To NYT’s Peter Baker, Acknowledging Trans People’s Existence Is “Activism,” Openly Advocating for Perpetual U.S. Occupation of Afghanistan Isn’t
To NYT’s Peter Baker, Acknowledging Trans People’s Existence Is “Activism,” Openly Advocating for Perpetual U.S. Occupation of Afghanistan Isn’t
What is and isn’t “activism” depends entirely on how conservative the activism is.
The line between “journalism” and “activism” is a sacred, cherished one for elite reporters, just don’t ever ask them to define what either of these concepts mean. It’s more of a vibe, not a consistent set of principles they apply on a day-to-day basis.
Hundreds of current and former New York Times contributors, backed by the New York Times writers’ union, recently signed an open letter signed criticizing the Times’ miserable, inaccurate, and coy coverage on “trans issues.” (Disclosure: Technically I signed and am one? Not sure, it was web-only.) Today, dozens of more high-status Times reporters released their own open letter in response, effectively rejecting the premise and defending the alleged impartiality of their precious craft.
“Our duty is to be independent,” they wrote. “We pursue the facts wherever they may lead. We are journalists, not activists. That line should be clear.”
While I don’t have the time or resources to interrogate the political activism of everyone on this list, I do want to focus on New York Times Chief White House correspondent Peter Baker.
Baker was the subject of our first post on The Column in August 2021, because he relied largely—and without disclosure—on a board member of Raytheon to explain why Biden needed to stay in Afghanistan in perpetuity.
Indeed, the idea that Baker opposes “activism” is risible for anyone who follows his reporting output. Throughout the summer of 2021, Baker openly advocated for Biden to suspend his withdraw from Afghanistan, pushing out a non-stop torrent of scare stories and editorial content lobbying against the removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
Though he technically didn't preface all of these tweets, articles, and “analyses” with “This is my opinion and I agree with it,” a pattern certainly emerges:
We are to believe this isn’t activism.
We are also told his “news analysis” isn’t either:
The “News Analysis” vertical is one of the more fourth-wall-breaking concoctions in recent years, whereby Times editors allow their ostensibly straight reporters to veer into outright opinion writing under the guise of “analysis.” It’s a funny ideological dance where alleged impartiality is maintained through a strange “analysis” tone, but it’s clear the journalist in question is making a political point: in this case, very clearly, opposition to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan—a current of activism consistent with Baker.
As I noted in 2021, Baker has made a point of insisting he is entirely without politics, telling The New York Times in 2020:
“As reporters, our job is to observe, not participate, and so to that end, I don’t belong to any political party, I don’t belong to any non-journalism organization, I don’t support any candidate, I don’t give money to interest groups and I don’t vote. I try hard not to take strong positions on public issues even in private, much to the frustration of friends and family. For me, it’s easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong.”
See, Baker doesn’t even tell his wife his political opinion! Or Vote! He’s the Nagilum alien species from Star Trek, an other-dimensional being simply observing humanity for sport. But this rule clearly doesn’t apply to Baker’s writing, which frequently displays an obvious and unmistakable ideological bias. Which would be fine, if it weren’t for the fact that not having one was his entire smug brand. As Eric Alterman noted at The American Prospect in August of last year, Baker has mastered this editorial-as-straight news posture:
Baker’s story, headlined “Even on Biden’s Big Day, He’s Still in Trump’s Long Shadow,” is a master class in how to bend reality to one’s prejudices: prejudices that dominate the Times coverage of American politics and—the Times being what it is—set the tone for the rest of the respectable mainstream media… When a sentence contains an alleged fact stated in the passive voice, followed by one in which the major verb is the time-honored journalistic weasel word “seem,” you can bet the whole thing is likely bullshit. In fact, Baker was describing his own “feelings.” We can be grateful to learn that this is what the New York Times chief White House correspondent thinks is the most important aspect to report on with regard to legislation that will affect the lives of millions of people and represents the most significant legislative accomplishment by a president since Obamacare, and before that—well it’s hard to remember anything. But no matter: Not only is Baker interested exclusively in show-business-oriented horse-race-driven coverage, but he also bases this judgment entirely on his own imagination.
Those calling out the Times’ editorial bias in favor of helping stoke a broader narrative about trans rights infecting children and Going Too Far are said to be biased. Those hiding behind the cheeky, Above the Fray Reporter Voice, so long as they don’t lead off their articles and tweets with “this is my opinion,” are said to be neutral, bias-free agents of facts and truth. The whole charade is quite silly and insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Or at least it would be if the consequences for this continued sham weren’t running ideological pass block for the 340+ anti-LBGTQ bills making their way through state houses as we speak.