On Oct. 29, 2016, The New York Times filled every single column inch of their front page with news about a breaking story on … Hillary Clinton’s emails. A story that turned out to go absolutely nowhere. On the same weekend, the Times buried information about connections between Donald Trump and Russia, running a far from the front page story that claimed investigators did not believe there was a link between Trump and the Russian government, and that Russia’s theft of documents from the DNC and extensive hacking activities weren’t even aimed at helping Trump.
The Times’ abysmally lopsided coverage over that preelection weekend was one of the two greatest examples of journalistic malpractice in the 2016 cycle. (The greatest remains the Associated Press’ completely fabricated story about the Clinton Foundation, a story that not only damaged Hillary Clinton’s chances in the election, but was actively destructive to the work of a genuine charity providing critical aid to thousands. Four years later: Where’s the damn data, AP?)
But if you thought that The New York Times had learned any lessons from its mistakes in 2016 … Sorry. No one actually thinks that. And the Times checked in with an “exclusive interview” of Trump on Thursday to make it sparkling clear that it has no intention of improving.
The “interview” actually consisted of a 40-minute phone call from Trump to reporter Peter Baker. Over the course of the call, Trump simply does what Trump does: he lies. Trump explains how he’s done a very good job on the COVID-19 pandemic, how the economy is fantastic, and how he’s made no mistakes worth mentioning. Baker’s response to Trump’s claims is not to challenge him, but to comment on how Trump sounds “calm and relaxed” as he brags about his TV ratings.
The pandemic “is the fault of China,” says Trump. He works “incredibly long hours,” says Trump. The not-so-small army of cabinet members and aides who had emerged from the White House to claim that Trump is just plain awful at his job are all “terrible.” None of these comments get challenged.
That’s not to say that Baker didn’t follow up. He decorates the interview by talking to other people—namely Jim Jordan, Trump’s executive assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, and Jared Kushner—to provided a thoroughly one-sided view. In it, he describes how Trump has “bent the job to his will,” and “has imposed his will on Washington and the world like no one else” and “[f]our years after his against-the-odds victory, he has claimed the nomination as the undisputed master of a party whose establishment did not want him.”
It is, from beginning to end, an absolute puff piece; an article that exists only to both show off and protect the Times’ ability to get Trump on the phone—complete with a whole stack of “see Trump walking authoritatively” photos. It’s access journalism at its worst.
Flattering and fluffing Donald Trump has given The New York Times the ability to talk to Trump regularly, but the price has been extremely high. Sometimes it’s easy to see why the Times wasn’t concerned with Russian hacks. They consider themselves the masters of the art.
