By Kristina Ching

Since its conception in 1851, the New York Times has been a prolific source of news for the American people. The Times holds a reputation, both domestically and abroad, for its thoroughness, and has been ranked as the #1 newspaper in the United States by more than one respected institution. Although, The Times is typically regarded as a more left-leaning publication, and its op-eds tend to advocate for liberal policy and legislation, they still believe in objectively reporting, “All the news that’s fit to print.” This creed has been displayed proudly on the front page of their publication since 1896, when it was first introduced by then-owner of the NYT, Adolph Simon-Ochs.

Recently, The Times was thrust into the middle of a debate over whether their editorial board was being wrongly activist in encouraging the Op-Ed readers to contact their senators. The dispute, which took place in December, came about because of a Twitter takeover by the board on the @nytopinion account regarding the GOP tax bill proposal. The string of tweets all included #thetaxbillhurts, as well as attached specific analyses backing the arguments, and it concluded by urging readers who agreed to call senators possessing critical “swing votes.” Many critics came forward immediately, accusing The Times of becoming “a Democratic party organization,” “an issue advocacy organization,” and even “a partisan political activist organization,” among other titles not historically befitting of a newspaper.

These classifications, among others unfairly thrown at the NYT as a whole, flooded their mentions, eventually forcing the editorial page editor, James Bennet, to release an official response defending the board and their actions. Their position, as Mr. Bennet expressed, stood that if it has been long and widely accepted for publications to convince readers to hold a certain opinion, merely giving them the tools to express such opinion does not undermine any journalistic institution. Issues such as these, should not, and cannot mar the integrity of the profession. On the contrary, actions such as the editorial board’s can contribute greatly to the field.

In regards to advocacy journalism as a whole, in the context of editorial or opinion pieces, I see nothing wrong with the practice. It is only when this subjectivity or goals of advancing agenda seep into everyday reporting that I find a serious issue. Principles of journalism advocate for impartiality and I support these ethical standards, as I believe all publications should. The presence of opinion in the appropriate environment does not have to degrade from the quality of writing or the level of seriousness at which it is taken. Editorials have had a place in the industry for decades and the NYT and myself hold firm that activism can have a place there as well. Alongside each other, the two can grant us the power as journalists to not only report, but create what we believe is positive change.