THE venerable New York Times recently issued an apology on how they conducted their US election coverage specifically how they treated the candidacy of now President-elect Donald Trump.
Trump, who won last November 8 and became the 45th US president, is a billionaire and reality TV star as well as former franchise holder of the Miss Universe pageant that was deemed unfit for the presidency by many political pundits in the liberal, left-wing and mainstream media including the New York Times.
As a former media practitioner myself, I was awe-stricken that a newspaper founded in 1851 and is considered among the great institutions of journalism around the world would be humbled in their own admission.
The letter from the publisher and Chairman of the Board of The New York Times Co. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. was read at the morning program over at Fox News and was meant for the paper's subscribers or readers.
The substance of the letter spoke about the New York Times reflecting on whether or not they were fair in their reporting on Mr. Trump starting at the time when the incoming president announced his interest on the presidency all the way down to the primaries, the debates and the general election.
My friend Jim Duhon of Delcambre Louisiana, who is becoming a political mogul himself, said it was sort of a “mea culpa” (my mistake) on the part of the New York Times for seriously underestimating the groundswell of support of the average Americans to President-elect Trump.
I guess it was the Catholic in Duhon that made him say it, but maybe he was right. Mea culpa is what is needed when you confess otherwise there won't be any clear absolution of sins.
The “wages of sin” committed by media so to speak specifically publications like the New York Times that underestimated Trump may result to diminish readership at this time when newspapers are becoming a thing of the past.
It is not every day that a newspaper of this caliber like the New York Times which won 117 Pulitzer prizes in journalism would make a mea culpa. It is a humbling act and it would surely win back the trust from the reading public.
Whatever the NYT meant by saying “as they reflect” in their letter is susceptible to many interpretations. My take on it is that the paper was guilty of treating Trump as a political lightweight, a mere reality star that is not presidential timber.
The New York Times probably forgot that even with their venerable status, they don’t set the requirements of presidential candidates. Even the US Constitution offers limited requirements for presidential candidates relating to age and nationality.
The US Constitution did not set any requirements on one’s profession or occupation. Just like the other media, the New York Times reported on the cases of bankruptcy, businesses and relationships with Trump's employees and his temperament.
The US media was scared of a Trump victory, afraid that should he win he would destroy not only the US but the whole world. It did not report factual stories on his good points.
I've read the treatise of Charles Evans Hughes in which he stated that since the administration of government became more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied as well and media is needed to report the facts.
Society needs a vigilant media to start a discourse among the people but not to decide for the people. It used to be that media's role is to educate, inform and then entertain but since society evolves, it has taken upon itself to mobilize public opinion, to spur them to engage and decide for themselves. As part of US media, the New York Times may be guilty and repudiation came in a landslide victory for Trump. His victory sent shock-waves to the whole country and the world and the media went berserk as it tried to assess how it happened.
Trump's victory signified that the voice of the unheard, those who stayed in the sidelines for the most part, rang loud and clear in this year's US elections.
The win was really momentous following the months of reporting and predictions by media that Clinton would be the first woman president.
Instead, the elections became a referendum on US President Barack Obama as well as the left wing and mainstream media and the establishments.
Now the US media have to rethink if their kind of journalism still works. And it is not only the US media but all the media in the world that should reflect on its role in covering the elections.
That the media should stop thinking that it is the establishment that influences the will of the people. These days media is one of the establishments not trusted by the people as seen in this year's elections.
Jim Duhon's friend Ronnie Dennis (his veteran buddy) would agree and say that the media is dishonest and arrogant. Of course I would argue with him that a bad press is better than no press at all but at always he would say his impression of their media. “It is dishonest- they aren’t honest. If they could not report facts then they should stop,” he said.
The media got slapped hard as the winning margin between Trump and Clinton at the electoral college was substantial. It was a household vote. It was the working American.
Trump didn't have the kind of media coverage his opponent had. He was talking directly to the people. His message resonated to the public.
Trump's constituency, the rural people who were not heard in the past made him win. They were as much a part of America as the people who read the papers, listen to the radio or watch TV and these people defied their opinions and logic.
Those described as deplorable, redneck, ignorant and racist are now being wooed back by the press to listen to them. Business is bad for the media.
It is also bad for the polyesters and it is bad for everyone except those who believe in the real power of the people. It is becoming the norm of the day to clamor for change and it is becoming a movement.
The truism to that adage that “you can fool the people one time but not all the times” is become a reality. The New Times apology may be too little, too late but it might be an admission that something is wrong with their brand of journalism.
This can work too in the Philippines- at times or many times the agenda is being set at the newsroom and the press is becoming an establishment too.
It is said that the press in the Philippines is the fourth estate following the three branches of the government. Just maybe that is why the press is thinking that they too are endowed with that constitution given power.
Media or maybe individual journalists think they wield this power in their hands. But with what is happening right now the press might re think again the reason why they work and for whom.
The last part of the letter is that the New York Times aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times Journalism. After the New York Times apology, who is going to follow next?
