The Times They Are Not a'Changin'

Appearing on Hardball this evening, NYT political reporter Peter Baker was asked by Chris Matthews about Trump summoning Rosenstein and Wray to the White House to meet regarding the FBI source who met with Trump campaign officials in 2016. With right wing media in full attack mode in support of Trump applying pressure on those investigating him, Baker's immediate reaction was to draw a comparison to the tarmac meeting of Clinton with Obama's attorney general in 2016.

Is it really necessary in every single news piece and every single appearance on television for Peter Baker to write about current events - this time Trump - by drawing a comparison with "the other side"?

When the difference is far more significant than any similarity,  drawing any attention to an alleged similarity as a precondition to discussing the importance of differences creates a distracting and confusing frame around the event. The issue of the threat to rule of law in the U.S. is lost in that frame, regardless of a subsequent backtracking from the sentence that begins "Well, Clinton...".

Clinton was a former president in 2016. Trump is current president in 2018. The power differential is extreme. Any comparison that ignores that is ridiculous.

This forced balance of the NYT reporter only feeds the narrative championed by one "side", which creates a result that, in the end, is not exactly fair or balanced.

We should not be surprised by the NYT, exercising caution to such an extent, that the result is recklessness.

Two days ago, one of their early headlines to a story read thus



On some devices, the condensed headline was even worse, reading:
"Mueller to End Obstruction Inquiry by Sept. 1, Giuliani Says". Which does not have exactly the same meaning. And, for many readers, a quick gloss will give the impression - "oh, so that investigation will be ending by September 1...".

After a number of complaints, the latter headline morphed into something more like "Giuliani Claims Mueller Inquiry May End by Sept. 1". Rephrasing to lead with "Giuliani Claims..."is more accurate in several ways:
1. The first headline gives the false impression of a breaking story - the Mueller inquiry now has an end date! September 1! The source is less important. Happens to be Rudy Giuliani. Hmm. Wait a second.
2. OK, so there is no real breaking story, but if the NYT insists on pretending there is, they at least need to provide the proper frame. The only action is being taken by Giuliani (not Mueller). Giuliani  is out there talking, so begin the headline with Giuliani, not Mueller.
3. Giuliani is not just any source. He is acting on behalf of Trump who is known to lie constantly. By becoming a public spokesman for Trump, Giuliani is rendered potentially untrustworthy. When he makes a statement, it is a claim and needs to be called a claim.

So, good for the Times to revise the headline in response to criticism. But why didn't the Times get it right in the first place? When will they learn?