(2022-04-19) Joe Kahn Is Named Next Executive Editor Of The New York Times

Joe Kahn Is Named Next Executive Editor of The New York Times. Joseph F. Kahn, the managing editor of The New York Times, is expected to start his new role as executive editor in June.

In elevating Mr. Kahn, Mr. Sulzberger chose a veteran journalist steeped in the values of traditional newspaper reporting and editing to lead an institution undergoing enormous change. After decades devoted to the “daily miracle” of the print edition, The Times is focused on a digital future and competing for audiences around the world.

Dean Baquet “will remain at The Times to lead an exciting new venture.”

Mr. Kahn, who was promoted to managing editor in 2016, is among Mr. Baquet’s closest confidants. But while Mr. Baquet is known for an outgoing and casual style, Mr. Kahn is more reserved.

Dean Baquet & Joe Kahn: What’s next for the New York Times?

Baquet and Kahn sat down with Kyle Pope to discuss objectivity, the evolution of the paper from a news outlet to something we’ve never seen before, and—inevitably—Wordle.

Pope: Let me get to domestic politics. I have a gut that tells me that we’re entering an incredibly ugly period—both in the midterms and then what comes after—and that journalism and information and especially places like the New York Times are going to be even more at the center. I’m curious: you’ve seen the objectivity debate play out about, you know, “how scared are you about the threat to democracy?” Depending on your level of fright, what should news organizations like the Times do about that?

I think it’s pretty clear that there are some significant threats to democracy. I think they’re evident. I think the fact that a significant number of Americans have become convinced that Joe Biden didn’t win the election, when he clearly did win the election—I mean, I think that’s an important story. And frankly—I know some people who disagree with this—I think we’ve told that story pretty forcefully

Pope: Let me ask it this way. I saw a Pew poll that said something like more than 90 percent of New York Times readers identified themselves as Democrats

I don’t think you pander to your audience

I think we also have to keep in mind that politics hasn’t died. It’s still alive. There is still politics in the country. The Republicans did not win the governorship of Virginia because they killed democracy in Virginia. They won the governorship of Virginia because they outpoliticked the Democrats, right? We do not think the Republicans are going to do really well in the midterm elections because they’ve somehow successfully gamed and undermined the voting system in the United States

Baquet: Look, I think we have to have a broad audience. I don’t think it’s healthy. I mean, it was a century ago that news organizations started to try to have broad audiences, that the days of a left-leaning paper and a right-leaning paper sort of went away. I think it’s unhealthy, honestly, to have an audience that’s not as broad and as rich as possible.

“The New York Times” Has Badly Lost Its Bearings

Joe Kahn, the next executive editor of The New York Times, will inherit a great news organization that has lost its bearings when it comes to national and political coverage.

When the current editor, Dean Baquet, took over the top job in 2014, American politics still worked more or less by the same rules that had applied for decades: The two rival parties largely agreed on the facts; they just interpreted them very differently.

Enter Donald Trump

Baquet did not rise to this challenge

During the 2016 campaign, in the name of balance, his staff savaged Hillary Clinton and went easy on Donald Trump.

He stuck to the old political-journalism algorithms even as they stopped producing anything approximating the truth and instead privileged lies and normalized the abnormal.

this is where Joe Kahn comes in.

Kahn was Baquet’s deputy for six years, and so far there have been zero gleams of daylight between the two men.

But once he takes charge, Kahn will have a reputation to build, not to protect.

Under Baquet, the Times has treated the upcoming midterms like any other.

They have unquestioningly adopted the conventional political wisdom that midterms are a referendum on the president, and since Biden is underwater, it doesn’t matter what the Republicans stand for.

But that’s not what these midterms will actually be about.

For decades, the history of America has been of expanding human and constitutional rights. At this moment, however, we appear to be headed the other way—unless a supermajority says no at the ballot box. Starting in November. That’s the real story of the midterms.

The New York Times should not publish daily articles that treat the GOP like a party that is offering solutions to the nation’s problems, when it is campaigning by sowing culture wars and avoiding real issues.

Extraordinary investigative work and the occasional truth-telling news analysis don’t make up for endless incremental political stories that exist in a context-free zone. Indeed, the lack of recurring reminders of beyond-the-pale behavior has helped create a political environment in which right-wingers have reason to believe they will face no consequences and no accountability, no matter what they do

Joe Kahn could change that. But he probably won’t.

The call to more assertively cover Republican threats to democracy is just one element of a larger body of criticism that Kahn should hear and heed. That critique comes from outside and inside the Times newsroom

Being unable to openly acknowledge the extremism and shamelessness of one party has forced smart, capable reporters to engage in deceptions and contortions, including:....

Another major element of the critique is that the Times hasn’t recognized its obligation to fight disinformation by championing the truth as assertively as right-wing media spreads lies.

Underlying almost all these critiques is a feeling that the Times has used “objectivity” as an excuse for enforcing what is really its own form of subjectivity—and “independence” as an excuse for not taking any side that might be even vaguely associated with a political party.