<u+201c>criticism of the news media takes on a more sinister tone,<u+201d> reads the headline of jim rutenberg <u+2019>s latest new york times column. <u+201c>it sure does get exhausting working for the global corporate media conspiracy,<u+201d> he begins, soon stopping himself: <u+201c>i probably shouldn<u+2019>t joke.<u+201d> well, no harm done in that regard! but then rutenberg strikes a serious, and aggrieved, note: the reader who alerted us to rutenberg<u+2019>s column suggests in an email that it takes some chutzpah for him to complain about <u+201c>anger being directed at the news media.<u+201d> follow james on twitter after all, it was rutenberg who in august urged news reporters and editors <u+201c>to throw out the textbook american journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century<u+201d> and become <u+201c>oppositional<u+201d> against trump, whom he described as <u+201c>a demagogue playing to the nation<u+2019>s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies.<u+201d> as we noted last week , the times<u+2019>s executive editor, dean baquet, has since acknowledged rutenberg<u+2019>s august column reflects the editorial policy of the times newsroom. one critic observed that if journalists followed rutenberg<u+2019>s advice, it <u+201c>will only serve to worsen [trump supporters<u+2019>] already dim view of the news media.<u+201d> that critic was rutenberg himself, in the same column. so he can<u+2019>t claim to be surprised by the intensified anger. what<u+2019>s somewhat surprising about his new column, though, is that it eventually gets around to acknowledging that the other side has a point: how biased are the media? rutenberg gets no more specific than this: <u+201c>the answer, as i see it, is more than they<u+2019>ll admit to themselves and less than conservatives claim.<u+201d> that<u+2019>s not even specific enough to be a middle-ground fallacy: he<u+2019>s saying media bias ranks somewhere between 1 and 9 on a scale of 0 to 10. rutenberg acknowledges that <u+201c>there .<u+00a0>.<u+00a0>. tends to be a shared sense of noble mission across the news media that can preclude journalists from questioning their own potential biases.<u+201d> again, this is a bit rich coming just two months after rutenberg<u+2019>s call for an <u+201c>oppositional<u+201d> approach to covering his disfavored candidate. but that doesn<u+2019>t mean he doesn<u+2019>t have a point: dreher<u+2019>s operative definition of media bias is identical to jim roberts <u+2019>s ostensive one. on sunday roberts, a former times assistant managing editor, tweeted: <u+201c>yes. the media is biased. biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence, inequality, to [sic] name a few.<u+201d> roberts left the times in 2013, but surely a lot of like-minded people stayed behind in the newsroom. the media, and not just the times, have more or less followed rutenberg<u+2019>s august advice and become openly oppositional toward trump<u+2014>though it would be more accurate to say the parade was already under way when rutenberg stepped to the front and took on the role of leader. in any case, it raises the question: what next? that is, assuming trump loses, do journalists continue in their role as partisans for hillary clinton and the democratic party, or do they undertake some sort of a correction? rutenberg urges the latter approach: color us skeptical. sure, journalistic partisanship will probably not have as sharp an edge in the immediate aftermath of a trump defeat as in the weeks and months leading up to it. but that<u+2019>s just a matter of regression toward the mean. consider: after urging an adjustment in coverage (after the election, tellingly), rutenberg himself immediately calls in addition for <u+201c>a far more assertive defense from the news media<u+201d> against <u+201c>false and misleading political-style attacks that too often are mixed in with the valid criticism.<u+201d> that<u+2019>s not objectionable in itself, and we<u+2019>d agree with him that some criticism of the media is bogus and unjustified. but if, as rutenberg acknowledges, journalists have a problem with political bias, why should we expect them to be able to distinguish between <u+201c>false and misleading political-style attacks<u+201d> on the one hand and <u+201c>valid criticism<u+201d> on the other? to pick on jim roberts, who certainly deserves it, he no doubt thought of his tweet as an assertive defense against a misleading political-style attack. anyway, it<u+2019>s a lot easier to yield to your baser instincts, as rutenberg urged journalists to do in august, than to develop discipline, as he now calls for. the best indication of that is that unlike his august column, this week<u+2019>s did not appear on the front page. worst appeals to authority <u+201c>the people who know how to actually rig an election say trump is wrong<u+201d><u+2014>headline, puffington host, oct.<u+00a0>17 fox butterfield, is that you? <u+201c>trump bashes clinton but she extends campaign lead<u+201d><u+2014>headline, agence france-presse, oct.<u+00a0>17 we blame george w. bush <u+201c>mcauliffe<u+2019>s former car company blames financial troubles on <u+2018>adverse publicity<u+2019> over political connections<u+201d><u+2014>headline, richmond times-dispatch, oct.<u+00a0>18 hypothesis and proof<u+2014>i hypothesis and proof<u+2014>ii generalissimo francisco franco is still dead <u+201c>obama tells colbert his nobel prize is still a head-scratcher<u+201d><u+2014>headline, marketwatch.com, oct.<u+00a0>18 question and answer<u+2014>i question and answer<u+2014>ii it<u+2019>s always in the last place you look <u+201c>nobel prize committee can<u+2019>t seem to find bob dylan<u+201d><u+2014>headline, new york post, oct.<u+00a0>17 breaking news from 1984 <u+201c>nevada<u+2019>s governor signed a bill monday clearing the way for a [tax hike to fund a] las vegas stadium that could be home to the raiders. .<u+00a0>.<u+00a0>. <u+2018>las vegas is ready for this. nevada is ready for this,<u+2019> [gov. brian] sandoval said in an interview afterward. <u+2018>the best brand on the planet is coming together with one of the best brands in professional sports. it is truly one of those situations where 1+1 equals 3.<u+2019><u+00a0><u+201d><u+2014>associated press, oct.<u+00a0>17 trump snags his unlikeliest supporter writing in the federalist, david marcus explains why he<u+2019>ll be voting for donald trump rather than gary johnson: you may think this is unremarkable, but if so, you don<u+2019>t know david marcus. he is one of the two or three most intensely nevertrump conservatives we<u+2019>ve encountered all year. and it turns out trump had a plan to win him over. all trump needs now is to put together a majority, which should be an easier task. follow @jamestaranto on twitter. join fans of best of the web today on facebook. subscribe to the best of the web email with one click. (carol muller helps compile best of the web. thanks to frederick ingham, eric jensen, norman blanton, michele schiesser, debbie wells, wes van fleet, tony lima, zack russ and bryan fischer. if you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com , and please include the url.)
the post-trump media - wsj
james taranto