In an egregious example of bad journalism, the New York Times kicks Judith Rodin on her way out as president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
A news article by David Gelles of the Times reports:
In recent years, the foundation has focused on the themes of "resilience" and "inclusive economies." That has resulted in programs aimed at establishing "resilience officers" in 100 cities to focus on disaster relief and a plan that is sending 100,000 inner-city students to see the musical "Hamilton."
These efforts have struck critics as public relations stunts more than meaningful agents of change. And Ms. Rodin has drawn fire for spending too much time with corporate partners and not enough time with the recipients of grants.
"Has drawn fire" is an example of the passive voice that is a reliable indicator of Times bias. Who is firing? "Critics" that the Times doesn't bother naming or quoting for its readers, let alone independently evaluating the credibility of. Passing along this criticism without providing a response from Ms. Rodin or her defenders or without any apparent attempt to evaluate the validity of the criticism is basically a default by the Times from its responsibility to readers. It's like Donald Trump tweeting "people are saying" or "I'm hearing." If the criticism is true, then the Times shouldn't be afraid to assert it in its own voice, or to name the people who are making it, or hyperlink to articles where the criticism was made. If the criticism is not grounded in reality, why bother to include it at all? Instead what appears in this case is just kind of editorial shrugging — passing along criticism without any investigation of judgment about whether it is valid.
This isn't a partisan criticism — the Times says that the Rockefeller Foundation "is viewed by some has having a liberal bent." Never mind the typo — it should be "as" rather than "has." There's the passive voice again. It's an alarm bell. Who is doing the viewing? Who are these "some"? Are they fascists, or the John Birch Society? Or are they reasonable measurers? The Times doesn't say. The same points apply as above: If the foundation really is liberal, the Times shouldn't be afraid to describe it as such in its own voice, or to name the people describing it as such, or to hyperlink to them. If it's not really a liberal foundation, why bother to include the description at all? To a reader, it seems like the Times can't be bothered to get to the truth of the matter but is just passing along anonymous opinions.
Smartertimes.com and its editor are viewed by some as having a conservative bent, but we happen to think that even executives of liberal foundations such as Ms. Rodin deserve to be treated with integrity and fairness by journalists. In this case, the Times didn't measure up, and failed both Ms. Rodin and its readers.