank you all for caring about these crucial issues. And thank you for subscribing to American Crisis. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below if you are a paid subscriber or on social media where I post, in the usual places, as Sulliview.