For a long time, the US’s mainstream media represented by CNN and the New York Times has played an objective, impartial role in society as the fourth estate. It has been an integral part of the US democratic system. For a long time, I have had a high level of trust in the US’s mainstream media, and I am a long-time subscriber to the New York Times and the Washington Post. But there have been two recent incidents concerning the coverage of the US election by CNN and the New York Times – two pillars of the US mainstream media – that have shocked and disappointed me quite a bit.

The first is the “recording gate” that is now widely known. Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has recently released a series of recordings made during CNN’s internal news meeting. Despite the controversy about the legality of how the recording was acquired, the authenticity of the content itself is beyond doubt. That CNN has not disputed the recording is concrete proof.

On Donald Trump’s positive test and his hospitalization, CNN’s CEO told his editors and journalists during a conference call on 9 October very specifically not to “normalize the behavior of Trump”. On another conference call, CNN journalist Jamie Gangel said openly that “news organizations have to be very careful and very responsible about not giving Trump too much of a platform on his not conceding things, because they feel the transition can go forward”.

CNN can definitely have its own political stance and judgment as a commercial media group. However, anyone with knowledge of the basics of journalism should understand that its stance and judgement should be reserved for CNN’s political commentary programs. But in news reporting, an incident should be reported as it is, and the readers should be left to decide whether the incident is normal or not. CNN’s mistake is that it has treated news as commentary.

Furthermore, Trump’s refusal to concede defeat and leave office was an important development after the conclusion of the US election. CNN’s instruction that the incident should not be overreported is not the manifestation of professionalism expected of a self-styled “truth-seeking” media group.

Another incident was my personal experience. Last month, the New York Times published an article about some Asian human rights activists’ support for Donald Trump. The very first sentence of the article contained an insinuation that I am “spreading conspiracy theories about election fraud”. This allegation is completely wrong. After the election, I read too many rumors circulated on the internet about election fraud. As it is very difficult to verify these theories, I made a rule for myself, which was that I would not share any news about election fraud on Facebook or Twitter.

Prior to that, there had been some similar reporting by the Wall Street Journal, which specifically mentioned that I “did not spread news about election fraud”. I had not expected that, given the painstaking care I had taken, the New York Times would still make such an erroneous claim against me.

Having read the electronic version of the article, I contacted the journalist who wrote it, telling her that I had never “spread any news about election fraud”. Aware of the seriousness of the problem, the journalist apologized repeatedly and immediately deleted the words “election fraud” in the electronic version. However, in the printed version of the article published two days later, the original sentence remained. Not a single word had been changed.

I understand that the newspapers were already printed before any amendments could have been made. The crux of the matter, however, was that the New York Times, which has long professed the importance of fact checks in news reporting, did not contact me to verify the claim that I “spread conspiracy theories about election fraud” before making such a report. That was just too ironic.

I have known the journalist who wrote the article for more than a decade. I do not believe that she intended to smear me deliberately, and she has apologized repeatedly. But the printed version of the article has been published, and the false allegation against me is now indisputable “fake news”. In the past, when I contributed articles to the New York Times, I witnessed firsthand its meticulousness, as it scrutinized nearly every word repeatedly. But this time the New York Times has obviously lowered its standards of professionalism. There can only be one explanation, which is that the newspaper’s stance is too strong, so much so that its professionalism has been sacrificed.

The antagonism between the US’s mainstream media and Donald Trump is a long-standing issue. To be frank, I think there is wrong on either side. But the US mainstream media claims to be on a higher moral ground than Trump. To be responsible to society, it should make a greater effort to rein in its bias and emotions instead of conducting news reporting with hostility towards Trump. This is where the US mainstream media must take a look at itself.

(Wang Dan is founder of the think tank Dialogue China.)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play