Yes, we all know the New York Times is slanted in its coverage, and sometimes people whine about that too much. But when an actual reporter, who’s not a conservative and who wants the Times to be better, examines that bias in detail, it’s worth reading.
That’s what my colleague Jerry Kammer, who won the Pulitzer for helping send Duke Cunningham to jail, has done in a new report on the paper’s coverage of immigration. (It follows last week’s release of a report on how the NYT’s editorials on immigration got to be so ridiculously bad.)
Jerry writes, “Thus conceived as a clash of noble strivers versus snarling nativists, illegal immigration at the Times is not subjected to the rigorous analysis of costs and benefits that, under basic rules of journalism, should be applied to any major issue of public policy.” Why is this is important? His answer:
That failing is severe precisely because the Times is so influential. It affects not only public opinion but also the work of reporters around the country who might otherwise look more deeply into a story of great complexity and profound consequences. The Times has failed in its coverage of immigration, and we are all the poorer for it.