The New York Times Review

As a 21-year-old communications and political science student in New York City, picking up The New York Times is like having my morning cup of Joe. I can't function without it. Yes, I know what you're thinking. The Times is my bug zapper. I am its firefly. (Although you must admit, there's nothing quite like the luring smell and feel of crisply painted gray pages.) Well, I've set aside my personal ties, and have taken a closer look at what the NYT is pushing. All I've found is that The New York Times does precisely what the institution claims. It produces "All The News That's Fit To Print."

One of the most common criticisms of The New York Times is that it has a politically liberal point of views. One very obvious critic of the Times that comes to mind is Bill O'Reilly, and for once, I'm not here to argue against him. (If I was, in fact, here to criticize a slanted news outlet: watch out FOX NEWS!) So I've asked myself, what exactly do partisan press critics, like Bill, demand from a news outlet such as the Times? Let's face it: news MUST be presented with some point of view, otherwise it wouldn't be written.

Let's get one thing clear: I do not advocate ONLY reading The New York Times. I think it's best (not mentioning that it's a huge privilege of ours) to gather information from several outlets in order to form our own informed opinions. Maybe, instead of bashing the Times for a so-called political slant, those readers should look to consume opinions other than their own. I understand it may be hard to continuously pay attention to viewpoints that don't come to us naturally, but would it hurt to take in different coverage of an issue from time to time? It's important to gather news from a couple different resources in order to gain a well-rounded, knowledgeable opinion about any given issue. In essence, I try to liberate my own stubborn ideals, and others should follow suit. By the term 'liberate', I clearly don't mean I want to turn everyone who reads a newspaper into an extreme political liberal, I just want people to be open minded about other points of view.

As Hachten and Scotton explain in their book, The World News Prism: Global Information in a Satellite Age, "The Western concept [of press] represents a distinct deviation from the traditional authoritarian controls and evolved during the rise of democracies in Europe and North America...one definition of freedom of the press is the right of the press to report on, comment on, and criticize its own government without retaliation or threat of retaliation from the government." This definition of freedom of the press does not guarantee balanced, non-partisan material, it simply states that the press should be able to watch and report on government happenings without retaliation. I could not agree more with this principle. Government criticism from our news outlets is ESSENTIAL to our democracy. That doesn't mean that having a paper or news institution coming out about a general viewpoint or partisanship is the end of our press freedom. I understand many critics may jump to argue that if our media institutions were affiliated with our government parties all hell would break loose (or wouldn't break loose, rather), but I'd much rather have a news outlet with expressed points of view over a profit-based one. And, let's face it, that's what our media HAS come to. It's not like certain coverage isn't hushed based on outside affiliations or relationships that might be hindered in the process. (I know you remember how stiff the air became during Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents' Dinner back in 2006!) My point is this: our news institutions are already chummy with certain people, parties, corporations, etc. Why can't they be more honest, more open, with their readership?

The type of press I'm referring to has been deemed the Democratic Corporatist Model and was created during the 20th Century. Today, it is most commonly used in Scandinavian and Central European states, where daily newspapers have been an essential part of daily life. This model of the press allows news outlets to be officially and openly affiliated with specific institutions (i.e. government parties, unions, etc). When was the last time you saw Austrians bitching about who is on whose team? Or the Germans, the Belgians, or even the Swiss? And, they are all pretty 'Free' people, don't you think? I think I'm in the clear when I make the assumption that these European nations also seem to care a lot more about politics than we do, here in America. So why are American's so up tight when it comes to our, dare I say it, biased news? If anything, there is a certain element of truth involved in this type of press! This is the way to go, America. Instead of spending our time criticizing an unofficial affiliation, let's be less extreme in our own opinions. Instead of shunning the NYT for having a liberal side, let's pick up 1, 2, 3+ papers and spend some quality time getting to know opinions of the informed, professional journalists out there. Let's move away from our comfortable mental niches, and accept that yes, in order for news to be written, it must come from someone's viewpoint! What'd'ya say, Nation? Hi, my name is Erin and I am a full-blown Democratic Corporatist Press Advocate. (Imaginary Response: Hi Erin.)

Despite all my previous sentiments towards the Times, I must continue to defend the great institution commonly known as the Gray Lady. Bottom line: the Times doesn't promise an unbiased view on news coverage. It promises to provide the public, "All The News That's Fit To Print." If a certain event, person, ideal requires a certain amount of coverage, then so be it. The paper has fulfilled its promise for the past 112 years, since owner Adolph Ochs coined the very slogan. With my wholehearted support of the newspaper industry, I've had to come to terms with the possibility (find, probability) of print journalism eventually going under, and I rue the day that the Times closes. 98 Pulitzer Prizes isn't something to sneeze at. The public has had the privilege of reading news from the greatest journalists in the history of print. My advice: cherish these days, because soon enough, there may not be such a revered anchor in American news to pick up at your local newsstand, openly opinionated or not.