originally published on 2024-07-11
The New York Times has been criticized for its coverage on anti-trans legislation. According to a Media Matters Study, in the past year:
66% of the articles did not quote even one trans or gender-nonconforming person.
18% of the articles quoted misinformation from anti-trans activists without adequate fact-checking or additional context.
6 articles obscured the anti-trans background of sources, erasing histories of extremist rhetoric or actions.
Today, Lydia DePillis at The New York Times published an article about how many transgender Americans and their families are uprooting and moving in response to anti-trans legislation.
In the article are quotes from multiple transgender people, a women’s and gender studies professor, and the mother of a young transgender boy. Links are also provided to the PFund Foundation, an LGBT philanthropy group, as well as The Trans Continental Pipeline project, a grassroots mutual aid network.
I think it's a solid, factual article that starts from the position that trans people are humans with hopes and desires.
Does one good article redeem The New York Times? Probably not. Would one hundred trillion good articles redeem The New York Times? I don't know, personally. I don't think it's something that can be measured. Whether something is "redeemable" or "irredeemable" is up to the individual. I'll return to this point again later.
i bring up this new york times article because i had a small hand in getting it published
I don't pay for a New York Times subscription, I get it for free through my local library. I'm a security guard with lots of free time. I read a lot of shit.
I'm also a poster. Or writer. Same thing.
So when I saw the writers at the econ desk of The New York Times were looking for reader input, I jumped. I sent a whole long thing about what I was going through financially, how the state of the economy effected me, what my community was going through, what I saw as the causes of my problems, and what I thought the solutions were. I made a point about how I had moved across the country, at great expense, to seek out a community more welcoming to gay people (I'm gay).
Lydia responded! She wanted to talk with me about my experiences, and asked for contact information for other people who'd be willing to share.
This is where I get a little over-excited and reach out to a whole bunch of people I know. Some say yes, some say no. Out of the "no's," many cited The New York Times' poor coverage of trans issues.
I give Lydia my list of those who said "yes," and also made a note at the end:
For whatever it's worth, a few of my friends gave me a strong "no" to speaking with anybody from the NYT, specifically due to how the NYT has covered trans issues in the recent past.
In her response, she agrees that the Times' coverage has damaged trust with the community.
I want to note here that there has been a history of internal conflict at the New York Times between staffers and editors.
Anyways, a few months later, the article gets published. Neither I or anybody I recommended got quoted (limited space, better quotes, you know how it is), but Lydia did thank me for suggesting the story. She noted:
I wouldn't have thought to do it without you.
So, not that big of a deal. But maybe it's fair to call it a little bit of a deal. I obviously didn't write the story or do the research or any of that, but I think I got a pretty damn good outcome from submitting to a reader submission prompt. That article is certainly going to get more views than this blog post.
my point here is two-fold:
1. If you are more discerning about what and where you post, you may get better results
If I took what I had submitted and put it on Bluesky instead, I don't think many people would have read it. It would've been too long, too dry, and drowned out by snappier/funnier/more colorful posts. And even if it did gain traction, I doubt it would've escaped the orbit of my friend circle. Great people in my friend circle, but certainly nobody in the halls of power.
If I took what I had submitted and put it on this blog, it would at least stick around longer.
I didn't do either of those things, I had sent it to the newspaper. And an article from a journalist popped out. Pretty cool, in my opinion.
2. I think it is worth engaging with the media
The New York Times is the 2nd largest newspaper in the country, behind the Wall Street Journal. Newspapers in general are struggling, but the NYT is definitely doing a bit better than most. It is relevant to a significant amount of the population.
It's also a very old paper. It's been around for over 172 years. A lot of fucked up stuff has been published in it over the years.
So again, back to my point on whether the paper is "redeemable" or "irredeemable." I'd say The New York Times is about as redeemable as the United States, which has also had a lot of fucked up stuff in it. Still does. I live in the United States, so I would at least like for it to try to be redeemed. I want the place I live in to be better. I'd like the big newspaper in the place to be better, too.
I think that unless you are actively trying to "dismantle" or "destroy" the system that you live in, you are a reformist by default. You want the thing to be better and not worse.
And it could be worse! Look at England, for example. And if it can be worse, that also means it can be better.
So let's try to make it better, bit by bit. If I was able to prompt an article to be written through a submission, I think that shows engaging with the media on its own terms can occasionally produce positive results.
If the issue is a lack of perspective, lend your perspective. If your perspective is being asked for, consider giving it.