New York Times public editor, Liz Spayd, backed off her earlier criticism that reporters’ tweets about President-elect Donald Trump were “over the line” and should have been met “with some kind of a consequence.”
Spayd made her remarks on Friday’s Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News after Carlson read her some of the tweets about Trump from Times reporters.
White House as QVC. It has started. pic.twitter.com/jk0DeQJ9vV
— Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) November 15, 2016
For a new president from reality television, a cabinet selection that resembles a pageant. @nytmike @shearm https://t.co/g6odeaQ6sM
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) November 21, 2016
“Where are the editors here?” asked Carlson. “I mean, if my—you know, if I was The New York Times and my editors were tweeting crap like that, I would say you stop that right now or I’m firing you. Why don’t they do that?”
“I don’t know,” Spayd said. “I don’t know that any of those people should be fired, but I do think that when people go over the line like that, and I think some of those are over the line, that there ought to be some kind of a consequence for that.”
Spayd’s remarks drew instant criticism from the media.
Kicking her own reporters' asses while giving Trump free passes. @spaydl has got to go. https://t.co/0fOMgDDDgt
— Doug Farrar (@BR_DougFarrar) December 5, 2016
After a barrage of other critical tweets, including some calling on the Times to ask for her resignation, Spayd tried to walk back her comments in a statement to Politico:
“In retrospect, I should have held back more, not knowing what the context was for the tweets. I think that’s a fair criticism.
But I stand by my view that journalists should be careful, sometimes more careful than they are, with what they say on social media. That includes how it can be interpreted.”
The Times, along with the rest of the liberal media, was highly critical of Trump during the campaign. And even though the publisher has vowed to cover him “fairly” and “without bias,” it’s clear from these tweets that the anti-Trump sentiment runs deep at the Times, making fair coverage more of a pipe dream than a reality.
Comments