New York Times vs. Joe Biden

• The column expresses the writer’s own views.

American presidents’ relationship with the media has always been complicated. America’s very first president, George Washington, hated how the newspapers referred to him. His successor, John Adams, perhaps hated the newspapers even more. And the third president of the United States, Thomas Jeffersonwho himself was a newspaper owner – was also occasionally skeptical of how the media of the time behaved.¹

Too much food

And so it has continued. Although some presidents have apparently had a good relationship with the media – or at least with select journalists – there have always been frictions.

Something it should be. If the relationship becomes too close and cozy, some people are not doing their job. Much of the coverage of John F. Kennedywho had several high-profile journalists as close friends, probably belongs in this category.²

At the same time, open war is not necessarily the best solution.

Many predicted – or perhaps hoped – that the White House and the media would have a better relationship with each other after four years of Donald Trump
as president. In some areas it has probably also improved, in other areas the development has not gone in that direction.

Trump referred to the media as “enemies of the people,” but he talked to them. Appeared for interviews. His successor, Joe Biden, likes to talk about how important the media are. But he rarely talks to them. Since he was installed as president in 2021, he has hardly appeared in interviews with any of the major American media. It has sometimes created a bad atmosphere.

The relationship between the Biden administration and the New York Times (NYT) appears to be particularly bad. Something that comes out, among other things, in a large Politico article: “The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House”, published just before the turn of the month.

What should have particularly irritated, and still irritates the newspaper, is that Biden has not sat down to give them a major interview. All US presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have done this. But not Biden.

Now it is not the case that Biden has stood up for so many other major media either. In the course of just over three years, he is said to have only set aside time for large interviews of this type twice; the Associated Press news agency has obtained an interview, as has the New Yorker. TV stations are not prioritized either. Even the traditional televised interview before the Super Bowl, which this year was broadcast on CBS, Biden declined.

Other major media have also been refused by the president: CNN, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, the Washington Post and more.

But Biden has given some interviews. He has chosen to appear in selected podcasts. In media that target minority groups. In talk shows. And finally, a big interview with the radio personality Howard Stern.

The Tiktok President

Biden & co. also uses a lot of resources on social media. Including Tiktok, which may face an uncertain future in the US, something Biden himself has contributed to by signing the bill that passed the US Congress.

The fact that he chooses to run in settings where the questions he is asked are not as tough has not put a damper on the dispute between the Biden administration and the major media houses – and especially the NYT.

The previously mentioned Politico article provides an interesting insight into what resembles a sandbox war. Where the NYT sometimes appears pompous and gives the impression that Biden almost owes them to run, the Biden people respond that the NYT is no longer important to them. That other channels matter more. That the NYT is a product for the elite, and not “ordinary people”, which Biden wants to reach.

Of the more humorous kind, the Politico article tells of an incident where a NYT journalist misunderstood an employee in the communications department of the White House. The quote he received was supposed to be attributed to “a person in the administration”, but by mistake the person in question was named.

Many angry phone calls later, the communications department sends out an email asking the NYT to confirm that in the future they will comply with the administration’s rules on background information. The NYT Washington bureau chief never responded to this email. Possibly in defiance. The result was that the NYT journalists no longer received background information from the White House. It took eleven months to resolve this conflict.

Free press, but…

– The Democrats believe in the importance of a free press to maintain our democracy, and the NYT was for generations an important defender of the fourth state power, says Kate Berner to Politico.

Berner worked on Biden’s 2020 campaign and then as White House deputy director of communications before leaving her post last year.

– The frustration with the Times is sometimes so intense because the Times fails in its important responsibility, she continues.

This may be the key to some of the bad relationship, according to the Politico article. Many in the Biden administration see the upcoming presidential election as an existential choice for the country, where the whole of democracy is at stake. Something they think the media – and the NYT in particular – underplays.

Many in the administration also react strongly to the newspaper’s focus on Biden’s age in a number of articles, and the fact that the NYT has also discussed problematic aspects related to the son Hunter Biden’s various business escapades. Articles that the Biden people think are derailments from what really matters. And that the newspaper thereby contributes to spreading conspiracy theories.

– They are not realistic with regard to what we do in this job, says Elizabeth Bumillerhead of the Washington editorial staff of the NYT, to Politico.

She adds:

– You can be a force for democracy, for a liberal democracy. You don’t have to be a force for the Biden administration.

Not tough enough?

And in response to those who think the NYT is not tough enough on Trump, Bumiller replies:

– We haven’t been tough enough on Trump? Now they have to give up. Have they read our coverage?

Editor-in-Chief of the NYT, Joe Kahnadds in an interview with Semafor that it is not the media’s job to stop Trump from being elected president again:

– It is Biden and the people around Biden’s task to prevent that from happening.

The NYT journalist Peter Baker has extensive experience covering various presidents. He says in the Politico article that all the administrations he has written about have complained about the work he does.

– But because of Trump, there is this new assumption that the New York Times and other media will put their weight on the scales and choose a side, and we don’t.

Incidentally, Baker is one of the NYT journalists who has really annoyed the Biden people. Not least his coverage of precisely Biden’s age.

However, there is one quote in the Politico article that has attracted the most attention in American press circles. A little over halfway into the long article, an anonymous NYT journalist is quoted as saying the following:

– All these Biden people think the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day.

But, he continues:

– It is AG He is the one who is annoyed that Biden has not done any interviews and who quietly encourages all the tough coverage of his age.

AG is AG SulzbergerNYT’s publisher and chairman.

– Incorrect

Several high-profile NYT journalists have loudly stated on social media that this is not true. According to them, Sulzberger would never have instructed the editors to do such a thing. Nor have any of them heard him do it. Among others previously mentioned Baker.

Dylan Byers, who covers the media industry for Puck, points out that if what the quote insinuates is correct, then the Politico journalist should not have placed the quote so far down in the article, but made sure to get it confirmed from multiple sources – and angle the case on this. That’s how sensational he thinks it is.

Certain answers came quickly to the management

Nevertheless, it is the Biden administration that he believes will come out worst from the case in Politico:

“The Biden team’s anxiety over the Times’ coverage points to another, less-appreciated truth: Even in an era of disintermediation, the Times still often sets the agenda and plays an instrumental role in shaping the national narrative .”

He points out that the newspaper with its 10 million subscribers in practice has a much greater reach. Not least because other media largely base their journalism on what the NYT chooses to cover. Something the Biden administration is very aware of.

“How else can one explain the Biden team’s obsession, and their childish attempts to influence the judges,” writes Dylan.

Wisely shut up

What do the main characters themselves say? Both Biden and Sulzberger wisely keep their mouths shut and let others speak for them. However, somewhat surprisingly, the NYT has issued a statement:

“For anyone who understands the role of a free press in a democracy, it should be concerning that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his tenure.”

The newspaper further points out that Biden has invited to fewer press conferences and appeared in fewer interviews than almost all of his predecessors.

“If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage, that is his right, and we will continue to cover him fully and fairly regardless,” it added.

And Biden? He appeared on Howard Stern the day after the NYT made its statement. Although the interview was certainly planned some time in advance, there is, if nothing else, a certain symbolism in the action.

***

1. “The Presidents vs. The Press – The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media from the Founding Fathers to Fake News” (2020), written by Harold Holzerprovides a good introduction.

2. John F. Kennedy also had his challenges with the press. Among other things, he made a point of canceling his subscription to the New York Herald Tribune, and the NYT’s Vietnam coverage prompted him to ask the paper to replace its correspondent David Halberstam. Something that probably contributed to Halberstam, who was also discussed internally in the NYT, being allowed to stay in the country for a while longer.

For those particularly interested: Columbia Journalism Review published last May a long essay by NYT publisher AG Sulzberger in which he touches on some of the same issues mentioned above: “Journalism’s Essential Value”.

“Middle-aged man about the media” is a regular Journalisten column. Read more columns here.