Im-Politic: The New York Times Flunks an Accountability Test

A little over a week ago, I slammed The New York Times for running an opinion column containing blockbuster charges that not even its own news staff has found the slightest bit credible.  This morning, I need to go after the world’s most influential newspaper for another case of journalistic malpractice – refusing to correct a major factual mistake in a high profile “news analysis” piece.

Writing in a report previewing the latest U.S.-China summit published on the print edition’s front page on May 13, veteran national security correspondent David E. Sanger claimed that as President Trump approached the meeting, “the American trade deficit with China has continued to surge….”  

That’s pretty important given that reducing the overall U.S. trade deficit has been a major Trump priority, and that the gap in goods with China remains one of the largest run by America with any single country or even entire region.  Sanger’s clear implication:  On this ground, Mr. Trump’s policies were failing.

It’s true that I can’t actually know Sanger’s intentions.  But what I (along with everyone else) can know is that the above statement was flat-out false.  In fact, as of the latest official U.S. data available to Sanger (and everyone else), which came out barely a week before his article, on a year-to-date basis, through this past April, this trade shortfall had narrowed by more than half (52.72 percent to be exact).   

And for good measure, the single official trade report released since then shows that this trend has remained fully intact.      

So on May 27, I called this mistake to The Times corrections department in an email.  Which was very respectfully phrased.

My conclusion?  “Since for many months, the actual trade situation between the U.S. and China has been completely different from Mr. Sanger’s description, I trust you will understand the importance of correcting the record.”

A little later that day, I got a form email back from the department saying, “We appreciate readers who share their feedback and help us report thoroughly and accurately,” and promising that “your message will reach the appropriate editor or reporter promptly. If we determine there is a correctable error, a correction will be appended to the article and published in print if necessary. Because of the volume of email we receive, we cannot respond individually to every query.”

Since I was sure that a big newspaper does get a lot of feedback (though hopefully not a lot of valid requests for corrections!), that seemed fine to me.

But as of last week – after about three weeks had passed – I wrote the corrections department again, noting that I had “thoroughly documented the nature of this mistake” made by Sanger but had received no response, “nor found any indication that this mistake has been corrected.”

I continued, “As I demonstrated, the case that Mr. Sanger erred is open and shut.   Given The Times‘ reputation for accuracy and accountability, I hope you will agree on the need to publish a correction as soon as possible – or to provide me with an explanation of why you believe that no correction is needed at all.

Later that day, I received a second form letter response identical to the first.

So with eleven days having now passed without hearing anything further from The Times, I felt that the paper no longer deserved a chance to make amends on its own, and to make public this example of its indifference to accuracy.

Since 1897, The Times has proudly declared that it contains “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”  A simple Google search will reveal the many times it’s (as has been the case with legacy and new media news organizations alike) fallen short of that goal.  But my own experience indicates that The Times’ accountability standards have weakened, too, because it’s clearly shown that it doesn’t view all corrections – even of whoppers like Sanger’s – as fit to print, either.