Why Is The New York Times So Full Of Itself?

A continuing series.

The New York Times is more than a little peeved with President Joe Biden — specifically current publisher A.G. Sulzberger, whose family has run the Times since 1896, when the crossword wasn’t yet the main attraction.

Last May, Vice President Kamala Harris met with about 40 Times reporters and Sulzberger wasted a good portion of her valuable time demanding that she explain why Biden wouldn’t grant the Times — or any major newspaper — an interview. This was insulting because Harris isn’t Biden’s keeper. She correctly steered Sulzberger to the White House press office.

Politico reported in detail last week about the “petty feud between the NYT and the White House.” Pushing back on the article, which made Sulzberger appear simultaneously pathetic and vainglorious, the Times issued an entitled statement that reeked of unjustified self-importance.

“[I]n meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability.

That is why Mr. Sulzberger has repeatedly urged the White House to have the president sit down with The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, CNN and other major independent news organizations that millions of Americans rely on to understand their government.”

Young Sulzberger, the fourteenth earl of Timesdom, conflates snubbing his publication with hiding from the press in an underground bunker. Biden has sat down with 60 Minutes, and ABC News’ David Muir interviewed him last year. Biden clearly doesn’t “avoid scrutiny and accountability.” He didn’t inherit his job.

---

---

Sulzberger reportedly believes that “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.” This is absurdly arrogant and conveniently ignores that it’s the Times itself that’s seemingly obsessed with Biden’s age and has made the unremarkable fact that he’s mortal front page news for most of his presidency. Now, Sulzberger insists that the only way Biden can repair the damage the Times helped create is to give the paper an interview. That’s not journalism. That’s a protection racket.

There are more effective ways of reaching the public now, and it’s interesting that the 81-year-old Biden understands this more than the 43-year-old Sulzberger. In an article otherwise focused on Trump’s disturbing Time magazine interview, the Times couldn’t resist snidely noting that “the president’s two most recently released interviews have been on The Howard Stern Show and the comedy podcast SmartLess.”

What good is the New York Times?

Thanks in part to the Times’ dedicated coverage, Biden’s age is truly a concern for many voters, who apparently haven’t noticed that Donald Trump is just as old and completely deranged.

However, a Times interview wouldn’t alleviate this problem. The Times has an aging subscriber base that is older, richer, whiter, and more liberal than the rest of America — and not the cool liberalism, but the snottier, sherry-drinking style that still believes Maureen Dowd is a good read. This is bluntly put not a useful audience for Biden or any Democrat who needs to motivate the youth vote and engage working-class voters of all races, specifically Black and Latino Americans. Stern’s audience, while including upscale professionals, is much younger. Biden looked relaxed and normal on Stern. That is far more important than pleasing a member of the Royal Newspaper Family.

It’s encouraging to see Biden embracing new media and recognizing where his voters are most likely to hear his message. Biden could answer every question in a newspaper interview sharply and comprehensively but his words and actions would remain subject to reporters’ interpretation. If he did well, Republicans would just insist that the “liberal” media’s covering for him. That’s harder to sell when his interview is televised for normal people to watch. Sure, Republicans and spurned Times staffers suggested that Stern only served Biden “softball” questions but persuadable voters saw an engaged, relatable president.

Sulzberger points out that Trump has given the Times several interviews, despite ranting constantly about the “failing New York Times.” Sulzberger contends that if Trump could submit to a Pulitzer-worthy interrogation, then so can Biden. His logic is incredibly faulty. He won’t acknowledge what’s obvious to anyone else — the Times is far more aggressive and downright hostile to Biden than it ever was to Trump. This is the same New York Times than ran a ridiculous article from reporter Rebecca Davis O’Brien that claimed, without a shred of evidence or dignity, that the “age issue” was “hurting” Biden more than Trump. Why should Biden bother with their peculiar brand of political journalism? That’s like willingly going into the empty room in Goodfellas to get “made.”

Trump and Republicans in general need the Times’ white moderate, Manhattan “liberal” audience. They play nice for a few thousand words and appear “reasonable” to their donor base. Meanwhile, they go on Fox News and foam at the mouth. The Times doesn’t have a great record at holding Trump and Republicans accountable during these interviews, either. The first Times interview with Trump after he won the 2016 election was flat-out embarrassing. They treated Trump like he was just granted membership into a private club. They had already begun the process of normalizing him and reassuring Americans that now that the campaign was over, he’d play by the rules. He was in a room full of journalists and there’s not a single “code red” moment. Sulzberger was present for this co-op board interview and didn’t come close to seriously challenging Trump.

SULZBERGER: … We had a very nice meeting in the Churchill Room. You’re a Churchill fan, I hear?

TRUMP: I am, I am.

SULZBERGER: There’s a photo of the great man behind you.

TRUMP: There was a big thing about the bust that was removed out of the Oval Office.

SULZBERGER: I heard you’re thinking of putting it back.

TRUMP: I am, indeed. I am.

SULZBERGER: Wonderful.

The Churchill bust was never removed from the Oval Office. It was always in the Residence, outside the Treaty Room. The Obama White House debunked this persistent rumor at length in 2012. Stern would’ve called out Trump’s lies in real time because he’s fundamentally a better interviewer than Sulzberger.

Trump’s February 2019 interview with Sulzberger, Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman (who he’s called “Maggot Hagerman”) was another waste of time.

HABERMAN: You’ve talked about the sacrifice that this has presented for yourself, for your family, being president. For your business. Could you ever see a point in the next year where you say, “You know what, I don’t need to do this again, I don’t need to run for re-election”?

TRUMP: I don’t see it, because — so I just gave you a list of a lot of the things we’ve done. And this list isn’t even complete. I don’t even know if you have it.

HABERMAN: No, I have it. I’ve got it.

TRUMP: Just grab it. Reading material for the night. I’ve actually had, because they’ve done things that are artificial. So there’s been more of a burden on me than other presidents.

It was a known fact by this point that the Trump family shamelessly profited from the presidency. Trump and his daughter Ivanka (remember her?) and son-in-law Jared Kushner had reported income in excess of $500 million just the previous year. John Harwood at CNBC wrote, “Predecessors like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush put their assets in blind trusts to avoid conflicts between their financial interests and the public interest. Trump did not. He announced in January 2017 that he would step away from his businesses by putting his sons Donald Jr. and Eric in charge of them. But he stepped away only from their management, not their profits. As president, Trump has promoted those businesses with his presence relentlessly. During his first 514 days in office, he visited Trump properties on 159 of them.”

Check out this exchange related to Trump’s former “fixer” Michael Cohen, who at the time was about to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

BAKER: Can I ask, speaking of Mr. Cohen, you’ve said that investigators should be looking at his father-in-law. What did you mean by that?

TRUMP: Well, that’s what I’ve heard. I’ve heard his father-in-law was — I’m not saying investigation.

______________

BAKER: Can I ask, on the record, what’s the purpose of saying that? Some people are wondering whether or not this kind of thing might count as witness tampering, that you’re kind of publicly —

TRUMP: It’s not witness tampering. It’s not witness tampering at all. It’s not witness tampering.

BAKER: What’s your purpose, then? Help us understand that.

Baker’s acting more like a very indulgent parent who just wants his kids to explain why the house is a wreck after he left them home for the weekend. It’s obvious they had a party with beer and something stronger, but Baker is willing to accept any alternate theory that’s remotely plausible.

I think the Stern interview and the SmartLess podcast episode with Biden, Obama, and Bill Clinton are far more compelling and thoughtful than anything the Times could offer us if they interviewed Biden (Sample Question: “Why are you insisting on aging against the voters’ express wishes?”) Sulzberger has his own snooty idea of what it means to help Americans “understand their government,” and he’s welcome to his opinion. Unfortunately, his execution has consistently failed.

Follow Stephen Robinson on Bluesky and Threads.

Subscribe to his YouTube channel for more fun content.