Sydney Ember

Biased? Probably. Oppositional? Maybe. Essential? In theory. But the enemy? Not so much.

President Trump la called the news media “the enemy of the American people.” But in interviews around the country, Americans of varying political affiliations, even those with serious misgivings about the media, largely allowed that the president’s characterization had gone too far. Trump’s presidency has exacerbated already deep ideological divisions in the country, and Americans on one end of the political spectrum increasingly find themselves unable even to look their counterparts in the eye. But if there has been one instance when the rift has not seemed quite as large, perhaps it has been the response to Trump’s harsh rebuke of the media. Still, the feeling toward the news media among those interviewed was far from warm and fuzzy. Many said they believed the media was flawed in general, and certainly when it came to the coverage of President Trump and his administration.

White House misconduct. Sensational leaks. Battling broadsheets. The swirling story around President Trump’s dealings with Russia is being compared in journalism circles to past blockbusters like Watergate and the Monica Lewinsky scandal — with a 21st-century twist. News organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN are jousting for scoops, but instead of sending clerks to grab the early editions from newsstands, editors watch the news unfold on Twitter in real time. Anonymous sources are driving bombshell stories, and leaks are springing from encrypted iPhone messaging apps rather than from meetings in underground parking garages. The news cycle begins at sunrise, as groggy reporters hear the ping of a presidential tweet, and ends sometime in the overnight hours, as newspaper editors tear up planned front pages scrambled by the latest revelation from Washington. In consequence and velocity, the political developments of the past four weeks — has it been only four weeks? — are jogging memories of momentous journalistic times.

In the hours since Michael Flynn resigned as national security adviser, two narratives have emerged. One, embraced by many in the traditional legacy media, centered on what Flynn had done that led to his resignation: discussed sanctions against Russia in a conversation with the Russian ambassador, and then misled Vice President Mike Pence about it. The other, which developed among the more right-leaning news media, focused on the leaks from Washington that had put pressure on Flynn to step aside, and whether these leaks were intended to damage President Donald Trump.

One narrative holds Flynn, and others who knew about his discussions, accountable. The other portrays Flynn more as a victim. Which narrative does President Trump ascribe to? He attributed Flynn’s resignation to “illegal leaks.” It is not unusual for news media to promote different story angles. And the division between left-leaning and right-leaning news organizations is certainly not new. But the rift between the mainstream media and more partisan news organizations has grown starker in the nearly four weeks since President Trump took office, reflecting a widening political and ideological rift.

Precipitous declines in print advertising rocked the newspaper industry in 2016. And while The New York Times Company recorded significant growth in subscriptions and promising increases in digital advertising, it nevertheless has not avoided the inevitable. The company said Feb 2 that its print advertising revenue in 2016 fell 16 percent, driving a 9 percent drop in total advertising revenue. For the quarter, print advertising revenue declined 20 percent.

The story on the digital side was positive. Digital advertising revenue rose 6 percent last year, to $209 million. The Times added 514,000 net digital-only subscriptions for its news products during the year, bringing its total to 1.6 million. Buoyed by readers’ intense interest in the presidential election, The Times added 276,000 net digital-only subscriptions to its news products in the last three months of the year. Including print and crossword product subscriptions, The Times now has more than three million total paid subscribers.

During his first 11 days in office, President Donald Trump has provided news outlets with plenty of material, at all hours of the morning and night. But his maelstrom of activity — the bold executive orders, the fiery Twitter posts, the brazen speeches — has also exposed, and perhaps exacerbated, ideological differences. For those devouring news about the administration, the choice of narratives has become starker, with brighter lines drawn around the content. For the readers and viewers, it’s follow the narrative of your choice, and be wary of the great chasm between. Over the weekend, as protesters descended on airports across the country in response to President Trump’s immigration ban, fissures began to emerge even among right-wing news organizations. On Jan 30, the divide only widened. And not everyone behaved predictably.

For wary Washington journalists, it seemed only a matter of time before Donald Trump’s presidency would lead to a high-tension standoff between his administration and the news media. But on Day 1?

The news media world found itself in a state of shock on Jan 22, a day after President Trump declared himself in “a running war with the media” and the president’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, used his first appearance on the White House podium to deliver a fiery jeremiad against the press. Worse, many journalists said, were the falsehoods that sprang from the lips of both President Trump and Spicer. “It was absolutely surprising and stunning,” said the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, Jeff Mason.

The New York Times has deftly adapted to the demands of digital journalism, but it needs to change even more quickly, according to an internal report that recommends the company expand training for reporters and editors, hire journalists with more varied skills and deepen engagement with readers as a way to build loyalty and attract the subscriptions necessary to survive.

The report, released to The Times newsroom, culminates a year of work by a group of seven journalists who were asked by Dean Baquet, the executive editor, to conduct a review of the newsroom and determine a blueprint for its path forward. Titled “Journalism That Stands Apart,” and known internally as the 2020 report, the document provides a set of broad principles to accelerate the transformation while maintaining a commitment to high-quality journalism.

In the months after Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate and prominent Republican donor, purchased The Las Vegas Review-Journal in late 2015, one local journalist was particularly relentless in criticizing the new ownership. Jon Ralston, perhaps the state’s most prominent political reporter and columnist, referred to The Review-Journal as “The Adelson News,” suggesting Adelson was unduly influencing Nevada’s largest newspaper. In “The End of Vegas Journalism, Chapter 5,091” Ralston shared his opinions about the “journalism bankruptcy” of the city’s papers.

Then PBS abruptly canceled Ralston’s television show, “Ralston Live,” saying it did not have the financial resources to continue. Ralston had a different take, saying that his pointed commentary about the state’s elite “ruffled feathers.” Whatever the reason, Ralston said he should try to figure out what happened or move forward in his career.

Ralston will set off on his own with The Nevada Independent, a nonprofit, donation-based news website that he hopes will add more journalistic heft to the coverage of state politics.

In the morning, President-elect Donald Trump was the media-bashing firebrand many of his supporters adore, denouncing The New York Times as a “failing” institution that covered him inaccurately — “and with a nasty tone!” Eight hours later, after a lunchtime interview with editors and reporters for The Times — one that was briefly canceled, after President-elect Trump quarreled over the ground rules, then restored — the mood of the president-elect, it seemed, had mellowed.

“The Times is a great, great American jewel,” he declared as he prepared to leave the gathering in the newspaper’s 16th-floor boardroom, where portraits of former presidents adorn the walls. “A world jewel,” added President-elect Trump, who was seated next to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s publisher. “And I hope we can all get along.” In an extraordinary 75-minute meeting — parrying, debating and, at times, joking with the leaders of a publication that has long been an object of Trump’s fascination and frustration — the president-elect’s chameleonlike approach to the news media was on full display. He dismissed his earlier talk of strengthening libel laws, telling the assembled journalists, “I think you’ll be OK.” He expressed interest in improving his relationship with the paper, saying, “I think it would make the job I am doing much easier.” “To me,” President-elect Trump said at one point, “it would be a great achievement if I could come back here in a year or two, and have a lot of folks here say, ‘You’ve done a great job.’”

It had all the trappings of a high-level rapprochement: President-elect Donald Trump, now the nation’s press critic in chief, inviting the leading anchors and executives of television news to join him for a private meeting of minds. On-air stars like Lester Holt, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and Wolf Blitzer headed to Trump Tower for the off-the-record gathering, typically the kind of event where journalists and politicians clear the air after a hard-fought campaign. Instead, the president-elect delivered a defiant message: You got it all wrong.

President-elect Trump, whose antagonism toward the news media was unusual even for a modern presidential candidate, described the television networks as dishonest in their reporting and shortsighted in missing the signs of his upset victory. He criticized some in the room by name, including CNN’s president, Jeffrey Zucker, according to multiple people briefed on the meeting who were granted anonymity to describe confidential discussions. It seemed the meeting was being used as a political prop, especially after Trump-friendly news outlets trumpeted the session as a take-no-prisoners move by a brave president-elect.