New York Times Editor Acknowledges Labeling Double Standard

A New York Times editor has acknowledged a potential double standard in the newspaper's use of labels for experts, admitting the outlet may be more likely to identify conservative voices than liberal ones.

Patrick Healy, the Times's assistant managing editor for trust and standards, made the admission in response to feedback from Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston. Blackman noted that he had been described as a "conservative law professor" twice by The New York Times in February.

Blackman's concern was not with the accuracy of the label, but with its inconsistent application. He reviewed a New York Times database and found that the publication was "far more likely" to label conservatives than liberals. This, he suggested, could lead to conservative viewpoints being presented as less conventional or "the other," while liberal perspectives might be depicted more neutrally.

Healy agreed with Blackman's assessment, stating that "It can come off like The Times treats liberals as normal and conservatives as unique and worthy of labeling." He indicated that the newspaper needs to be more "discerning" in its labeling practices going forward.

Healy explained that the Times uses labels to provide context for readers. He offered an example where a conservative legal scholar criticizing a president might be considered more newsworthy than a liberal scholar making a similar critique. Blackman proposed that providing context, such as whether a source has filed briefs for specific administrations, might be more informative than broad political labels.

While discussing the challenges of achieving linguistic consistency across the Times's newsroom of 2,000 journalists, Healy also appeared open to the idea of using longer contextual explanations instead of single labels. He conceded that reporters sometimes seek a "one word instead of 10," which can be problematic.

However, Healy pushed back against the suggestion that the Times could improve its sourcing from across the political spectrum. He asserted that the outlet's coverage has changed significantly compared to the past and that it is not seeking "false balance or false equivalency."

Healy hosted Blackman for a segment in a new weekly newsletter where he engages with reader feedback. Blackman had previously submitted a letter to the editor about the issue, which was not published. This discussion provided him an opportunity to voice his concerns to a wider audience.