A controversial essay written by former New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet in The Economist is generating lots of buzz and criticism due to his contention that a culture of “illiberalism” has infected The Times.
If you care about the future of journalism and liberal democracy, ignore Bennet’s message at your peril.
In case you’ve forgotten, Bennet was pushed out of his job in 2020, after greenlighting an op-ed written by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), which argued that the U.S. military should be called in to quell violence if local law enforcement needed support. This, in turn, led The Times’ union to decry publication of the piece as “a clear threat to the health and safety of the journalists we represent.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The case for publication was simple: Cotton was a U.S. Senator who had then-President Donald Trump’s ear. He was also talking about a timely and relevant topic, and (for better or worse) his position was popular with many Americans. This is to say that Cotton’s take was relevant and, daresay, newsworthy. And, again, this was an opinion piece.
Bennet’s goal, though, is not merely to relitigate the past, but—more importantly—to warn his colleagues about a new brand of journalists who believe their (social justice) ends justify their (coercive) means.
These “illiberal journalists,” Bennet explains, are “more concerned with group rights than individual rights, which they regard as a bulwark for the privileges of white men.” Additionally, they “have seen the principle of free speech used to protect right-wing outfits,” and “do not believe readers can be trusted with potentially dangerous ideas or facts.” Bennet also notes that “The term ‘objectivity’ to them is code for ignoring the poor and weak and cosying up to power, as journalists often have done.”
Predictably, this rankled some progressive opinion leaders.
Critics of Bennet can attack him on the grounds of identity politics, or say he is merely settling old scores. Likewise, they can point to conservative columnists and positions taken at the outlet as an attempt to undermine his premise. But none of that refutes what Bennet is describing. Bennet does not allege that The Times never publishes conservative viewpoints, but that it heavily skews progressive, and that the biases of young progressives in the newsroom too often bleed into the opinion section.
One needn’t agree with every point Bennet makes, but—three-and-a-half-years after his resignation—it’s hard to argue that he is some sort of right-wing culture warrior, or that he has tried to monetize his cancellation. Instead, Bennet is, to borrow a phrase, “credibly accusing” The Times of attempting to limit discourse on opinion pages, and effectively censoring it, via bullying tactics.
Those of us who care about the future of journalism should avoid the temptation to reflexively dismiss his criticism. Instead, we should admit that he has a point, and admit that we are losing (by “we,” I mean small “l” liberals who care about things like norms and institutions).
As populist forces on the right have sought to discredit outlets like The Times, labeling mainstream media outlets as “fake news,” too many of these institutions have behaved in ways that reinforce the charge. Old-school liberalism espoused open mindedness, diversity, and tolerance, but nowadays, it would be hard to keep track of the number of contrarian or unorthodox ideas that were wrongly dismissed (and, in some cases, censored) as conspiracy theories by today’s progressive media elites.
As Bennet notes, “The Times was slow to break it to its readers that there was less to Trump’s ties to Russia than they were hoping, and more to Hunter Biden’s laptop, that Trump might be right that covid came from a Chinese lab, that masks were not always effective against the virus, that shutting down schools for many months was a bad idea.”
This is pretty clear evidence that reporters and editors at the newspaper of record are allowing political bias to render them unable to spot uncomfortable truths that run counter to their politics. No wonder so many Americans tune them out.
The people who think limiting the discourse and shielding people are going to work are wrong. Not only is it going to fail, it already has. What is more, Bennet’s warnings, rightly understood, transcend not just The Times, but the media.
Bennet recalls meetings with fellow leaders at the paper, where they would sit around and lament the proliferation of illiberal journalists. “Inevitably,” he writes, “these bitch sessions would end with someone saying a version of: ‘Well, at some point we have to tell them this is what we believe in as a newspaper, and if they don’t like it they should work somewhere else.’”
That moment never came. Instead, the illiberal journalists swamped the most important mainstream media outlet in America—just like the illiberal MAGA forces overcame the Republican Party establishment without much of a fight.
This is clearly a trend. And if you think the Democratic Party is immune, we are seeing this right now in the White House, where interns are rebuking President Joe Biden’s handling of the Gaza war.
Meanwhile, the bubble Bennet describes at The Times looks eerily similar to what we are seeing at our most prestigious universities. And just as middle America has increasingly tuned out the mainstream media, they are likewise losing faith in a college education.
Whether it’s on the left or the right, too many of the “adults” in the establishment are too timid or impotent to tell young staffers, subscribers, or interns (or Ivy League students) “no.” Instead, they are appeased, which, as the saying goes, is sort of like feeding a crocodile and hoping he eats you last.
James Bennet’s essay is a clarion call. Anyone who wants to preserve our liberal institutions had better start fighting back—and fast.
