The New York Times Owes LGBTQ People An Apology For Its Trump Coverage

[.99center]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b3d7324e4b09e4a8b29cb40
By Michelangelo Signorile
07/06/2018 04:36 PM ET

Last week, at a New York Times event at UCLA, the dean of the university’s Luskin School of Public Affairs jarred several Times reporters on the panel when he took them to task during his introduction for the event ― chiding them for their reporting on the 2016 election and for the paper’s “both sides” journalism amid the current “civility” debate.

Professor Gary Segura first lauded the journalists ― Los Angeles bureau chief Adam Nagourney, national political reporters Maggie Haberman and Alex Burns and polling analyst Nate Cohn ― as “some of the finest reporters in the United States.” He noted that the Times has, since the election, “fundamentally changed journalism,” breaking stories daily “in the face of great adversity.” Then he weighed in with his criticism:

It would be great to celebrate them. But I want to make sure that tonight’s event also holds The New York Times accountable.
The New York Times has played a role in our current debate, maybe one that they’re not necessarily comfortable with. In April of 2016 one of our guests, Maggie Haberman, said, “Will Trump actually be good for the gays?” Guess what? I don’t actually speak for all gays and lesbians. But no.

There was laughter from audience members, who clearly saw the absurdity of thinking of Trump as pro-gay since he has continually assaulted LGBTQ rights since taking office. Segura continued:

During the campaign there were efforts to normalize Mr. Trump. There was wildly imbalanced coverage between emails on the one hand and a history of corrupt behavior on the other... And more recently the civility debate — the “both sides”... Looking at the chants of “Lock her up!” and equating them to “Please leave my restaurant” are actually damaging our civil discourse.

Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan, formerly the Times’ public editor, earlier this year discussed why the paper comes under such criticism:

What the Times does really matters, affecting the whole media and political ecosystem. When it exerts its muscle, it can change the course of history. And when it errs — in fact or in judgment — the consequences can be monumental. And err it does.

Link to tweet

[JHan]

1. good