From the New York Times. I'm likable borrow. This is today in the time since the twenty sixteen presidential campaign, the media coverage of that race, has come to be criticised for operating under three key assumptions that Hillary Clinton My credit nomination was inevitable. She has no competition. These Donald Trump Republic, a nomination was unlike, could he actually work I know you. I believe that and that once clinic and Trot had become their parties nominees. She would win a hundred percent chance, you starvation. One hundred percent chance of winning elections. I do today with voting for twenty twenty to begin in Iowa on Monday,

the relation with the executive editor of the New York Times, dean bouquet about the lessons of twenty sixty its final, genuine thirty. First, ok, we're gonna start welcome to the daily studio. Mrs you're, this is my first time here and rest time here. Thank you. Thank you. So do you actually want to start in a kind of unexpected place, with a hiring announcement that the times made a few years back? So I'm gonna ask you to read this evening I am delighted to announce in Amy chosen will be joining our political team, with a special focus reporting on Hillary Clinton and clean family. Amy is an unusually gifted reporter, with unique ability to penetrate tight lipped institutions and delivered

Atheling in detail, tourists from within she's relax this and not easily intimidated. Her courage of news corporation, prompted Rupert Murdoch to collar personally to debate led him story, and I want you to do one more thing. Judges do me a favor and read the date on that announcement. July. Second, two thousand thirteen. So what does that mean to you? I mean we have been criticised for assigning a reporter to cover Hillary Clinton and cleanse very early long before I knew I was up, yeah yeah, of course, and if you look as a legitimate question, it really is legit question. Why is it because its highly unusual for news organization to annoy you anything she had announced at that point? It would be two years yes right decision to shed announced. I think most people thought she would be a candidate, but she had not announced and I get the criticism So let me talk about a little bit in the criticism is by focusing Her so early

We were anointing her, the democratic nominee there. We were saying to the world at the New York Times, looked at the field of possible candidates and thought Hillary Clinton was the one that we should start covering two years for she announces long before it but he has announced and, secondly, will inevitably setting ourselves up to write your stories about her even before she declared, but mainly, I think the criticism is we were saying to the world in your times thanks. Hillary Clinton is gonna, be the democratic now many flight and probably the present. They created yeah forever. The error of inevitability. Try I you know. I thought a lot about the decision. I mean I was the managing editor at the time, but that means I offer on the newsroom. I actually don't think assigning somebody to her. That early was a mistake. The Clinton power structure it represented a certain arm.

Democratic Party in repose, and also it was inevitable that Hillary Clinton would it be a large player on american stage for years to come do you not think it was a mistake to put a reporter on Hillary Clinton, so early essentially ensures a candidate year waiting. On. The Clinton's writ large were yet would be my case, but it, but I'm also sitting by the way that it has down here with a pan and looked at stories at the time. I would edit more carefully to make that we did not give a sense of inevitability, but I don't think we must something. Do acknowledge that Such a move. Functions. Clubs Logically, as a signal of yes, this is likely to be a front runner likely to be not only. This is likely to be first woman, brother and in fact, by the way, all there was true she did become a front runner. She did become How many so I can make the argument, in fact, that it wasn't a crazy choice to select her, but I don't wanna talk about causes

quest writing chicken and egg? In view of our come, of course- and you mentioned dean- that if you have the opportunity, Michael back every added a bit yes and war and give you a little bit, for two neglected you out here. I was doing then so. Two years later, in April, of twenty fifteen Amy chose a great story. Saint Clinton is indeed running for present and she writes in the opening line, and I'm read thus ending two years of speculation and coy denials. Hillary Clinton announced on Sunday that she would seek the president, for a second time immediately establishing herself as the likely twenty sixteen democratic nominee now, we're actually kind of say, you're, the man and it's interesting because I dont remember noticing anything about this at the time. But now it really does kind of jump out to me that we are. Writing the danger. He enters the race that she is the likely nominal. In retrospect, I

I will wait for we have written there a little bit differently. Yes, of course, it jumped right to horse race and by the way I am not blaming Amy. Of course nothing yet! Look! If I, if I had to added that story all over again. I would have turned down the inevitability, of course. Yes, I would, if I would, how to make it seem like Hillary Clinton is announcing she's going to get. It got a little bit of a ton of that I would do differently sure. So I want to compare the Clinton announcement to what happens when a challenger to Clinton enter the race that same month and when everything and ask you to read the in the story, the highlighted portion that are calling Ellen RAP. Road. I can guess this one guy pisses their highlight a fortune. Senator Bernie Sanders the Vermont Independent announced through see that he was running for president as a Democrat, injecting a progressive voice into the contest and providing Hilary Random Clinton was our first official rival for the parties. Nomination keep going just like a boy,

the fanfare that several republicans have chosen so far when announcing their candidacies missed Sanders issued a statement, supporters that laid out as goals reducing income, inequality, addressing climate change and scaling back the influence of money in politics quote after a year of travel, discussion and dialogue, I'm just to be a candidate for the democratic nomination. President, Mr Santer said in an email, early thirsty, Mr Sam His beard is considered a longshot, but his unflinching commitment to stance is popular with the left, such as opposing foreign, military interventions and reining in big banks could force MRS Clinton to address these issues more deeply. What do you think when I think that's a greatly you do yeah? I think that's a greatly. I think that captures what happened. It captures the role he played here

inject a progressive voice, he did have a dramatic impact on the election. We quoted him. We talked about the role he would play. We in four paragraphs. I read the horses to reorient, we talked about the shoes that he cared about most it. To me a little less horse race. And when you say why are you an emphasis on? Yes? Yes, yes, it is. The second paragraph doesn't say: he's up is down. And then I think this is. I think this is a you know, if I'm re editing, I think the Syria would change let look. I agree with you to a point, but for me it's that final sends missed, Sanders bid is considered a longshot linger on that word logic, but his unflinching commitment to stand Parker with left could force MRS Clinton to address those issues. But so that framing looking back now yeah it feels a little pre emptive call someone a longshot the day they entered race, but I'm especially noticing that we care of years his Kennedy as kind of animal.

Over simplified, but as existing in a way that shape Hillary Clinton had criticism. I think, could naturally arise from that and a frustration in the Sanders world that the media is characterizing him. Is this thing? That's gonna needle her this distant possibility. That be honest, doesn't really stand that much of a chair near and then does What will embedded in there? You will, let me say two things. First, he was a longshot, and here I can pull back recycling just talking about journalism. Journalism is by its very nature, is, is flawed and one is a flawed, is also great, and also for my money, the most beautifully designed way of communication imaginable and is nothing like it in the world, but there are built in full. Ass. The floors are, you do have to tell people what to think most Americans had not heard of Bernie Sanders. Most Americans had heard of Hillary Clinton

and while I acknowledge that we went too far in making her seem inevitable, Sanders was a guy from a small state who the democratic socialist, which is not a perspective that Americans have been known to embrace, I actually think it would have been sort of weird to not pull up and say this guy's, a long shot. I do think we have an obligation and I think we met with the story, because we also told you what he stood for a ride, That's the main thing and you can decide whether you want him to be a longshot. I think an obligation to pull back in the moment and say here best, something out of where we think this person stay right, and I think that was accurate. An understanding, contemporaneous understandings are by definition of family. Yes, that's right, bud, ward choice and language are in

ring writer and so couldn't we have used language like that in a significant financial and political advantages they might be hard to overcome and rather than a longshot yeah see, I think I'm gonna against. They think the exercise of his own go back to what I said about journalism, is imperfect. You know political reporting, probably more than any other kind of reporting. To be honest because of the nature of the ups and downs a horse race is, I suspect, I would go back at every campaign, enrietta bunched stories, but I think we gotta tell the readers in the moment. How shall we think I think the reader picks up the New York Times and says Bernie Sanders I've never heard of him. How should I think about him- and I think this capital, but if we can agree that the media's twenty sixteen coverage reflected something of an assumption that Clinton was more or less inevitable, how? I grew that I wonder what you think the impact of that was

this kind of a chicken and egg situation, because I think part of what the Sanders campaign was so frustrated by an angry about is that they thought this coverage in the assumption they reflected were not just annoying. The oranges frustrating that that it had real world consequences at in presenting his candidacy intentionally or not as less valid? The media perpetuated those assumptions and help to make them a reality, and the New York Times thought that Sanders was a long shot of autumn, I think that two without Clinton was likely now many of order might think that to your report in my response to that would be with a jerk Bush was inevitable to an who ass. It were fifty in its you're right about job. I was assigned a cover him down and we fire disfigured. Okay, this is gonna, be Bush versus Clinton's. This can be the old establishment, the power of a narrative, yes you're here I can pull back for. Second, we probably should be very wary of language that scene

to make somebody's run inevitable, because I think what we learned in two thousand. Sixteen Is that none of the inevitable candidates or inevitable, whenever right and some of the seemingly inevitable candidate. I can go way back and I can remember when the governor of Texas seemed like such a powerful candidate, Can you remember his name? I can remember the year: Rudy Giuliani seem like a front runner was under cover of time magazine, so we did learn something about inevitability, which is maybe that is that are inevitable it. Finally, accordingly you're talking about repairing yes, it s. Okay, so Let's turn to the other side, and the assumption the media is accused. Having made on the Republican yeah ledger. Could you dean? Read this from our friend and colleague Alexander? in June. Twenty fifty just a high down from the guerrillas

say developer, whose name was adorned apartment buildings, hotels, Trump, brand, neckties and Trump brand stakes announced on Tuesday his entry into the two thousand sixteen present raise brandishing his wealth and fame is chief qualifications in an improbable quest Republican nomination drop down three four paragraphs: It seems a remote prospect that Republican stung in two thousand and twelve by the character of their now many Mitt Romney as a pampered and politically tone deaf financing would rebound by nominating a real estate magnet who has published books with Hidell such as think like a billionaire and MIDAS touch. Why? a much winners get rich and why most down but mister I was never held elective office mean be so easily confined to the margins of the two thousand sixteen campaign.

Thanks to his enormous media profile. He stands a good chance of qualifying for nationally televised debates. Were his appetite for combat and skill at playing to the gallery could make him up play disruptive presence. This is where there's an audio deficit because Dean you had a huge going on your face, one you, while you were reading the first part of that story, YAP why? Oh because its exact, We would everybody thought at the time- and you named I'm sitting you're reading, had while Donald Trump isn't president for three years and is in the middle of an impeachment trial. Look nobody took down from seriously as a presidential candidate I'll, be the first to admit that, of course, nobody thought by the way. I don't think he thought he was gonna win the nomination or when the presidency, so you know, look I mean that captures the moment. The reality was down

was a long shot and on the back of their characterization from June. Two thousand fifteen and say was a mistake: Alex even opens the possibility that he would at least be a disruptive for. Do you think it's fair to say that, like with sanders the media saw trumps candidacy as unlikely, but, unlike with sanders there was. Mendous amount of attention paid to it, not out of a belief that from could win, but more out of an interest in what I might call the kind of stunning on orthodoxy of the candidates, the ways in which it broke all of our understanding of the rules. Yeah, I mean I can answer that from a mean how many answer that it be about the media about the New York Times. I think about media writ large? Of course, I think

he was an irresistible television candid, he just was, he was funny was charming. I do think the press, and now I'm talking about the New York Times, while we didn't think he could win. That did not keep us I can be frank, putting a lot of energy into digging into him as a candidate and to me, that's the test right, we examined his real estate holdings extensively. We were the first to extensive when you are part of it. To examine allegations of his mistreatment of women. We broke the story that he barely pay. Taxes says this, didn't you from chrism aggressively wages didn't think he stood which still Geneva when right and we we actually thought he was even less likely. He would win because of the scrutiny was gay now I remember sitting in the newsroom wonder in a we adjust. In the stories you and Megan just written the stories about him and in its treatment of women, which other was he an important

devastating and early story, and then comes the access, Hollywood tape- and I remember thinking this is over, in my head. I was already rearranging the the political coverage. Carries out. So that's honest, yeah. Oh no, I at the moment of access Hollywood, he I thought: how could he, when? How could you possibly that's about us, really understanding the voters, so here is the almost think that the Sanders and the Trump coverages all of a piece. I think that we- and I don't think this is just the New York Times, but I'm gonna where the head for the New York Times. I think that. The combination of post economic crisis, sensitive reports of America. There were still shaken, the economic crisis, a lot of Americans more Americans and we understood at the time, were rattled and we're looking for something dramatic and that

desire for something dramatic was reflected in the rising Bernie Sanders, and it was certainly reflected in the rise of Donald Trump, certainly reflected in the fact that Hillary Clinton came across was rolled onto the landscape as the job Bush by the way, as. Names that had been looming on the american political scene for what seemed like forever, which, fairly or or unfairly made them, see my part of the elite, and I don't think we are moving anybody Quaker. I wonder how much you think all of what we're talking about the assumption not understanding the voters how much that has to do with our sources. I know as a political point how much I used to call figures within the party establishment on party leaders and those become important sources, and I think about the party and the

and of it and of course we know now that the democratic establishment clearly favoured Clinton over Sanders was an independent, wasn't really a member Democrat Party and they didn't want him to win, and we know that the republican establishment was horrified at the idea of down from funding they're, not and looking back, I think, on some level, we took the establishment, as kind of experts on their parties can It's kind of a barometer of the way people on the party fell when in fact they have their own motivations right. They weren't necessarily reflecting what there's wanted, and maybe the media allowed them to have outside went on the way. We understood the situation. We think- and I think that's true, coupled with we weren't out my country enough, so. There came a moment where I would say that Evans the ground started to contradict the assumption, yeah we're talking about here on both sides, and that was once the voting out. You're gonna when Sanders overwhelmingly one New Hampshire by

I urge that really surprised us Trump began sweeping the primary one New Hampshire than South Carolina Nevada do you think that the newsroom adequately responded to what was happening at that point on the ground? Yes, yes, the newsroom, if needed take down from seriously the a beforehand and dig in turn. As I recall, I had more people doing intimate that point you now. Suddenly he was a serious person and my recollection is we turn up the volume on him considerably and digging it is business. Dealings is casinos. His losses is finite. So I do think we adjusted on him. Do I think we readjusted on Bernie Sanders? I mean it certainly At that moment, I don't remember specific, suddenly felt at the moment that both these guys were being taken more seriously. Yes, pulling back from my idea that we didn't quite of a finger on the country, but I do think Sorry treating them were seriously yes

leaving open the possibility that perhaps when it came to Bernie Sanders, we warrant as nimble as we were withdrawn. Yeah. I think so From what you have to stay in a little bit, but I think that's probably true- I mean I think we Didn'T- We were writing about the chinks in Hillary Clinton, armor. Once again, the framing of yeah we'll take the framing of by the way for the record that framing was right. She was, the front runner. She had all the money, she had a machine. Ultimately one the nomination chosen one a popular worth, so When Sanders rose, it was because of two things, obviously right. The country was a little more rapid,

incline than we thought, but it also meant that Hillary Clinton wasn't quite the perfect candidate that we thought right. So I do think we started looking harder at that moment at the chinks in her arms you're right. Is it fair to say we turned up the volume to use your word uncovering the candidates at this phase yeah, but not the country that people voting for the yes, we hadn't learning that lesson. Yes, I think that's the biggest my biggest self criticism, which is that, of course, we cover the country Yossi voter stories, but I don't think we quite. Of course we did. We did not dig in and say. Why is this country pushing ahead with these two very in an unusual candidates, Donald Trump Bernie, Sanders, analytically, quite understood also Ivan speaking, but some of our colleagues added this conversation and Bidding it served her likely names reach our research

I know you're kidding, I'm kidding, of course, and one of the observations that some of them had is that stories about the voters and the country working and, as you said, Julia, but they were not elevate, yes, in the same way that the candidates stories what's absolutely correct. That's absolutely correct. That's the tangible evidence of what I what I'm conceding when I'm saying there were reporters. This is this is done in a mean more, I said, all all roads, led to the executive? Better right now there were report is on the country were writing stories about what was going on in the country, but we didn't elevate them and say: wait a minute. There's somethin powerful going on! You didn't see their thoughts about the final assumption. What happens once Clinton secures a nomination? Democratic domination and Trump gets the republican omission which is the assumption that Clinton will win and she will likely, when big men here,

and is where I want a reference, not our writing, but our podcasting. This also marks the moment where the times created an audio department. Thank you, and I came on three months before the election to host a little podcast called the run up and our first ever episode in August, twenty sixteen was called quote landslide. I must say that it was not about the financial prospects of a Donald Trump Landslide here. So may a copper from this side of the table. What do you think was going on once we reached this moment, Clinton nominee trompe Romany. Why did we not learned from the primary. The trunk was not to be underestimated. Yeah, you know it sure, look like he was gonna lose. He was a deeply flawed candidate. I had reporters you build up to the election with Mitch, Mcconnell on and others, and I was calling them up all the time they establish in it

Mcdonald, all of them were saying it sure looks like he's. Gonna lose questions by how much we bought into that? Some of them was common, its everything we're talking about a colony experts. It were as you know, not having a hand one the country, all in those last is so I won't talk for just a quick second about the Clinton emails in this contact the emails that were stolen by Russia and disseminated on Wikileaks here. Do you think that the assumption that you have very clearly laid out here that she was going to be. The next president influence the coverage of her when we got those aims. US, because we made the decision to get those emails within who, after publish them, people for there were new glue, a big stories and there were next or his important tourism Lindsey there importance or is there were less importance where that I looked up a couple days ago. One

one story. There was just basically highlights two, the sexiest tidbits and you what they were there were serious about the turmoil and campaign her speeches there. We'll see as if there was, but where we applying perhaps more scrutiny to her campaign because we were covering her innocence as if with a president in waiting. And we wanted to apply the Conakry. That you would you to such a person. No, I think, we gotten. I I mean I think if we had ran our coverage of Wikileaks and I was Washington Bureau chief IRAN are covered in Snowden tapes. We go into this stuff really carefully, but you have to The newsworthy staff to find there are gonna, be the people. The citizens who asked I guess Jane in Russia is now we know We are sure that living didn't. We didn't really knew they were ill gotten you see here is, of course, we know the real guy by the way

The original Wikileaks document, two years before which led to the arab spring, were also L gun. The Snowden tapes were also gun the Snowden documents with those related questions of national security and national, addressed one better. Owing to a candidate, workings and and see much more designed to inflict political damp veterinary. So here's my view when I understand I'm gonna be popular. When journalist learn things that we think are important and having some other stuff about, the Hillary Clinton came here, were important when we learn important things to not publish is a political act. It's not a journal, the gag abstention, becomes a form when you learn south- and there should not be a whole lot that we learn about important, sir, is are we dont publish

my view. Is dead, publishing is journalism. Not publishing is political balance. I think- and I hear the next question could have gotten it. The next big document dump comes in, about something anything I have even seen other other journalists say. I hope we understand that we can't published that stuff. No, I will read we will evaluate it. We, look at it in the new context that we understand, which is Russia, is actively trying to influence american elections. That will be part of the calculation, for the calculation cannot be which is not going to publish, because that would screw up american politics. You know at that point I will go into business as like a campaign advisor to people and not as a journal. It's such a leak, as happened in twenty. Sixteen happens this time around and if we believe that it is an act of a foreign government attempting to influence

and as it turned out to be an twenty sixteen will we apply a different standard. Sure reporting on sure story will let you we will have. We will take all these things into account in debate to avoid. If I went back to my office today and as a batch of documents that show you know all kinds of stuff about Donald Trump, all kinds of stuff about Joe Biden Etc. Tat we will know in the back of our minds that were being manipulated, which raise the bar a little bit right. If it just a little bit of stuff about candid and acts in our, he doesn't like his campaign manager that doesn't raise the bar past were being manipulated. If it's the tax returns of a candidate- and it's really important and compelling and we're being manipulate, might be, as we have to publish it and say were being manipulated. We would use news judgment if it's

Goofy silly stuff were clearly being manipulated to hurt Hunter Biden in a baseless investigation, less interesting taxes of a presidential candidate, more interesting, more interesting and I'm and I'm sure the debate will be more worse than it was in two thousand sixteen, but in the end, if there is information of the american public should know, will publish it and that's what we do. Sitting at long last, let's go to election night. Sixteen. What do you remember about that night I remember you now shock era: recent presiding over there, and if you remember this, if you were there, presiding over the meeting two days for the election and there were showing us? The Hillary Clinton wins front page, and I said not because I foresaw the future because executive

I just think about all possibilities of screw ups I said: do we have a trump wins? One was if I had gotten up and started. You know telling knock, knock jokes in the middle of the media everybody's. Chuckled and I ordered one up a measure- it was ever done it What we can do that I wasn't. I have ever done by my mouth like an hour and it will it nobody, but the room was like. Oh my god, it was like you too do we have to use the sky, so I can confirm your memory that we did not have a full package of Trump winning stories ready. We had a relatively short story and, beyond that five hundred no words: there was virtually nothing else in the region I know is intimately is because, when Trump started to pull ahead and became clear, he might win. I was drawn into turning that five hundred words story along with math like an hour into what would become the next days, almost two thousand words Jerry,

Which was kind of brand new front page story and the online headline was quote: Donald Trump is elected, president a stunning repudiation of the establishment. In the confusion of that moment, and I'm I'm not upset about it at all. That, in my own did not show up on the story. Really the Clinton victory. Authors got the by allowing the worth story. Well, I didn't it took at Sidney it was on the floor, but it fell in that moment, like our assumptions, had truly guided us all the way to the final moments of election, and then they had been burst. Yeah, of course, that's true. You know, I mean you ve agency. One thing about

journalism. Now we do have a tendency to beat ourselves up a little bit too much. Yes, I don't think we had a handle on the turmoil in the country, something surprising and shocking happened with the election, Donald Trump and it would be a little with two now specific to a matter very much, a question that I am talking about the exit I saw the little narcissistic for my taste to spin forever beating ourselves up over. It was a very unlikely, unlike any other presidential candidate in my lifetime, and probably forever, who walked in and captured the country at a particular moment

and some things you can intensity, but in other three hundred million Americans some things you can't enters right used or does this it's gonna, not judging not yet, but I think are of two years in exercising splaining of Cuba country. What we ve learned, all of course, because it courses- and I know you unable either as Promised- articulated it. It's no small thing here and the implications are still playing, oh of course, and they ve changed. Journalists are minute election changed. It was, it was historic and alot away. I all sitting Bessie narcissistic. I'm just saying: there's a there's, a fine line between understanding it and also understanding that something giant happened. And while we should change our rules to understand it, to keep from

missing a sorry like that in the future. I don't think we should go into the assumption that all of our rules are wrong. That's me, or this pat cast supported by Eu Trade trading isn't for everyone, but he trade is whether it saving for a rainy day or your retirement e trade. Has you covered? They can help. You check financials off your list and with a team of professionals giving you support. When you need it, you can be confident that your money is working hard for you get more than just trading with e trade to get started, visit each dot com, such podcast for more formation. Each trade Securities LLC member fin raw as Ipc. I'm Wendy Door and I'm an editor on the daily for most my adult life, I thought of the New York Times as edge

I ain't news machine that spit out news stories all day, long kind of like a vending machine, and I'm embarrassed to say that it wasn't really until I came to work here at the times that I started to think about the reporters behind those news stories and what it takes to get the story in the first place. Sometimes these reporters risked their lives. Sometimes they talk to us. Two in the morning. Sometimes they call us from a war zone and nodded do they tell us what's happening on the ground wherever they are, but they also give us the context that we need to understand it. If you like, hearing These reporters every day, which I know I do the one thing

that you can do to support them and the daily is to subscribe to the New York Times if you'd like to do that, go to and why times dot com slash subscribe, deem from a conversation, it fuels clear that the source of these assumptions was in very large part, become institutional decision to cover the candidates so heavily and to not cover as much horror as prominently the country. So with that in mind, what do you think the biggest changes have been to the coverage is time around twenty one, so we ve done a whole series of sewers from my country. We ve brought in people from the business staff to ground to the country to talk about the effects of the economy we are how to announce a plan to put right,

in seven or eight states that were usually not in. We have added to our regular political staff, a religion writer, because I think that religion and be frank, Abortion are currents that I don't think we quite had a handle on and we give usage play now the stories about anxiety in the country. I think if you read the New York Times right now, you read the New York Times that reflects a country that in some turmoil a country that divided much more than we understood two thousand sixty we have doubled the number of people who cover the internet. We used over the internet is a as a series of companies vying for control, rather than a force that as yet Appointing the countries move us political base as profoundly as any veteran, it's a dramatically different and I'm only we label any the campaigns. Disagree, but now that we ve made anybody feel like the inevitable candidate,

or the long or the long shot. I am extremely proud of where our coverage is right. Now, nobody's even voted, yet I'm also mindful that, like politics, journalism can feel a little bit like a pendulum swings yeah side decide, and I wonder if there is a danger of over correction here, by which I mean over coverage of basically what is known as the Trump Base and United after twenty. Sixteen, there was an understandable emphasis on understanding from voters. Here do you see any risk in giving those voters and those trump allies. Anyone present President himself too much of a platform in pursuit of, understanding and over representing their perspective and maybe, as a result, missing the many other perspectives that are out there in the process not as long as you write about the other perspective as long as you're right about in a black people who are anxious about Trump and love Joe Biden, I don't look the greatest puzzles of two thousand sixteen

remains a great puzzle. Why didn't millions and millions of Americans vote for a guy who's session? Unusual can't? Why did people who were very religious vote for it. Has been married three times? I think those puzzles are reporting targets. And I know that every time we go out and we asked people questions about that, to try to understand it, people roll their eyes and say: what are you going to talk to those people because understood any how those people voted and how will vote in the future is a big and important thing and dismiss them as a as a group of you now, thirty forty percent of Americans the how living to dismiss should not be in our pages. That's not journalistic to me your dinner, Bringing me to one of the big questions I have about over

acting or oversimplify again what we learned in twenty sixteen, which is theirs justifiably a very significant focus on the economic grievances, the white working class. We don't, for example, midwestern voter. We tell that story on but moderate voters may be given as much by these questions of culture and morality and identity as much as anything in the economy. Here right There may be Democrats who support universal health care and taxing the rich, but they oppose open borders. They oppose abortion yeah. They oppose the culture of political correctness and it's very challenging to capture that you knew you'd. Think that were capturing. Do I think we are capture you we have done much more. I want to keep doing more.

I think that there are so so it's always funding for me to be called the hum. I was your weird being called a member of the political elite in our black. I grew up in a port. Neighbourhood in New Orleans in a religious catholic family, too weekends ago I went to a fundraiser from my high school back in New Orlean Saint, and I sat next to a black woman ever letters, blackness and she said to me- you know I don't like Donald Trump, I think he's a racist, but I will tell you I'm finding it really hard to vote for the Democrats, but I'm going to vote for one. And she said I grew up believing abortion was a sin, and it is really hard for me to vote for somebody who's gonna support abortion. I was singing ass thinking, my god, This is the way my mother felt. Abortion is a sin I can go for somebody who who feels otherwise. So I think

there's, a big chunk of America. You now, for whom that's a big deal, cultural issues. Cultural issues are a big deal. So continuing a bit more on the subject of the potential for over correction. When efforts are made to fairly cover this president, his voters, his allies, the ties has sometimes been accused of engaging in. What's called both sides are you familiar with this? Yes, this tendency to represent both sides of the debate as equal or both sides as having contributed equally too and there was a story a couple weeks ago about the impeachment inquiry that was criticised. This initiative carefully and among the lines people's eroding on was this throughout the committee's debate, the law makers from the two parts these could not even agree on the basic set of facts in front of them. The criticism was there can only be one set a fact. So yeah lay there out than other point, the article

it read quote: they called each other liars and demagogues and accuse each other of being desperate and unfair. Criticism of that is that we can tell who was lying or who is not lying base on the testimony and the Evans that we have, but the story didn't do that its adjusted both sides had legitimate equal cases. Our stories like that a kind of both, side, ism abdication. So I'm gonna stick my neck out here and I'm gonna first offer what I think of as a spirited defence for sophisticated objective, I think that we are at a moment when people very much want us to take sides, and I dont think that's right stands for the New York Times. I do think about the person who picks up his paper in the morning and just once no what happened. I do think that we have an obligation to that person and I do fear that were sort of thumb were.

Pretending that we don't have that obligation. I do think that american journalism has a tendency to go for the easy version of what I call sophisticated. True, Gee activity uneasy version is I'm writing my syrian deadline. Ok disguises Is this guy said bad? I'm going to gather you decide? That's not what I mean when I say sophisticated. True objectivity is a goal. True objective, you should listen your empathetic. If you hear stuff you disagree with, but it's factual and it's worth hearing you write about it does the New York Times, and every news organization in producing tons of tourism deadline, for then too, on the one hand, on the other, absolutely because

when you cover trial and when you cover some kinds of stories, that's an ok formula is not the best formula for coming down trump unimpeachable, and I do think that both cider resume and too easily saying, on the one hand, on the other hand, is not healthy for the discussion and every when you talk about people wanting us too thick aside yeah, who are you talking about? Can you explain all them look them in their different gradations of many of our readers, hate, Donald Trump and want us to join the opposition about drop right? Well, I'm not gonna. Do that and then there are people disagree, understandably with what I described as a sophisticated objectivity, their people on our staff who disagree with that. As a goal. I get that. I really do that premise of sophisticated objectivity and independence. We should always debated and question.

But I think that that view that, in my mind, I think of the reader who just want soup, is paper in the morning and know what the hell happened. I'm beholding to that reader and I feel obligated to tight reader would happen but where do you draw the line between picking aside and holding truth to power? Because at this point I think this is again There's a well documented pattern of present trump. Some of his allies and supporters denying established facts here. Spreading misinformation, embarrassing conspiracy,. Here is an frankly and this is uncomfortable to said, it was not easy to kind of Greece this reality over time, as Rapporteur is against our nature. Many them have a different relationship to the truth. Then the Democrats and the Democratic Party, and do you think our journalism is sufficiently adjusted to that reality. And how central should that understanding, and that really are be to be twenty twenty I do. Actually I mean I just do you agree with,

Oh do. I do agree with everything that the patent? Yes, yes away, the truth is being handled, Matt Hooper. Yes, yes, I'm Thinketh bless, the parties is more Donald, Trump Mean Donald Trump has attacked, but all of well he's support by the parties. But if you pulled, but I think of republican senators out there saying what they're saying. Ok, yes and climate change, putting down from his extreme version Donald Trump is his made. It is business to attack, all of the independent arbiters of fact, and I think that you will find in the pages of the New York Times very powerful reporting illustrates that what we haven't done, which some people want to do is to say repeatedly he's a liar. That's the language, the word, but the reporting is no question. We have done or racist. Yet

yet another thing that yes, people have made. My literally asked you to do. Yes, I mean we're. There was a big debate in our news from an outsider newsroom about whether the New York Times should use the word races and I accept disagreement. My view, is the most powerful writing lets the person talk. Lets the person say what he has to say and is usually so evident that what the person ass the same racist and anti semitic. That too actually get in the way I see it yourself is less powerful. The wanting I will do is pull a little bit of rank. The black eye grew up in the south and the natives sixties, who has been actually literally called some of the names the most powerful way. To show these things is to actually just show them the best peace writing I've read about a racist community was Joe If Lily valves, portrait of Philadelphia, Mississippi in the nineteen sixties

this. Is your predecessor reminder mentor predecessor and mentor and the story about Philadelphia, Mississippi he begins with a guy on the front. Porch. Essentially, sayings is all bull, we're not racist here in Philadelphia, Mississippi and an black. I walked by any calls in boy, if that's true, have led with Philadelphia. Mississippi is filled with races. When I read the second paragraph, Why wouldn't be remembering? I wouldn't be remember, it was letting people talk showing. What they had to say and you put that paper down said man that is a portrait of a racist community and to meet that is just more powerful than maybe just answered this but Are you cover the reality of our president and the Republican Party, who supports him repeatedly acting deceptively some people, my calling spreading?

this information without appearing to ignore or disparage the very voters who embraced him and twenty sixteen continued embrace him now suggesting that we have picked aside yeah. This is hard I will acknowledge as his heart. First off you report, the heck. Out of what they say and when they say something, that's false. I mean we ve done two or three reconstruction of what happen with the? U S, attack on a rainy in general. That shows that some of the descriptions were false. That's reporting That's not like labeling and sheep analysis. That's deep reporting, a lot of reporters, that's my answer to how we cover Donald Trump. Let somebody else call it a lie Let us call it allows the world today. Is filled with pundits, the world today is filled with people who can use labels. The world today has very few institutions that can grant to the reporting independently powerfully and that's what I want to do.

And then, in terms of his voters, I think he show up nothing more powerful to convince them did you want to listen and showing up? You don't do the cliched diner stories, but you gotta talk You understand a worthy, listen empathy adequately. That does not mean giving voice to racist? I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the big unanswered question of two thousand six: for all of our hand, wringing and all the discussion is what it's so many millions of Americans, both with his very unusual candidate. I don't think anybody has fully answered it. Having one of our goal should be to come as close as we can in occurs to me that getting the coverage right on these questions, we ve been talking about both sides them. How much to emphasise cultural issues feels especially critical this time, because of the impact that twin

Sixteen had on voters that, in having a significant portion of the electorate share the assumptions of the media that we ve been talking about. The Quinn would win Sanderson Trump wooden that when that all flipped on its head, the electorate was left feeling. I didn't really understand and may be still don't understand. What made for a winning candidates by the way is the more that money we don't fully understood did right. So do we recognise, in light of what happened in twenty, sixteen about the way assumptions, of course, to our vans, your influence, dark I that we now have an electorate that is trying to sort through the results of that trying to make sense of it and does not create a special obligation to get. It is right as possible to show a certain amount of restraint. Oecd showed.

Tremendous Amana care a nuance. Yes, I think there's a put tick obligation. We have two not jump to conclusions, do not make people inevitable and to hold back and war against the assumptions of the political class right. The political class that said from couldn't win and he'll reclined couldn't be, beat you We have an obligation to guard against drawing conclusions to quickly. I do think we have to keep reminding ourselves that what happened in two thousand sixty was a remarkable, remarkable upset and moment. But, yes, I think we have an obligation not to jump to conclusions not to declare anybody inevitable I do know that on Monday, we here are launching a new show, field. That is really about all the lessons of twenty sixteen and each week urban

be going somewhere new in the country, Greece, with a political reporter from the times and with national, for some to talk to people and to listen to do it in your words hypothetically and do our part to make sure that we are not guided by such great terrific that feels like an important contribution to not only our coverage but coverage of american politics. And if you have figured out yet your kicking off that ok, conversely, I will add on that, we're having a conversation, our thank you. Much they not just for being here. But for me Being very candid. Thank you. Thank you too. Thanks for him, we pressure will be

back, don't put your help on pause just because your lifestyle is changed, whether you're trying to lose those last few pounds or simply say smarter and have more energy throughout the day. Numerous here to help backed by science, new shows you the why, behind your decisions and habits and gives you the tools to change them, plus you daily, thus of self care, takes only ten minutes a day. Take the first step visit. Noone dot com, slash daily to start your trial. Today, that's new and Oh oh, am dot com. Slash daily here's. What else you need today led Thursday night republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who was seen. As the deciding vote on whether new Witnesses would be heard in the impeachment trial said he would vote against calling such witnesses Alexander's announcement could be a fatal blow to democratic hopes of calling witnesses like former. Now

general security adviser jumble, who cares to Heaven. Damning testimony against president tromp just to a public Susan Collins and Mitt Romney say they for witnessed. But Democrats need the support of of a consensus is new witnesses are called the trial could be over in a matter of days. The daily is made by feel welcome. Andy Mills, LISA Children, Rachel, Cuesta, Lindsey, Garrison, any Brown Clare, Tennessee, better. Page cow it Michael Simon, Johnson, Brad Fisher, Clarissa, Anderson Wendy Door. Chris- would Jessica, chum, Alexandria, the young Jonathan, Wolf, LISA Channel AIR Crop; King Mark George Luke Vanderpool, a decent Egon,

Kelly, Prime Julia Long and you're gonna, someone down Jasmine Aguilera, Em Davis, Lynn, Austin Mitchell, Sayer, Cavallo, Nina potluck Dan Paolo De Shawl, Sidney Harbour Daniel key met and HANS Peter our theme using is binding. Brun Borg and Ben lands of wonderland, special two sample Mikhail Bouchard Stella, ten warned and Julia Simon. That's for the daily. I Michael. See you on Monday in Ireland,. This episode of the daily is supported by the new Showtime original series: penny dreadful city of angels when a gruesome

are shocks. Nineteen thirty, eight hundred and thirty Tioga Vega, his partner Louis mentioned, or find themselves grappling with nazi spies, crooked politicians and powerful supernatural forces, Natalie D, Daniel of Otto Nathan Lane STAR in penny, dreadful city of angels, preparing April twenty six. Only on Showtime the daily listeners contrive Showtime free for thirty days, Go to show timed out come now and intricate daily offer expires. May twenty fourth, twenty twenty