FACES AND PLACES: Ex-Times editor confesses bias (04/25/04)

FACES AND PLACES

by Myron B. Kuropas

Ex-Times editor confesses bias

In "My Times," one of the most self-serving articles I've ever read in The Atlantic, deposed New York Times editor Howell Raines whines about how he tried so hard, oh so hard, to do the right thing only to be done in by resistance to change among his subordinates.

Although he probably didn't intend it, Mr. Raines' Atlantic piece offers us a peek at the kind of swaggering arrogance that pervades the hallowed halls of The Times where the maxim is, "It's not news until we say it's news."

Mr. Raines explains: "The Times not only occupies a central place in our national civic life, but also plays just as important a role as the ethical keystone of American journalism." Right. That "keystone" is probably behind publisher Arthur Sulzberger's refusal to disassociate himself from the "ethics" of Walter Duranty.

The Times "is its own country" with its own unique culture, Mr. Raines writes. So convinced are Times people that they and they alone represent "a great engine of truth" that until Jason Blair, no one was ever fired. "At the Times as at Harvard," Mr. Raines tells us, "it is hard to get in and almost impossible to flunk out." Even Walter Duranty passed with flying colors.

An interesting admission by Mr. Raines is that liberalism (surprise, surprise) is the order of the day at The Times. In the mindset of Times editors, liberalism is favored by the gods of integrity while conservativism is not. A "disturbing development, for which I was unprepared," writes Mr. Raines, "was that a small enclave of neoconservative editors was making accusations of political correctness in order to block stories or slant them against minorities and traditional social-welfare programs." My, my, my. Isn't that just like those nasty neoconservatives, always trying to hurt the poor.

Describing journalists at The Times, Mr. Raines writes: "As a group they tend to be politically liberal in regard to the government's domestic policies, conservative in regard to the location of their desks, rebellious in regard to The Times stylebook, and anarchic in regard to the paper's management." Translation: they are for more government control of you and me, unfettered reign for themselves.

Mr. Raines spends little time discussing the Blair fiasco, the major reason for his shortened tenure as Times executive editor. Amazingly, he has high praise for Arthur Sulzberger, the man most responsible for the disaster that eventually enveloped the paper.

In his 2001 book "Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism," William McGowan reviews how Mr. Sulzberger set the stage for the fall. In 1992 the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America convened something called the Diversity Summit. "This get-together had the unmistakable air of a tent revival, full of grim jeremiads, stern calls for repentance and holy roller zeal," writes Mr. McGowan. "Diversity had been fast becoming one of the most contentious issues in American society and in American journalism, responsible for polarizing, if not balkanizing, more than one newsroom around the country."

None of this concerned Mr. Sulzberger who, "galvanized" by the meeting, brought together Times editorial staff and pontificated on how diversity was "the single most important issue for his newspaper." The result was "sharp dissension within the ranks, triggering accusations of both double standards and lingering racial prejudice," all of which boiled over during the Blair fiasco, leading to the Raines dismissal.

If Mr. Sulzberger is the eminence grise of ultra-liberal editorial policy at The Times, Mr. Raines was his enabler. A profile of the former executive editor titled "The Howell Doctrine" which appeared in the June 10, 2002, New Yorker, stated: "[Sulzberger] knew that Raines, like him, took liberal positions on affirmative action, capital punishment, abortion rights, health insurance, welfare, the environment and the role of activist government. Sulzberger said that he saw the editorial-page editor [Raines' former position] and the executive editor as partners in The Times future."

Even the Washington Post was shocked by the appointment. On August 29, 2001, Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson, wrote, "We in the press are routinely self-righteous holding others - politicians, public officials and corporate executives - to exacting standards of truthfulness, performance and conflict of interest. But we often refuse to impose comparable standards on ourselves, leading some (or much) of the public to see us as hypocritical. A troubling example involves the recent promotion of Howell Raines from editorial page editor of The New York Times to executive editor." Mr. Samuelson then went on to list all of the liberal biases that the new Times executive editor had accumulated over the years, ideas at odds with the beliefs of most Americans.

How ultra is Mr. Raines liberalism? In a 1993 autobiographical book, Mr. Raines recalled his disdain for President Ronald Reagan while he was a White House correspondent for the Times. He was saddened, he explained, because his "work consisted of reporting on President Reagan's success in making life harder for citizens who were not born rich, white and healthy." Right. And that explains why President Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in his re-election campaign.

Appearing on C-Span's "Washington Journal" on November 30, 2001, Mr. Raines rhapsodized about President Bill Clinton's policies, especially wife Hillary's disastrous attempt to introduce socialized medicine in the United States. "We had editorially supported virtually every aspect of his program," he said, "and were particularly evangelical ... about his medical reform package." All this, of course, at a time when Congress and the vast majority of the American people were roundly rejecting the plan.

Has The New York Times changed since Mr. Raines's departure? It has not and it won't as long as Junior Sulzberger controls the purse strings and calls the tune. The New York Times publisher continues to live in his ultra-liberal cocoon, surrounded by craven sycophants, totally oblivious to the concerns, beliefs and hopes of the average American.

In a final burst of hubris in his Atlantic apologia, Mr. Raines wrote, "if The Times ever ceased to exist, it would not be reinvented by any media company now in operation, in this country or in the world." And that would be a bad thing?

Myron Kuropas's new e-mail address is: [email protected].

| Home Page |