General Discussion

First, the reasons. This is "investigative" or "enterprise" journalism. Mind you, this is not Watergate level investigative journalism, and it ain't going to win any Pulitzer prizes, but that is what it is. The administration makes a claim, the administration provides no evidence, they investigate and find that, actually, there is no real evidence, even though there is a minor revelation that was used as a pretext for an exaggerated bullshit claim.

Now why would they go through all this trouble to investigate a bullshit claim that would seem to be almost self evident? That nobody would believe in the first place? Not true. There are plenty of people who will and do believe the bullshit. That is a fact that we are going to have to live with, and are going to have to work against. An article like this erodes and counter-acts this blind faith. Now, does it suddenly cause a revelation on the part of the true believers? Do they slap their forehead and say "My God, I have been deceived?" Do they even read the NYT? No, but informational osmosis propagates it and it erodes blind faith, especially around the edges - those who are skeptical but not yet never Trumpers. And its neutral point of view helps to undermine the allegation that anti-Trumpers are victims of TDS.

So what about the headline itself? It does not scream "Trump Is Bullshitting You... Again." It is more neutral and "non partisan." Hey, the prez says this, and, sure, it is unlikely, but... let's take a look." This is the right approach. It telegraphs the exact opposite of partisanship rancher and any sort of "derangement syndrome." What it telegraphs is "epistemic virtue" - the ethical value of pursuing and adhering to the facts, the evidence, and the truth, wherever it might lead. This is obviously a stance that is at odds with and against the "Trumpian anti-ethos" of grandiose, self serving bullshit. It leads by example. And it will overcome.

If you are familiar with the skeptical community - those who are skeptical of and investigate "anomalous phenomenon," like claims of the supernatural, UFO, psychic abilities, etc. - you may be familiar with this stance. To many skeptics such claims are patently ridiculous, and laughable. However, the stance that is taken is that of epistemic virtue: Let's take a look and see. Let's investigate and find out. This stance conveys a certain amount of respect for the "claimant" and for the truth.

The proper stance in a journalistic enterprise is a certain amount of respect for the "claimant" - in this case, for those that might be inclined to believe based on blind faith - and a great deal of respect for the truth. The headline and the article display both.

NOW for the exception: As HL Mencken has said:

This is true! And it doesn't exactly comport with the skeptical stance of respect for those who are believers. This is the Andy Borowitz approach, and I approve of it heartily - because I am heartily laughing along with him! The Onion? I love it! Jonathan Swift? You bet!

The difference here is the field of discourse... Satire is a rhetorical device used in the advocacy of a truth, in an amusing and entertaining way, but not for the discovery of the facts that substantiate the truth. It has its value as a weapon, especially for those who are already outside of, or are becoming skeptical of, the blind faith community. But satire is simply not journalism. Journalism requires a different approach. Both have value, but they must both be used appropriately under the circumstances.