Truth in Our Times: Inside the Fight for Press Freedom in the Age of Alternative Facts

by David E. McCraw

David E. McCraw recounts his experiences as the top newsroom lawyer for the New York Times during the most turbulent era for journalism in generations.

In October 2016, when Donald Trump's lawyer demanded that The New York Times retract an article focused on two women that accused Trump of touching them inappropriately, David McCraw's scathing letter of refusal went viral and he became a hero of press freedom everywhere. But as you'll see in Truth in Our Times, for the top newsroom lawyer at the paper of record, it was just another day at the office.

McCraw has worked at the Times since 2002, leading the paper's fight for freedom of information, defending it against libel suits, and providing legal counsel to the reporters breaking the biggest stories of the year. In short: if you've read a controversial story in the paper since the Bush administration, it went across his desk first. From Chelsea Manning's leaks to Trump's tax returns, McCraw is at the center of the paper's decisions about what news is fit to print.

In Truth in Our Times, McCraw recounts the hard legal decisions behind the most impactful stories of the last decade with candor and style. The book is simultaneously a rare peek behind the curtain of the celebrated organization, a love letter to freedom of the press, and a decisive rebuttal of Trump's fake news slur through a series of hard cases. It is an absolute must-have for any dedicated reader of The New York Times.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Journalism, Memoir, History, Legal, Audiobook

304 pages, Hardcover

First published March 12, 2019

Reviews

[Will Byrnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

The war over press freedom was not going to be a fight about changing America’s laws. It was going to be a fight about the very nature of truth…I should have seen it coming. In a decade and a half at The Times I had had my moments with Trump and his lawyers. I knew how they played the game.

All the News That’s Fit to Print (which should be changed, BTW, to add “or Post” or substitute “Fit to Run”to accommodate the fact that materials these days might be posted without ever being actually printed) does not usually include the doings of its in-house counsel. But in October 2016, at the height of the presidential election campaign, The New York Times had just published an article titled Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately. The accompanying video was quite compelling, the stories from both women believable. It did not take long for a standard response to bad coverage to arrive. Donald Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances. It was typical for Trump to threaten to sue anyone who printed or planned to print anything unflattering about him. But this was at the peak of a presidential campaign, when the damage from bad press could be devastating. In-house counsel David McCraw was charged with preparing a response. He went above and beyond, his reply going viral. In his response he wrote “Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself…if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.” Oh, snap! For the full text, check out The New York Times’s Lawyer Responds to Donald Trump


David E. McCraw - Image from Columbia Journalism Review – photo by Santiago Mejia, of The Times

That was the most widely known piece of work self-described “raging moderate” David McCraw did while working at The Times, where he has toiled since 2002, and where he is currently Deputy General Counsel. His story has a lot more to it than fighting back against America’s #1 bully, but dealing with issues Trumpian whether directly or by implication makes up the majority of the book.

In addition to the kerfuffle noted above, there is a Trump tax return that entered over the transom, leading to an informative discussion of legal culpability re leaks. (The leaker is at risk, not the publisher, as long as the publisher did not do anything to encourage the leaker, but was a passive recipient.) This leads to a look at the very real responsibility publishers take on of checking with the government before printing information that might conceivably endanger lives. Pretty compelling stuff.

For much of the past half-century, a balance had been struck. Both sides lived in an imperfect world of discretion…News organizations tried to make informed decisions about what to publish, weighing the risks to the nation and the benefits to the public, and the government held back from tracking down and prosecuting leakers except in the rarest of cases.

There are the attempts by the White House to exclude unfriendly news organizations from public briefings, while allowing in journalists of the lap-dog variety. You will learn the difference between a “gaggle” and an official press conference. Of greater concern is the impact Trump is having with his daily attacks on the press, both domestically and internationally. McCraw became very familiar with such concerns as he wound up taking on the job of trying to get back Times people who had been kidnapped by diverse sorts abroad, or had been picked up by local governments. Some of this reads like a thriller.

It doesn’t really matter how much freedom the press has in a society if the press is not believed. A distrusted press is little different from a shackled press. It lacks the authority to mobilize public opinion against wrongdoing, corruption and misguided policy. It has no voice to hold governments accountable. It gets ignored. And I was pretty sure that at some point a disregard for the press would translate into a disregard for the law of press freedom.

In addition, foreign autocrats are more than happy to chime in about “fake news” and the press being “the enemy of the people” whenever coverage of their questionable doings becomes too energetic, feeling that they not only have cover provided by the journalism-hostile US president, but that attacking the press will gain them points with the White House. This also presents added challenges to protecting American journalists abroad, when the State Department cannot be counted on to help.

And then there is the Trumpian fondness for using the courts as a blunt weapon with which to attack any who would criticize him, suing for libel whenever is heard a discouraging word. Other frequent filers are noted, and we learn about the tradition of “lawyer letters” the paper receives in abundance, threats of one sort of lawsuit or another, most of which are, thankfully, ignored.

You will learn the proper process for “doing” sex tapes, that is, getting them into the public venue, pick up some info on a law that protects American publishers from being subjected to legal judgments made in nations where press freedom is not valued as highly as it is here, and discover “little guy” lawsuits in which reputations might be devastated simply by appearing in the same news article as someone infamous. You will learn some very unwelcome news on the effectiveness of FOIA legislation. You will learn about the very significant danger involved in going to court to enforce First Amendment press freedoms. You will learn about the dangers inherent in the current downsizing of the newspaper business, and plenty more.

The reputation of newspaper lawyers is that they tend toward finding reasons not to publish. McCraw’s rep is more one of making sure the paper can print what it wants, and offering a solid defense when the paper is challenged in court.

I did have one particular gripe that merits mentioning. In writing about the issue of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server, it is pretty clear that McCraw presumes the worst, that she was up to no good of one sort or another and sought to hide her activities from public scrutiny. He makes no mention of other government officials having done the same thing, with no vast outcry about their activities, and he makes no mention of the fact that HC had been under non-stop right-wing assault since her days as the wife of the governor of Arkansas. She has been, arguably, the most attacked public figure of our era, and, despite many congressional investigations led by the opposition party, has been found to have done nothing illegal. Any person in such a position could be forgiven for feeling a bit paranoid about her normal communications being intercepted and weaponized for use against her. I would have done the same thing. Yet there was no mention of any mitigating possible circumstances. I expected a degree of balance from someone who works for such a great paper. It’s absence was disappointing.

That said, this book is a wonderful source of information and well-defined concerns about the newspaper biz today, and about overarching issues that are already impacting freedom of press in America. McCraw’s journey from his opening view of the Trump administration as just another day at the office to something considerably more alarming is more powerful for the distance McCraw had to travel. I heartily recommend Truth in Our Times. It may not be all the news that’s fit to print about the legal concerns of journalism today, but it will certainly do.

I had resisted, in my raging moderate style, all those overheated comparisons to Nazi Germany that too many of my liberal friends offered up much too easily. Now I was no longer sure.

Review posted – April 5, 2019

Publication date – March 12, 2019

I received this book from St. Martin's, at least I think it was St Martin's. Just found it outside my door one day, so I am pretty sure the Justice Department cannot come after me for anything in this review.

=============================EXTRA STUFF

The initial article - Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately

Trump’s response - Donald Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances.

McCraw’s viral smack-down - The New York Times’s Lawyer Responds to Donald Trump

There is a excellent profile of McCraw in the Columbia Journalism Review - Getting the story out: The lawyer standing between the Times and a hostile world - by Andrew McCormick

“A distrust of power is the ultimate conservative value,” McCraw says. “It used to be, at least.” In high school, McCraw attended a speech by Peter Arnett, the famed Vietnam war correspondent, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Listening to what the reporters were going through to overcome disinformation coming from the Pentagon and military commanders, I found that really inspiring,” McCraw says.

NPR’s Fresh Air - 'Times' Deputy Counsel On Fighting For Press Freedom In The Trump Era - by Terry Gross

In the time that he's president, he has really taken a different strategy, or expanded on a strategy he had used outside of lawyer letters before, and that is simply challenging the facts, and doing so publicly. As much as Donald Trump has talked about changing libel laws so it would be easier for people to sue, in fact, I think the greater danger is his attempts at delegitimizing the press, at encouraging people not to believe.

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

David E. McCraw is an attorney. He has spent the past fifteen years as the deputy general counsel for the New York Times. The book is a combination of a memoir, politics and history. McCraw discusses his perceived threats to the first amendment. He also goes into legal cases such as New York Times Company v Sullivan which made suing the press for libel more difficult. He also covers Wikileaks and Edward Snowden. Of course, he discusses the current political situation in Washington, D.C.

The book is well written and researched. McCraw provides a clear understanding of the first amendment and legal issues regarding journalism. The writing is concise and easy to understand for a lay person. The author also provides some humor in the book. I had no idea running a newspaper was so complicated legally. This is an important read.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is ten hours and two minutes. Stephen Graybill does a good job narrating the book. Graybill is an award-winning voice-over actor and audiobook narrator. He has won the Gold Clio Award, the Silver Effie Award and the Reader’s Choice Award of “Narrator of the Year”. This is my first experience listening to Graybill.

[Trish · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is written in spirit of an old-time newspaper man regaling cackling, amused, red-nosed patrons in a smoke-filled, dimly-lit bar with personal and singular stories of powerful forces arrayed against a humble man who plays it as though his power is negligible. David E. McCraw may be a down-home guy…as Trump says, he has a soothing, bedroom manner…but his reach is hardly negligible. Don’t be fooled.

Reading this book is every bit as fun as finding oneself under the influence…of a world-class raconteur. We get the inside story on the early days of Trump, when in 2005 Tim O’Brien, then an editor at The New York Times, published TrumpNation and got sued for it. That book is funny and as good a read as this, so get both. In hiring practice, The New York Times must adhere to the No-Asshole Rule (it’s a real thing—look it up).

McCraw goes through the thought and research processes of releasing the couple pages of Trump’s tax returns from 1995, and finding the NYT and Fox News agreeing for what seemed to be the first time in history. He discusses the bizarre beginning to the Trump presidency during which Spicer sought to limit the access of newspapers, certain reporters, and insisted on telling lies about the size of crowds at the inauguration.

When Trump declared the NYT to be “failing,” the senior management couldn’t resist bragging that Trump was doing more for their bottom line than a war. And McCraw doesn’t make any bones about the fact that he stood for press freedom no matter which party The Times was talking to. Hillary Clinton “had a hostility to openness that doesn’t befit a public officeholder…” Truer words were never spoken.

What I admired most about the tone in this book is the big-brain reasonableness of the whole thing. I mean, here we have one of the premier newspapers in the world, with all kinds of talented reporters doing important work, but McCraw recognizes each as individuals and sees the need to tamp down their rage, at times, with the lies and shenanigans happening in the White House and the reporters impotence, in the end, to do anything but report on it.

McCraw tells the story of Stanley Dearman, a newspaper editor in Philadelphia, Mississippi when three civil rights workers went missing in 1964. For 40 years after, Dearborn kept reminding citizens in print of the unsolved case of the mens’ disappearance, ignoring those who told him to “drop it.” McCraw tells us Dearborn’s work was an example of showing the difference between serving the people and catering to them.

When a reporter wrote a story trying to explain the phenomenon of an ordinary-seeming midwest young man expressing adherence to the philosophies of Hitler, the outrage visited upon the paper led to threats against the reporter’s person and livelihood.

“Dealing with threats against journalists had become a sadly routine part of my work life, but each time a new one surfaced a feeling of discouragement about what the country had become would come over me again.”

I hear that. But perhaps the country has always been this way, that even NYT readers are quick to show their [lack of] understanding about enormously important subjects that reach to our makeup as humans.

McCraw also discusses the case of David Sanger writing a book about cyber warfare based on, it was argued in court, leaks of classified documents from high-level government insiders. This is intensely interesting stuff for those who ever wondered how reporters manage to report on closely-held high-level secrets. Probably most of us would agree with McCraw that “the real problem for America was not the unauthorized revelation but an excess of secrecy.” Later he argues "Secrecy breeds absurdity."

The whole book is a feast of huge stories reaching right into the psyche of America’s collective past, nearly twenty years now of stomach-churning days for someone in McCraw’s position. High stakes, for everyone. I will end before McCraw’s account of the Weinstein story, finishing with the decision to publish the 2010 Wikileaks cache and Greenwald & Poitras’ decision to bypass the NYT to have Snowden’s secrets published by The Washington Post and The Guardian instead.

McCraw sounds disappointed that The Times was bypassed on the Snowden story, and I remember well the criticism of them at the time.

“Maybe we should be better at inculcating all citizens—now all potential publishers—with a sense of social responsibility…I continued to believe the risks that came with freedom were worth the price…I also believe The Times had been right, in its North Korea reporting and other sensitive national security stories, to give the government a chance to responds before publication. Many readers saw that process as a surrender…

“…It was important to debate whether The Times had been timid then or at other times, but context was important: our newsroom regularly decided that the government’s objections were too abstract, not believable, insufficiently weighty, or given by officials too far down the food chain to know, and then resolved to move ahead with publishing. But it’s not a science. Editors sometimes get it wrong. National security is intrinsically the hardest of the calls they have to make…If we are ever forced to defend against a criminal charge, I wanted our legal narrative to be one of responsibility, serious deliberation, and a demonstrable concern about the public’s best interests.”

McCraw ’s book raises some thorny ethical questions and answers one newspaper’s take on many more.

[Perry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am in process of writing a 1,000-1,250 word review for publication in a weekly indie because I consider this book a must-read for those nervous about the president's attempts to control his administration's narrative by giving "alternative facts" and constantly bullying the press (all major news organizations besides Fox News), including, e.g., twice condemning the press as " the enemy of the people ."

This book is so perfectly timely and edifying, without at all being didactic.

It reminded me that America's First Amendment is much, much stronger than I remembered and than most people realize. Our press is the most free in the world, unburdened by the prior restraints and post-hoc punitive measures present in other democracies. And yet, the truth is under siege by an administration that pounds the table with labels of all major news (but Fox News) as "fake news" while comfortably substituting fiction in place of facts.

Stay tuned.

[Ian Beardsell · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good quote by Solzhenitsyn sets the theme:

Woe to that nation whose literature is disturbed by the intervention of power. Because that is not just a violation against freedom of print, it is a closing down of the heart of the nation, a slashing to pieces of its memory. The nation ceases to be mindful of itself, it is deprived of its spiritual unity, and despite a supposedly common language, compatriots suddenly cease to understand one another.

David McGraw has been a lawyer for the New York times for almost 20 years, a time in which he has been involved in several high-profile legal cases where he fought to defend the famous American newspaper over various court challenges that tried to suppress press freedom, a cause that seemed to come under attack in the recent era of Trumpism and "fake news".

McGraw starts and ends his account with the letter with which he responded to Trump's lawyers, shortly before the 2016 election, who threatened legal action over a report of two women's claims that Trump touched them inappropriately, arguing that it would hurt their client's reputation. McGraw argued publically that Mr Trump had himself already built up his "reputation" as someone who bragged often about "pussy-grabbing", intruding on beauty pageant dressing rooms, his "piece of ass" daughter, and much more. McGraw further defended the women's rights to speak up about sexual assault, as well as the responsibility of journalists to cover such claims in the pursuit of truth. It was a letter that resounded with many who were becoming fed up with the constant attacks on American journalists as "enemies of the people", which was something that was noticeably spreading in other more authoritarian regimes, as it was such an easy play to get populations to ignore stories troubling to the powers that be...

In the rest of the book, McGraw recounts how he and the journalists he has worked with have always had running battles with the courts in an effort to walk a fine line between getting an important story right so that the public can be properly informed, and the need to handle both personal information and state secrets carefully. He touches on many such subjects, in which the rich and powerful try to silence news that will cause them headaches, but I believe that the quote from Solzhenitsyn above truly shows us why this is an important subject: when the citizens of a state cannot inform themselves accurately but get sidetracked into falsehoods both accidental and purposeful, they cannot make decisions and choices based on facts. I certainly fear what the consequences of the "fake news" mentality, where everything that is negative about a special interest's values is automatically labeled "fake" or "wrong", as well as out of control social media, now in conjunction with the latest AI technology, we have already slipped down the slope of being unable to discern what is real and what is not, and that is the death knell for civic society.

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disclaimer: The publisher sent me an ARC in exchange for a fair and honest review. I am also a subscriber to the Times.

On the day I finished reading this ARC, the President of the United States called the New York Times an “enemy of the people,” and the Times itself carried an article about a reporter being detained and kicked out of Egypt. Additionally, the President tweeted support of a lawsuit against the Washington Post. And a supreme court judges wants the court to re-evaluates the Times vs Sullivan case.

Talk about timing.

David E. McCraw is a lawyer at the New York Times – he is the Deputy General Counsel for the paper. As such, he is familiar with Free Speech as it applies to the news as well as the work and danger of being a journalistic. His book is part defense of the news in general, of the Times in particular, and a call arms not for journalists, but for the public.

Because of his job, McCraw’s primary example is of the Times, and he details how the Times responded to not only news (such as the allegations of Trump’s harassment of women among others) but also how the public responded to their reporting (such as the profile of a man who supports racist ideas). It also chronicles the paper’s response to issues such as Spicer’s banning of them from the press gaggle to debates about how reporters should tweet.

While the bulk of the book deals with dealing with Trump’s seemingly relentless attacks on the press, the book is even handed. McCraw deals with the Obama’s administration’s treatment of leaks and sources, as well as how Clinton dodged a reporter’s phone calls. It might be anti-Trump, but other politicians are not let off the hook. And it might upset some people, but I found the discussion of the Clinton emails to be very interesting.

It is though his look at both the coverage of events and criticism of the Times coverage that he is at his most engrossing. In part, this is because of some of the stories he tells. His examples of strange redacted documents are worth the cost of the book alone. The chapter on leaks, in particular, strikes right at the heart of the issue Freedom of the Press vs the need to keep some information back. While McCraw is understandably on the side of the press, he does address the question with nuance. He does the same when discussing the political leanings of journalists as well.

The book includes how the Times handled abductions some journalists and the reaction of the media to becoming “news”. This is in part to show that the idea of press as the enemy as been building for some time, and illustrate similarities between how some regimes treat the media and how Trump does.

You might criticize the Times’ coverage, but this book does show the purpose and need for a free press as well as why we shouldn’t give up on it.

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Considering that McCraw became known to most of us after writing a "lawyer letter" to Trump's attorneys that went viral, it's tempting to chalk this up as another anti-Trump screed that can be easily ignored by his supporters and trumpeted (if not read) by his detractors.

That would be a mistake.

What McCraw has written instead is an informative, enlightening, nuanced, and entertaining description of the role of the First Amendment in our government and culture. As an attorney, McCraw recognizes the difference between legal writing and narrative writing, and he pokes fun at himself and the legal profession in making this point while ensuring that his narrative is clear, direct, and easy to read. His focus is on telling stories that highlight his points, and given his work with the NYT there are lots of stories to share. He reviews not only many of the challenges with Trump's attacks on the press, but also the role and importance of "leakers," his frustration with Obama's crackdown on these leakers (in this sense, Obama comes across almost as poorly as Trump), the story behind the Harvey Weinstein reporting, kidnappings in foreign countries, challenges with the Freedom of Information Act, and more. Concepts that are likely dry and tedious in law school are brought to life in real-world situations where the First Amendment matters, sometimes to the point of literal life and death.

At the book's heart, as McCraw affirms, is a passion for the First Amendment and the need for it to exist in a democracy. Throughout the book, the real heroes are the journalists who risk their lives in standing up to authoritarian governments and placing themselves in war zones to report their stories. These individuals demonstrate that the First Amendment is worth dying for.

McCraw closes the book by noting that it's not enough to support the First Amendment, but that we must all search for the truth so we can make informed decisions. The founding fathers developed their constitutional system through the belief that it would succeed only if citizens could distinguish truth from lies. This is why Trump's attacks on "fake news" and calling the media "the enemy of the people" is particularly alarming. As McCraw states, "The First Amendment story is, in the end, now about law but about hearts and minds. It doesn't really matter how much freedom journalists have if no one believes them. A discredited press plays no role in shaping democracy and holding power accountable." This is a role the Founding Fathers recognized as imperative, and we should as well. McCraw shows us why.

[Kathleen Flynn]

As someone who works in The Times newsroom, I found this a fascinating read.

But I think anyone who cares about journalism, history or the First Amendment will like it too. It's a concise, well-written and even witty account of some recent dramatic events -- #MeToo coverage, the uncharted territory of Trump's election and presidency, the kidnapping of various Times journalists -- putting them in a legal context and a coherent framework.

I'm glad David McCraw wrote this -- it's interesting now, and will be valuable in the future, I think, when people of the future, assuming there is one, want to understand what the heck was going in the early years of the 21st century.

[Rūta Putnikienė · Rating 5 out of 5]

The New York Times teisininko knyga apie iššūkius žiniasklaidai Trumpo prezidentavimo metu, bet ir ne tik. Labai įdomiai susiskaitė

[Isaac Schreacke · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid 3.5 star book that becomes a 4.25 star book when the afterword ties the entirety of the narrative together creating a new understanding of what the freedom of the press means

[Serge · Rating 5 out of 5]

McCraw’s expertly wry humor breathes life into this must-read robust defense of the media’s First Amendment Rights and responsibilities. He offers a reasonable and passionate argument for an an adversarial press in a time of disinformation and deceit. Still, he shows great sympathy for the general public frustrated Ike’s by the complexity of the stories that the Times brings to the public square. Alice in FOIA-land is easily the best chapter in the book.

[Jamie Bee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not quite sure what I was expecting when I chose this book, but it was a far more compelling and insightful read than I imagined it would be. I was drawn to it because I wanted to see what the lawyer for the New York Times had to say about the topic since The Times seem to have been embroiled in a battle with the Trump Administration since the president's inauguration. I was curious about The Times side of the story.

While the book does spend a good portion discussing The Times versus Trump, it is far more than that. It is a riveting combination of legal history about the First Amendment as well as an in-the-moment professional memoir of the fight to keep one of our most sacred amendments to the law of the land intact. Trump is not the only one looked at here; any politician who has attempted to diminish the First Amendment up for scrutiny.

The author pulls you into the surprisingly fascinating world of a media lawyer to a big-name news outlet that is regularly called out by those in the highest government positions. He calls himself a “raging moderate,” which is a phrase I love and might adopt myself. You get the sense that he not only appreciates the First Amendment because it is a part of his job, but instead, he sees it as one of the cornerstones necessary for a true democracy. Shame on those who want to dismantle this freedom, either by blunt force or slowly chipping away at it. The book presents a solid case about why it is essential to have free speech and free press in a democracy. It lays bare the dangers if they are flouted or threatened.

I thought, perhaps, when I started reading the book that it might be an interesting subject but a boring read (legalese, you know), but I couldn't have been more wrong. Because the author keeps us mostly in the moment, only summarizing occasionally, it was as much of a page-turner as any good thriller fiction. I think those on both sides of the debate of fake news should read this book to get a glimpse of how the First Amendment works from the inside, not just as an ideal. It gives you a better sense of the forces at work in the country today and what is at stake. It’s a big smoochy kiss to the First Amendment, and I think it needs a little lovin’ at the moment!

I received a free copy of this book, but that did not affect my review.

Read my other reviews at https://www.readingfanaticreviews.

[thewanderingjew · Rating 2 out of 5]

Truth in Our Times: Inside the Fight for Press Freedom in the Age of Alternative Facts, David E. McCraw, Author; Narrators, Stephen Graybill, David E. McCraw
Some books are meant to inform and some are meant to influence the reader’s opinions on specific subjects. Some are meant to do both. This book is meant to influence the reader’s opinions, only, in my opinion. The title pretty much indicates that from the get-go. There is a basic premise presented and that is that freedom of the press is being threatened, and it is being threatened by one individual who is smeared throughout this book without the author taking any ownership of his industry’s guilt in creating the problem. He does not truly deal with the fact that the media has become an arm of the left, supporting their efforts with positive articles while writing more than 90% of the articles on President Trump, in a negative way, and often printing only criticisms or salacious news, even if false or improperly vetted. Although the book appears to be masquerading as an expose on the way journalism has been tarnished, albeit often by its own presentation of incorrect information, this book seems to be more of an honorarium for the author. It concentrates on the author’s career and cases, but mostly covers how the news has been handled in the era of Trump.
When information is presented, the right side of the political spectrum is tainted and the left side is sainted by the author. He makes it pretty plain that he is anti-Trump with his choice of facts.
Although he covers many issues, little attention, if any, is devoted to the accomplishments of the President. Most everything he covers is treated negatively, in the same way the paper has proceeded over the term of Trump’s Presidency. One would think that Trump had accomplished nothing during his term. That would be a false premise, but it is what the author seems to want the reader to believe. To him, Trump is merely an instigator, a loudmouth, a crude dictator, a spoiler who is destroying the country, and while Trump has accomplished more for the economy and civil rights than any President in recent history, one would not know that from reading this lawyers explanation of the years he served as lawyer to the Times and presented news about Trump.
You would think that the President, from McCraw’s description, implications, suggestions and tone of voice, is a failure. He is guilty of doing what the paper has been doing to earn it the reputation of “fake news”. Yet President Trump has instituted prison reform, education reform, Veteran’s administration reform, immigration reform, has appointed judges, renegotiated trade deals, renegotiated Nato contributions, reinvigorated manufacturing in the United States, reduced income taxes for most citizens who pay taxes, made our military stronger, reinforced respect for our police officers and other public servants in spite of the obstruction from the opposition, altered laws so that college students may not be falsely accused as easily, reduced the unemployment rate especially for minorities, presided over a steadily rising stock market hitting never before target numbers, met with and welcomed many foreign leaders to the White House, and more, but this does not shout out from the pages of the New York Times or other left leaning publications.
Instead, this book seems to honor the author for his accomplishments and his effort to present and protect what he sees as the truth, to the public, regardless of the harm it might cause or whether or not it has been properly researched and proven to be true. Therefore, McCraw finds it easy to denigrate the President by allowing the news to point to his inevitable constant wrongdoings. Even when it has been proven largely false, as with the Mueller Report, the news remained largely negative about him.
McCraw rails against the President’s attacks on the news media but does not accept the responsibility of his own paper’s slanted coverage. He does not recognize that the newspaper has become an arm of the left and may be influencing our judgment, knowledge and elections unfairly. He presents himself as a fighter for the freedom of the press, but he approves of a press that is biased and does not deal with this President fairly. The reputation of “fake news” has been earned by the presentation of the news on the pages of the Times, which often has had to be retracted because the primary goal seemed to smear the President and capture a headline and an audience. The game of gotcha was front and center in his book, and yes, he was proud that they had played that game.
Yes, the President does embellish, or perhaps, as some say, he lies. Certainly this author believes that. But then, what has the Times done by presenting false stories, rumors and anonymous revelations? Haven’t they lied, as well? Often they post a retraction, but who notices that after a screaming, sensational headline smearing the President. The damage has been done.
On these pages, you won’t find an admission of the newspaper being one sided in its presentation; you won’t find an admission of guilt because the purpose of this book is not to present facts but to persuade readers not to vote for the man McCraw believes is a dishonest and flawed President. He was disappointed with the results of the election. It shouts that message loud and clear on the pages, and therein “lies the rub”, for the newsaper has taken to presenting the news in a partly dishonest way, insinuating issues that may not exist in order to present and support left leaning opinion. McCraw and the paper, at times, seem to suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Trump was covered more fairly and the papers were not only looking for crimes and missteps, they would have a far more likeable and manageable President to cover; perhaps he would be a President who didn’t need to tweet ad nauseum.
The author of this book is Vice President and Assistant General Counsel at The New York Times. He has also worked for other ultra liberal outlets. This book concentrates its story on the time he worked during what he terms a turbulent time, the time of Trump. It is read partly by himself and partly by a paid narrator. The reading is sometimes snarky, sometimes very nasty and tainted with emotion meant to subtly lead the reader in one direction or another, and always it is in the direction of an anti-Trump narrative. There is little attempt to explain anything to the reader about the reason for the moniker “Fake News”, or to take responsibility for it, but rather it feels like a hatchet job to smear President Trump and change the course of history by working to have him impeached and to negate the previous election, because he and other liberals are unhappy with the results. The publishing industry is liberal, it has been for a long time, but today it is no longer a news industry, it seems to have morphed into an opinion factory searching for negative news to print about anything Trump.
I did not include specifics because I did not want to encourage the negativity coming from this book. Regardless of the subject, even when Trump was praised and the reader had a ray of hope that it was an honest review, McCraw found a way to slant and twist the information to make it ultimately negative.
The efforts of the left are most often painted as virtuous and laudable while those on the right are inevitably characterized as incompetent, unworthy, or unsatisfactory. I found this book to be a one-sided opinion from a left leaning author with a bully pulpit. It is obvious that it is meant to be a hatchet job against the President of the United States. Opinions run rampant on the pages with cherry picked facts and tales. Although the book is about more than Trump, the discontent with him is obvious which means that this book will be adored by liberals and rejected by conservatives.

[Jenna Spinelle]

I host a podcast about democracy and had the opportunity to interview David McCraw about the free press and the First Amendment earlier this summer. He was as delightful to talk to and it's clear that he's very passionate about the work that he does. The interview is available here: https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com...

[Ilse O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thoroughly engaging, in-depth analysis of the current state of the press and the First Amendment, and the impact on citizens here in the U.S. and abroad. In what has to be one of the most stressful jobs, David McCraw shares remarkable stories from his experience as the newsroom lawyer for the New York Times with humor, insight and reflection. He is an extraordinarily talented writer and lawyer. To my good fortune, he was my journalism professor and editorial supervisor in college, one of the smartest people I've ever known. Highly recommended.

[Connie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too little analysis, too much focus on Trump.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

The war over press freedom was not going to be a fight about changing America's laws. It was going to be a fight about the very nature of truth, about who could capture the hearts and minds of the American people, about who got heard and who got believed. [p. 26]

It doesn't really matter how much freedom journalists have if no one believes them. A discredited press plays no role in shaping democracy and holding power accountable. [p. 275]

President Donald Trump's authoritarian instincts have naturally fueled his attempts to dismantle the opposition. First, Congress: The Trump administration has repeatedly failed to provide requested information to congressional oversight committees, and has defied congressional subpoenas. Second, the courts: Trump's Republican minions have busied themselves packing courts throughout the country with conservative judges, and Mitch McConnell notoriously prevented President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court from receiving confirmation hearings. Finally, the press: Although the media enjoy substantial First Amendment legal protections, Trump's never-ending sputterings about "fake news", and his characterization of mainstream media as "the enemy of the American people", have undermined public confidence in news reporting, thereby compromising the media's ability to provide checks on governmental misdeeds.

In addition to embracing disinformation, the Trump administration has used bullying tactics to undermine the credibility of legitimate news organizations. Some credentialed reporters have been peremptorily excluded from briefings, and at one point CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass was revoked (it was restored after CNN filed a lawsuit). The net effect is that public trust in mass media is at an all-time low.

David McGraw, Deputy General Counsel for The New York Times since 2002, has a lot to say about the importance of First Amendment legal protections, but he's also acutely aware of the public confidence crisis. The latter may be more difficult than the former "in our times". Not only do Trump and his White House spokespersons routinely lie and invent "alternative facts"; there are numerous media outlets such as Breitbart and Fox, that regularly concoct stories reflecting a Trumpian perspective; in fact, Trump frequently takes counsel from such sources. On top of that, social media have made it possible for falsehoods to spread like wildfire to enormous audiences. Years ago, the nation as a whole listened to, and trusted, Walter Cronkite. Today, news consumption can be tailored to one's own political proclivities. As McGraw notes, "reader-centered journalism" in a polarized age runs the risk of printing "what people wanted rather than giving them the journalism they needed" [p. 102]. He adds that The Times tries to avoid that risk, but of course its audience is far from universal.

Although The Times is sometimes depicted as a left-wing news outlet, McGraw makes clear that, whatever the personal politics of its reporters might be, the paper itself aims for objectivity. Soon after Trump's election, "[s]omeone asked the executive editor, Dean Baquet, how The Times intended to cover a president who had campaigned not just against the Democrats but the press as well, and The Times in particular. Dean laid it out: Whatever had happened in the campaign, news organizations ran a huge and untenable risk in making common cause with the political opposition. The reality, he said, was that the other party was someday going to be back in power, and at that point the press would just be a lapdog" [p. 19]. It's also also worth noting that McGraw "sued the Obama administration more than 30 times for withholding information" [p. 269].

McGraw brings his legal perspective to bear in interesting chapters on leaks, FOIA, and machinations surrounding the infamous Harvey Weinstein case. Beyond that, he describes the arduous work that was done to try to rescue Times reporters from kidnappings by the Taliban. And he produces a disturbing catalog of dangers faced by journalists working abroad, including murder, torture, and jailing. No wonder that many news organizations no longer maintain any foreign bureaus.

McGraw is a graceful writer, clearly in command of straightforward English in addition to legalese (which is almost entirely absent from this book). His book's back cover reprints his famous letter to one of Trump's lawyers who demanded a retraction of a Times article published during the 2016 presidential campaign. The letter, which went viral, was dryly described by Brian Carroll as follows: "The writing is clear while at the same time being legally precise. . . .It's also perhaps the first time in legal history in which 'libel per se' and 'piece of ass' were used in the same document" [p. 256].

Enough said.

[Walter · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the age of “alternative facts” and “fake news,” David E. McCraw focuses on his time as the Deputy General Counsel of the New York Times in his book, Truth in Our Times. McCraw looks at the major events that have occurred in the history of the New York Times. He shows how the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan impacted and the shaped the history of the libel laws that still exist. He describes the everyday workings of the New York Times. From focusing and examining President Trump and his actions to showing how he was involved in the rescuing of journalist from the Taliban, McCraw tells his story much the same that a journalist does. Behind many of the stories that grace the cover of the New York Times, there is always a lawyer involved to ensure that the story doesn’t violate the law.

Truth in Our Times offers an inside look at journalism. Compared to books by Bob Woodward and other journalist, McCraw is able to show through many examples that the First Amendment is protected. He also highlighted how those in the government have found ways to skirt around releasing information to reporters and the public. His chapter concerning the Freedom of Information Act was insightful as it showed how requests are often lost and neglected. Lyndon Johnson’s vision for the FOIA was grand but once in practice, information isn’t released for the sake of national security or some other reason such as distrust of journalist and the media.

McCraw is critical of President Trump and the actions that he and his administration have taken in labeling the media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people.” McGraw uses his criticism of the president to present the bigger theme of his book; the protection of the First Amendment. His book highlights many of the legal challenges that he has faced as the Deputy General Counsel. Through the lawsuits that have been filed against them and against those who seek to hide the truth, we see a battle over the First Amendment. In a sense McCraw is issuing a warning to the American people about the First Amendment. “The First Amendment is not really dead but it will live long only if the American people fall in love with it again. It is no effortless romance. It requires hard work: to not just embrace the right of everyone to speak, but to care about the truth…It is impossible not to wonder about whether the First Amendment can find a new life, can embolden a flagging democracy, can be to our current troubles what it was to civil rights and Vietnam and Watergate. Despite everything, I still believe it can and it should.” In a sense this a warning to the American people about their basic right which some take for granted.

I enjoyed McCraw’s book as it examined the First Amendment and used the current administration as a case study in which to examine the First Amendment. Although I sensed a political bias in the book, it didn’t get in the way of the overall point that McGraw was making. The book was enlightening, and I recommend it.

[Jeremy Lucas · Rating 3 out of 5]

If there were room for a half star, I’d border it up between three and four, because there’s no question that David McCraw has been an all-star lawyer for the New York Times, no question that he’s faced down some of the most difficult truths in our times, per the title, no doubt that his office and his business has been under enormous strain over the last five or six years, an unnecessary strain of ignorance and accusation from the White House and all those who embrace the thoughtless presumption of a misguided and misplaced term known as fake news. I can even say, in favor of Mr. McCraw, that I appreciated his address of the Obama Administration and its ethically-challenged attack on government leaks in the press, more so than any other administration prior, certainly setting a tone that Mr. Trump would try to emulate for a very different and far more narcissistic agenda. But in the end, Truth in Our Times felt like a void, like it was missing something, like for all the talk about Trump’s “enemy of the people” attacks on the press and its impact on the world stage, for example, McCraw never once mentions the murder of Jamal Khashoggi over at the Washington Post in 2018 and never once deals with the impact of the sudden, careless, and lawless travel ban that put everyone on edge, including the press, within two weeks of Trump’s inauguration. In some ways, this book felt like it meandered through time, through various stories that certainly made sense on their own merits, as their own kind of anecdotal chapters, thanks to McCraw avoiding the temptation for legalese, but it just felt strangely incohesive. Knowing that the Khashoggi murder happened six months before this book was released, it’s certainly possible that there was a calculated, last-second omission, seeing as the information continued to be under investigation for several months after the fact, but I just couldn’t help feeling like this book was full of gaps that would be uncomfortably familiar to any reader paying attention to the world in which McCraw was an attorney for the biggest newspaper on the planet. Maybe the book should have been longer. Maybe that would have fixed the problem.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book gave me insight into what a lawyer actually does for a newspaper. If you work for one of those newspapers, NYT, Washington Post, etc. It is a good idea to have a lawyer to back you up. What is important that a lawyer is used for is the first amendment( right of free speech). One thing that is challenged by our President, and the DOJ on a daily basis.

The author, David E. McCraw is a good lawyer to have at your side. When you work for the paper. There are many dangerous situations you may find yourself, as a journalist. You are kidnapped by terrorists, the government wants to sue for leaked info. How is that handled? The information act, the government refuses to release the info. Lawyers must take it to court because the government refuses to release the papers.

The most important info brought in the book. How much our President has challenged the first amendment. How very important free speech, and freedom of the press is. If we don't have newspapers, and journalists to challenge our government. The most important, the local newspapers are gone. The local papers are no longer needed financially. Corruption is easy to take over in the local governments. Since newspapers aren't around for transparency and accountability.

The book is not a fun book to read of course. It is dry for the common reader. If you were aware of the examples of the first amendment under fire. You could relate to what the author was talking about. There were several situations the author used examples. Where I didn't know what he was talking about. If I had, I think I could relate better. If you are a lawyer. I recommend the book anyone who wants to know about the law, and the first amendment.

[Tinka · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received a free review copy of the book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

First, I have to say that I’m writing this review from the perspective of both a non-The Times subscriber and a high school student in Hong Kong, who is very likely not the target audience of the book.

With that being said, you may wonder why I requested this review copy in the first place. I went into this book hoping that I can learn more about the law on the freedom of media, which is an increasingly pressing issue these days. But this book is not meant for everyone to read, especially not someone that has never lived in the US and is just tapping into this topic.

I started the book back in early April and decided that I would DNF it in June because I realized I could be reading something else that I actually understood with the time.

‘I set out with a modest objective for this book: to let readers look behind the scenes at some of the most consequential reporting done by The New York Times and to understand how, sometimes quietly and sometimes not, the law protected journalism, shaped it, and, in a more fundamental way, made it possible.’

David E. McCraw is a lawyer of The New York Times and became famous for his public letter to Trump. From the 7 chapters or so that I’ve read, the author tried to explain the work of a lawyer behind such a big newspaper business, with reference to the related law (the 1st Amendment) here and there to show the close relationship between the law and journalism. What I like about his writing is that he would start with a few quotes from Trump’s Twitter account and dive into the topic that was raised in the tweets. He would provide cases of various media outlets fighting for the right of publication of certain news that helped with the readers’ understanding of the particular aspects of journalism.

Yet, as a pretty-much-outsider of American journalism, the cases did not really ring a bell in my head. Instead, I got more and more confused as I read the book. I had this idea that every chapter was on a different topic but I felt like the 7 chapters were just the same. Trump complained about this, why that should not be the case, a case related to this topic, the media outlet either won or lost, more explanation, next chapter. This is all I remember from the two months I spent reading the book.

But if you look up on Goodreads, you can see that this book receives many 4- or 5-star ratings. So probably it’s just that I’m not part of a target audience in this case. If you are a US resident and are interested in freedom of media, I still think you should try to pick this up.

So this is all I have to say about this book. Have you read it? Do you have other book recommendations on freedom of media that are easier to go into? Thanks for reading and keep reading crazily!

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although this book was published in 2019, the Sara Palen libel suit vs the New York Times was still alive and in the news as I read this book. Her case was one of three filed early in the Trump administration as part of the president's “regular carpet-bombing of the press on Twitter” seeking to trash The Times as a purveyor of “alternative facts.” (Palen, 2022, loses because she couldn't prove malice). McCraw, deputy general counsel for the newspaper, confesses about the basic prejudices of his profession, how social media poses conflicts with objectivity, what readers need vs those who seek conflict, when telling a story straight becomes a problem, about threats against journalists and about how leaks make America stronger even though the efficacy of the practice becomes more and more complicated. How he handled Trump's demand for retraction of an article about his inappropriate touching of two women offers high drama. Overall, how he handles his job is told with alacrity, verve, and occasional wry wit.

[ria · Rating 5 out of 5]

"They are not unrelated, the runaway internet and the anti-press president with autocratic impulses. The genius, stable or otherwise, of Donald Trump is some intuitive knowledge of that relationship. The First Amendment is at base a belief in the idea of a marketplace of ideas where truth and falsity compete and an engaged citizenry can discern the difference without coaching from the government. The internet should be democracy's engine, breaking down all the barriers that have in the past prevented those who want to speak and those who want to hear from participating meaningfully in that mythical marketplace. Instead, a technology to make us smarter, better informed, less isolated, more empathetic regularly achieves precisely the opposite. There has never been a more important moment in history to demand that Americans discern, question, and doubt, but in the cacophony of our breached politics, many people will do the easy opposite: believe and ignore."

[GV]

This was a surprisingly entertaining read. It’s about fighting for press freedom in a digital age when the media is vilified as the so-called “enemy of the people” (the book is chock full of stories, though, that predate the Trump admin).

McCraw chronicles the battles against fake news and his work to protect journalists abroad and at home, submitting FOIA requests to keep the public out of the dark, etc.

He concludes a marketplace of ideas is still the best thing we’ve got, even though it’s more challenging with dis- and misinformation permeating the Internet.

The NYT is far from perfect but reading this made me all the more inspired to pursue journalism. This book is full of captivating stories that make you feel like you’re right there in the newsroom.

- Fascinating reading about the reporters: “Schmidt’s ability to gain the trust of people was legendary. He once showed me a picture from the White House session in which he was standing next to Trump and wearing a tie that extended to his thigh, just the way Trump’s tie did” (168).

Random but interesting:
- reporters don’t write the headline - editors do. I assumed reporters still wrote their own headlines but they got edited.

Quotes

- “It doesn’t really matter how much freedom journalists have if no one believes them” (275)

On fake news: “it was corrosive inside our borders. Beyond them, it was dangerous.”

[Claudia Hoffmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on the Importance of the First Amendment in Reporting the News

David McGraw, the lawyer for the New York Times, has written an important book about a newspaper’s right to report the truth at a time that Trump rants about “fake news” and “ the failing New York Times.” It’s a good complement to “Breaking News: The Remaking of Journalism and Why It Matters” by Alan Rusbridger, former editor of the Guardian. Like so many others, I am a life long reader of the New York Times and it has become especially important to me during the Trump presidency for its news coverage and opinion columns. It provides me with a sense of community at this time of great polarization in our country.

[Barbara Geffen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love a good linear telling of current events in context. Got it fulsomely here. Author takes us along for the journey inside the legal world of the York Times newsroom

Stories evolve, crises unfold. The moment calls for more than a risk management lawyer is trained to undertake. No choice but to tackle it all as best he can. The serious cause of fighting for the First Amendment informs the entire book. Yet tensions arise when stories must be silenced when lives are at stake as kidnapped journalists need rescue.

Trump changes all the rules. Or just undermines the standing of a free press in the world. Scary place. Vigilance must prevail. We’re in good hands with a fine reporter who happens to be a lawyer.

[Heidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a memoir of the last decade or so of the NY Times attorney. He talks FOIA, the First Amendment and the importance of truth. He explains why he wrote the most viral lawyer letter of the era and the responses he got from colleagues and bosses. He talks how Trump changed the battleground - not simply by calling the press the enemy of the people, but by devaluing truth and selling big lies. A good memoir, probably more interesting to attorneys and members of the press, but overall it gives a good idea of the legal mindspace of the most respected newspaper in the USA.

Read via audiobook through the Libby app and the SF Public Library.

[Norma J. Engelberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book makes me proud to be a journalist

Everyone should read this book. Journalist are not perfect, we are human and we sometimes make mistakes. In fact, we make our mistakes in public, in writing or on video and in ways we can't hide.
The "fake-news" epithet hurts all of us who are doing just doing our jobs, whether we work for "the Bigs" or for your local news outlets.
It also hurts the ordinary people who benefit from our hard work, those who need to know the truth, to have the information they need to make critical decisions.
Any attempt to gag a free press is also an attempt to blindfold the people.

[Hella Comat · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lawyer for the New York Times, the author describes how difficult journalism is today when 'false news' is the answer whenever a politician doesn't like the news story. The irony is fake fake news! He describes some of the challenges his paper and reporters have faced in the past few years.

He explains both sides of any 'leak' issue - does the public have the right to know or is the country's safety at stake? He looks at the Freedom of Information Act and how it has been used and abused by various governments in power. Is secrecy vital for some documents or is it a tool of conspiracy?

[Randal White · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging read about the state of journalism today, and of the threats to the freedom of the press. The author, in his position as Deputy General Counsel to the New York Times (NYT), is in the perfect position to write this book. He has witnessed so much in his career.
The book covers the events that have occurred during the NYT's history. But where it really shines is in describing the current battles with Donald Trump. Thank God for McCraw and the NYT, or else we might not have any freedom of the press left!
Great read for people interested in the Constitution, journalism, the law, or current events.