How does The New York Times cover the fire hose of news from the Trump administration? What journalistic principles drive that coverage? Why does The Times publish work that challenges our audience’s assumptions at a time when many people want their views validated? Where do we wish we had more reporters based? And who makes these decisions?
The “who” is Joe Kahn, the executive editor of The Times since June 2022, who leads our newsroom of more than 2,000 journalists. Joe has run our coverage of the turbulent American economy, the war in Ukraine, the Oct. 7 attacks, the Israel-Hamas war, President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s exit and now a second Trump administration that is challenging the rule of law, free speech and alliances — while becoming the most consequential presidency since Ronald Reagan’s.
We recently asked readers for questions about Joe’s work and our coverage. I’ve synthesized them and added a few of my own, including about Joe’s observations from his recent trip to China, where he was a foreign correspondent in the mid-1990s and again in the early 2000s.
Reporting on President Trump
Joe, most of our reader questions were about President Trump. Some on the left like our investigative stories digging into Trump’s business dealings and want more of them. Some on the right like our stories about Trump’s effectiveness and impact in office and want more of them. Some readers want us to call the president a fascist; others want us to portray him as a patriot. There’s a desire out there for us to referee the news. How do you navigate all of that?
Readers already have access to a vast amount of opinion and commentary on the internet that can validate their worldviews. That’s not our role.
Our approach is to report deeply and thoroughly, surface facts and a range of perspectives on the news, help people understand the world and deliver accountability journalism on issues of public concern. Sometimes that means presenting people with information and ideas that challenge their own preconceptions and beliefs. We regularly scrutinize Trump’s questionable assertions of power and his disregard for democratic or legal norms.
That kind of reporting is a more important service than applying labels.
Cynthia Lewis of Arlington, Va., asked how we make decisions about covering Trump’s behavior — specifically, how much prominence to give to his “coarse treatment of perceived enemies (the other half of the country) and the vulgar, immature use of A.I.?” Other readers mentioned his attacks labeling Democrats as “seditious” and calling a reporter “piggy.”
Trump’s manner often is the story, or a big part of the story. For example, using artificial intelligence to depict himself as a fighter pilot dropping sewage on protesters became a story about the White House’s use of A.I. and vulgar imagery. We have broken multiple major stories on his campaign of retribution against perceived enemies and his upending of norms in the judicial system.
I see it as our responsibility to cover the newsworthy things he says and does, put them in context, examine if he has the legal authority to pursue them and then investigate the impact and consequences of his actions.
Loraine McVey from San Anselmo, Calif., wrote: “Is The Times giving more news coverage to President Trump than any other president ever? It sure feels like it.” How do you think about our dial-setting on Trump?
No president in my lifetime compares with him in terms of the volume of initiatives he has pursued in the first 10 months of his second term.
Yet we aim to showcase a wide array of coverage that has nothing to do with Trump. That includes areas like the economy, education, religion, social affairs, health and wellness, science and culture, and to feature reporting from across the country and the world that has no link to the president’s agenda. Our digital and print report is constructed every day with that breadth of coverage in mind.
Elizabeth Garreau of Chicago asked a related question: “How do you keep up with the volume, and how do you find time to care for yourself when so many journalists and subscribers depend so much on your work for accurate information?”
I appreciate that question. We’re lucky to have significant reporting resources that enable us to respond well to major news events, even relentless ones like wars or the upending of the federal government by Trump. We have, for example, a larger team covering the White House than ever before.
But a huge story like the first 10 months of Trump’s second term always puts heavy pressure on a small number of critical beat reporters and staff editors, who not only scramble on breaking news but also seek to explain and contextualize big developments, lead investigative reporting and help narrate the biggest events in video and audio as well as text.
Rapid change in China
Joe, I want to turn to your recent visit to China. What stood out to you there?
When I lived in China, one theme we often reported on was its attempts to catch up with other East Asian countries and the West. Today, it’s obvious China has taken the lead. It has built the world’s best road and high-speed-rail system. It makes plush and sophisticated electric vehicles. It has an (over) abundance of modern housing and new parks and walkways in its orderly and largely safe cities. America seems relatively stagnant by comparison.
We see Trump trying to change that, but our reporting shows that the United States is more behind than many Americans may realize.
China dominates manufacturing in too many industries to count. It has a stranglehold on the production of some critical materials, like rare earth minerals, that gives it the clout to fight against U.S. trade restrictions. A number of Chinese we met seemed unbothered by Trump’s threats and increasingly confident they could live without open access to the American market if they had to.
Several readers asked how you ensure that The Times’s coverage — especially on politically charged topics like U.S.-China relations — prioritizes “objective, fact-based reporting” over a political slant, as a reader from Pittsburgh, Jeff Anderson, put it.
Much of what the outside world knows about China’s complicated economic and political reality, and its intensifying rivalry with the United States, comes from a small but dedicated core of international correspondents. We also ask ourselves regularly if we’re exploring all the major angles and perspectives and telling the full story. My one concern is that we don’t have as many reporters allowed to live in China as we once did, largely because of U.S.-China diplomatic tensions and restrictions on visas and residency permits.
Part of your trip was to celebrate the 100th anniversary of The Times’s first office there, in Shanghai. The Times itself is turning 175 years old next year. How does the long arc of Times history influence how you do your job?
That anniversary reminded me that The Times has been sending adventurous correspondents to cover the world for most of its history. The journalists my predecessors sent to China in the 1920s landed in the middle of one civil conflict, the struggle of the Nationalists to consolidate power after the fall of the Qing dynasty, and then were quickly caught up in another, the Japanese invasion of China at the outset of World War II.
Then, as now, we put a premium on on-the-ground reporting by people who travel to places to bear witness to events themselves. Our emphasis on original reporting produced by reporters who go to the story is a proud part of our history that we still prioritize today.
Reporting without a personal point of view
As you said, you’d like to have more Times reporters living in China. I know you’d like to have more journalists reporting in Russia and Gaza, too. We face various restrictions in those places. Why does having reporters on the ground in a place matter? What can it capture that viral videos or telephone reporting cannot?
There is no substitute for reporters who immerse themselves in the stories they cover by living in the places where events happen. It’s easier to get people to open up if they see you face to face. Reporters pick up nuances they would otherwise miss. We have more than 2,000 journalists on staff for a reason: We believe in having reporters, photographers and videographers who have a wide range of expertise and who live and report close to the stories they’re covering. That helps us produce richer, deeper, more accurate journalism.
Some readers feel that our coverage is biased toward Israel. Others see it as pro-Palestinian. Some critics say we’re mouthpieces for Hamas. Some say if a journalist is Jewish or has a tie to Israel, that person can’t be neutral. Others appreciate our reporting. How do you think about those conflicting reactions?
The core principles of our journalists in the region, like any other, are reporting widely, covering the news, putting events in context and doing in-depth investigative work for a broad and diverse global audience. Good news reporting isn’t aimed at either pleasing or displeasing partisans. Our focus is on producing journalism that matters to understanding a divisive, complicated story more fully, regardless of a reader’s personal point of view.
We do come under intense scrutiny and often are accused of having a bias in favor of one side or another in that conflict. Some critics tend to assume that if we’re not clearly on their side, we must be on the other side. But when passions run high, producing an authoritative account of the facts, relevant to the broadest possible audience, has even greater value.
A.I. is another big topic for our readers. They wonder how the A.I. revolution is affecting us. Here’s a question from Sarah Wood in Cincinnati: “How will you and will you not be utilizing A.I. in reporting?”
We have found A.I. tools immensely useful in gathering news and analyzing large databases. For example, we produced this informative and fun piece that used A.I. to help us track the conversion of tennis courts to pickleball courts around the United States. A.I. has also allowed us to quickly scale text to audio, so we can offer a vast array of what we produce each day for people to listen to as well as read or watch. That makes us more accessible to more readers.
A.I. will not, however, replace human judgment in our newsroom. Every piece of journalism in our report has multiple human beings — reporters, producers, editors — involved in its creation. Our commitment to that won’t change, even as A.I. becomes more capable.
Joe, we got a good question about resiliency. It’s from Barbara Torre Veltri from Lecce, Italy. She writes:
“First of all, thank you to Joe for not being an A.I.-generated executive editor. Here in Puglia, Italy (where I lived since March, required for my dual citizenship received in July), Italians and other Europeans wonder: How is Trump getting away with strong-arm ‘diplomacy’? From tariffs, to ICE raids, shutting down the government, inviting Putin to Alaska, playing favorites when he threatens everyone else and lying with malice? I want to know how your reporters manage to keep doing what they do without getting PTSD?”
Covering major news is why many of us become journalists. We’re most interested in big events and developments that surprise people, need fuller examination and explanation, and upend assumptions about the way the world works. Good journalists want to get as close to the action as possible and figure out the causes and implications of major news. If you are a creature of habit, don’t like surprises and like to know exactly how your days will unfold ahead of time, journalism is probably not the best profession for you.
That said, reporters, photographers and videographers do witness traumatic events. We’re attuned to both the physical and mental toll on our staff. We have policies in place to make sure we rotate staff exposed to the most dangerous or disturbing developments, like violent conflict, and we have robust support resources for people who need it.
What’s on Joe’s mind the most
I’d like to wind down with a few big-picture questions. What’s something about our coverage that you worry we are getting wrong, or need to adjust or think harder about?
As a 24/7 news operation, we’re used to making constant updates and adjustments. Just for a kind of obvious example, our coverage of a tragic accident might change from minute to minute as more reliable information becomes available. The fact that our stories and headlines change in such cases does not make them wrong. Each version represents our best take on events as they unfold. They get better and more complete as we learn more.
There isn’t a day that goes by when I and my colleagues feel we have gotten everything just right and have no more questions about how best to cover the biggest stories. We’re always pushing for a fuller or more complete account, or for an angle the initial coverage may have inadvertently missed or downplayed.
And yes, there are times we get things wrong that we should have gotten right in the first place. We have a transparent process for addressing errors, correcting facts and issuing editors’ notes about mistakes in our coverage.
More generally, though, we’re still striving for a more complete, more nuanced, fuller account even after doing our best to describe and understand the news the first time around. As my onetime boss and longtime friend Dean Baquet often says, the best answer to big questions about our journalism is more journalism. Keep reporting.
What’s the hardest part of your job right now, Joe? What keeps you up at night?
The most challenging part of the job is producing an independent news report when some readers really want a more partisan one. We’re committed to independent journalism, unencumbered by ties to political parties, government, corporations or private interests, at a time when partisanship seems more intense than ever. Our readers of course have their own beliefs and loyalties, and some want to see more coverage that aligns with their views. To practice independent journalism, you need a thick skin.
I believe most readers appreciate the need for independent journalism in a democracy. Democracies rely on a common base of facts and understanding of the news, and they need news sources respected by rival sides. But that’s not always the message we’re hearing from the loudest critics.
Lastly, what’s the best part of the job?
I like waking up each morning not knowing quite what the day will bring, but having full confidence that the most capable staff of journalists ever assembled will scramble to make sense of the biggest news. And hoping we can enlighten, surprise and delight people along the way.
Joseph Kahn is the executive editor of The New York Times. He oversees all aspects of The Times’s global newsroom and news report.
The post Your Questions, Complaints and Feedback for Our Editor, Joe Kahn appeared first on New York Times.
