By Dan Kennedy • Tracking the future of local news and other passions since 2005
On the new “Beat the Press with Emily Rooney,” we look at Don Lemon’s arrest, when journalists should (and shouldn’t) use the word “murder,” looming cuts at The Washington Post, and transitions for Scot Lehigh, who’s retiring from The Boston Globe, and David Brooks, who’s moving from The New York Times to The Atlantic. With Emily, Scott Van Voorhis and me — plus a big assist from producer Tonia Magras.
A couple of big moves to catch you up on in the world of newspaper punditry.
First, David Brooks is leaving The New York Times, where he’s been a center-right columnist for the past 22 years. He’ll be taking a job as a staff writer and podcaster for The Atlantic, where he’s already a contributor. He’s also joining Yale University as a Presidential Senior Fellow at the Jackson School of Global Affairs. Presumably he’ll continue as a commentator for the “PBS NewsHour.” Brooks wrote a rather downbeat farewell column today, saying in part:
We have become a sadder, meaner and more pessimistic country. One recent historical study of American newspapers finds that public discourse is more negative now than at any time since the 1850s. Large majorities say our country is in decline, that experts are not to be trusted, that elites don’t care about regular people. Only 13 percent of young adults believe America is heading in the right direction. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say they do not believe in the American dream.
Second, and closer to home, Scot Lehigh is retiring from The Boston Globe, where he’s worked for the past 36 years. Lehigh has been a columnist for the opinion pages for most of that time, and had been on leave while finishing his second novel. Before that, Lehigh was a political reporter for The Boston Phoenix (we did not intersect) and was a finalist for a 1989 Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign. Lehigh, too, has a farewell column up today, and he says (sub. req.):
[O]nce you reach your mid-60s, you become acutely aware that time isn’t limitless and if you want to try different things, you have to saddle up and sally forth. And so I’m sallying. I had just enough luck with my first novel, “Just East of Nowhere,” a coming-of-age story set in Maine, that I’m attempting a more ambitious novel.
Mid-60s? Scot is a mere child.
Lehigh’s moderate-liberal voice will be missed, and I wish him the best on a long and productive retirement. Brooks isn’t retiring, and, since I’m already an Atlantic subscriber, I’ll continue to be a reader.
Following the horrific deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of ICE agents, I’ve seen a lot of references to the words “murder” and “execution.” On Tuesday, The New York Times addressed when it’s appropriate for journalists to use those terms. So, this morning, a brief lesson on journalistm ethics.
As standards editor Susan Wessling explains, both of those words have a specific legal definition, which means that the Times doesn’t use them outside of those definitions. She writes:
Readers might see references elsewhere to the “murder” of Mr. Pretti or Ms. Good, but that word has a clear and significant meaning in law enforcement and the legal system. We do not use it unless a formal charge has been made or a court has found that a killing was, indeed, a murder.
We also hear from those who want to see the word “execution” in our news report. But that, too, has a distinct definition — putting someone to death as a legal penalty — and we don’t want to dilute its meaning by using it when that’s not the case.
Now, we all know that those words have generic, everyday meanings as well as precise legal definitions. In the generic sense, to “murder” someone is to kill them deliberately, which is a judgment call that lay people can make, even if it doesn’t hold up in a court of law. In that sense someone might say that ICE agent Jonathan Ross murdered Renee Good, or that Border Patrol officers murdered Alex Pretti, even though the shooters might be found guilty in court of a lesser charge such a manslaughter — or acquitted, or never charged. There’s also an everyday meaning to “execute” other than carrying out the death penalty.
In practice, I try to be careful not to use “murder” unless I’m describing a criminal charge or verdict. For instance, I referred to former police officer Derek Chauvin as having “killed” George Floyd until Chauvin was convicted. After the verdict, it wasn’t just generically true but legally adjudicated that Chauvin had in fact committed murder. I’m less careful with “execute,” and I regard “execution” as a valid description of how Pretti was killed.
The Associated Press Stylebook, which many news organizations use, has an entry for “homicide, murder, manslaughter” that reads:
Do not say that a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was killed, stabbed to death, etc.
Use caution in the phrasing charged with murdering; not everyone charged with murder is accused of the act of shooting, stabbing, etc. An alternative, in such cases, is charged in the murder of …
That’s an interesting observation about using “charged in the murder of” rather than “charged with murder.” If I were a copy editor, as I was at one time in my career, I would probably be guided by what specific behavior the defendant had been accused of. To go back to my earlier example, “Chauvin was charged with murder” would be both generically and legally accurate.
Here’s what the AP says about “execute, execution”: “To execute a person is to kill that person in compliance with a military order or judicial decision.” The guide also cautions against referring to an “execution-style” killing: “Avoid use of this term to describe how people are killed, since it means different things to different people. Be specific as to how the person was killed, if that information is necessary.”
Now, you might ask whether the Times and the AP Stylebook are too specific to journalism, and if it’s all right for non-journalists to use those terms in everyday speech or on social media. As it happens, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (which, by the way, is what the AP Stylebook instructs journalists to use for issues that aren’t covered in its own guide) backs up the stylebook on “murder” but is more permissive on “execute.”
“Murder,” according to Merriam-Webster, is “the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person.” To “execute” a person is “to put (someone) to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence.” I take that “especially” to mean that we are free to use “execute” and “execution” in the generic sense if the facts fit what happened — at least according to Merriam-Webster if not the AP Stylebook.
Follow my Bluesky newsfeed for additional news and commentary. And please join my Patreon for just $6 a month. You’ll receive a supporters-only newsletter every Thursday.
Semafor reported on Jan. 3 that The New York Times and The Washington Post learned of the pending U.S. raid on Venezuela shortly before it began but held off reporting on it “to avoid endangering US troops.”
Now Times executive editor Joe Kahn says it’s not true, at least with regard to his paper. He chose an unusually low-key forum in which to push back — in a response to a reader question in The Morning Newsletter. Here’s the relevant part of his answer (sub. req.). The boldface is mine, not his.
We reported on U.S. missions targeting Venezuela, including boat strikes and preparation for land-based military action, in considerable detail for several months. Our Pentagon, national-security and intelligence-agency beat reporters talked repeatedly with their sources about heightened preparations for bolder action against the Venezuelan leadership. Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration….
While not relevant in this case, The Times does consult with the military when there are concerns that exposure of specific operational information could risk the lives of American troops. We take those concerns seriously, and have at times delayed publication or withheld details if they might lead to direct threats to members of the military. But in all such cases, we make our editorial decisions independently. And we have often published accountability and investigative stories about military and intelligence operations and national-security decision making that government officials pressed us to withhold.
Last week I wrote about the parallels between Venezuela and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, noting that the Times was accused of withholding key details. I cited research I did as a Boston University graduate student in the 1980s that showed the Times actually published what it knew and held back only on aspects of the story it couldn’t verify. The parallels between then and now may be even closer than I realized.
I don’t believe that the Post has responded to the Semafor story, which has not been corrected or amended.
The New York Times and The Washington Post learned about U.S. plans to attack Venezuela shortly before the raid began, according to Max Tani and Shelby Talcott of Semafor. But they declined to run with the story “to avoid endangering US troops, two people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations said.”
The decision was reminiscent of the legend over how the Times reported on an imminent U.S.-backed invasion of Cuba in 1962, which I’ll get to in a few moments.
But first, regarding the Venezuela decision: Right call or wrong call? As the Semafor story notes, the decision was “in keeping with longstanding American journalistic traditions.” Independent media commentator Margaret Sullivan writes that she’s torn and asks her readers to weigh in. At the Columbia Journalism Review, Jem Bartholomew leans toward yes they should have on the grounds that the Times and the Post knew the raid would violate international law.
The last thing I want to be doing on the Saturday morning before Christmas is writing about David Brooks’ undisclosed (by him) encounter with the notorious pedophile and sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. But it’s in the news, and there are plenty of people, especially on social media, who are demanding that the New York Times columnist and “PBS NewsHour” commentator be held accountable.
So let’s review the facts that have come out. As Jeremy Barr reported in The Guardian, photos released on Thursday by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reveal that Brooks attended a lunch or dinner where Epstein was present in 2011. Unlike photos of many other powerful men that have been released recently, there are no photos of Brooks actually with Epstein.
On the latest edition of the public radio program “On the Media,” co-host Micah Loewinger engages in a wonderfully contentious interview with right-wing influencer Cam Higby, a newly minted member of the Pentagon press corps. Higby is among a gaggle of MAGA promoters who’ve moved in after actual reporters walked out rather than sign Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s directive that they agree not to report any unauthorized news.
For most of his first term and now his second, Donald Trump has been deeply unpopular. Both The New York Times and polling analyst Nate Silver track his approval/disapproval ratings based on an average of polls.
As of Monday, Trump was at 55% disapprove/41% approve using the Times’ methodology. Silver has him at a nearly identical 55.4% disapproval/41% approval. There are others who do the same thing, but the Times and Silver may be the best known.
Yet despite everything, Trump’s numbers don’t move as much as you might think they would given the corrupt and chaotic nature of his presidency. Indeed, on Monday, Trump’s disapproval rating actually nudged down by a statistically insignificant amount, from 56% to 55%. And no matter what, a rock-solid minority of just over 40% sticks with him. How could this be?
This morning I’d like to suggest one possible explanation. I’m not a polling expert, but this is obvious and starting us right in the face. The Times’ average is based on a number of polls, some of which it regards as highly reliable, some of which it doesn’t. And, for the most part, Trump is doing considerably worse when measured solely by highly reliable polls.
For instance, the most recent Gallup poll shows Trump at minus 24, with 60% disapproving of his job performance and just 36% approving. The American Research Group has him at minus 27, with 62% approval/35% disapproval. Beacon Research/Shaw and Co. reports that Trump is at minus 17, Ipsos at minus 22.
Now, as I said, the Times showed Trump’s disapproval rating ticked down slightly on Monday. And when you look at the chart, you see that it’s because a poll from TIPP Insights was added to the mix. TIPP, which does not meet the Times’ criteria for reliability, had Trump at just minus 4, based on 43% approval/47% disapproval.
Some of the less reliable polls, especially YouGov, do show Trump with a disapproval gap as wide as the reliable polls. But when you scan down the list, you see a number of less reliable polls showing that Trump’s disapproval rating is on the narrow side — Morning Consult (minus 7), InsiderAdvantage (minus 5), Big Data Poll (minus 5) and RMG Research (minus 7).
As I said, I’m not a polling expert, and it’s likely that the Times has weighted the reliable polls more heavily than the more dubious surveys. But Gallup, in particular, has been the gold standard for generations, and maybe we ought to take them more seriously than an index that includes both the good and the bad.
Why does it matter? Because if Trump is losing support, then the likelihood increases that House and Senate Republicans will be willing to stand up to him at least occasionally. Until recently, the Republicans have been utterly craven, cheering enthusiastically for Trump’s every incoherent pronouncement.
But now we’re starting to see a little movement. Marjorie Taylor Greene is one sign. Another is that Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker the other day actually referred to Pete Hegseth as the “secretary of defense” rather than his cosplay role as the “secretary of war.”
Here we go again. It’s the last day of the month, and I haven’t shared all of my gift links to The New York Times. Use ’em or lose ’em. These should continue to work for some time to come; what matters is when I post them, not when you access them. So here we go.
A well-known Boston Globe byline will soon be appearing in The New York Times. Mark Arsenault, who came to the Globe in 2010, has been hired by the Times to report on education. He’ll leave the paper on Oct. 30.
An email to the staff from editor Nancy Barnes and deputy managing editor Francis Storrs, forwarded to me by a trusted source, says in part:
Mark started at the Globe’s DC bureau in 2010, and has been based in the Boston office since 2011. Amazingly prolific and adaptable, he’s covered Congress and politics, teen suicide, the rise of the state casino industry, national parks, and the US-Canada trade war, to name just a few subjects. He worked for years on the Spotlight Team, including on projects about men imprisoned for life, the housing crisis, an ousted MIT professor, and about patients who died amid the Steward Health Care collapse. He reported on the Marathon Bombing, as part of the Globe staff that won a Pulitzer, and was on the Steward team that recently won a Loeb, among many other honors.
Arsenault’s recent Globe stories include a report from the border (sub. req.) between Calais, Maine, and St. Stephen, New Brunswick, on how residents in both communities were faring during Donald Trump’s second term, and a story on the long-running battle (sub. req.) between Trump and the Pritzker family. Penny Pritzker, a senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, has helped lead that university’s fight against Trump’s depredations.