Dear Arthur,

Congratulations on taking the helm of the greatest newspaper on earth. Granted, you were weaned for this position, extending the dynasty that created something of immense power and value, but dynasties fall. Yet, here you are. I remember when we talked a few years ago. I was impressed by your interest, knowledge, and nuts-and-bolts concerns.

And here you are, publisher of the New York Times. Whew. That’s a hefty burden.

But in reading your note, I have some concerns. For context, my wife and I were home delivery subscribers for decades. It’s an expensive deal, frankly, but that’s the price of keeping informed. In the past year, we canceled our subscription. To cut to the chase, as you must be busy, the problem is that the Times strives too hard to report the “truth” rather than the facts.

It’s unclear from your note whether you recognize this distinction.

The Times will continue to search for the most important stories of our era with curiosity, courage and empathy — because we believe that improving the world starts with understanding it. The Times will continue to resist polarization and groupthink by giving voice to the breadth of ideas and experiences — because we believe journalism should help people think for themselves. The Times will hold itself to the highest standards of independence, rigor and fairness — because we believe trust is the most precious asset we have. The Times will do all of this without fear or favor — because we believe truth should be pursued wherever it leads.

Your paragraph begins with “curiosity, courage and empathy.” I appreciate that “empathy” is all the rage these days, as people have found it far easier to wallow in their emotions than do the hard work of thinking. I’m told on occasion that I’m insufficiently empathetic, which may be true, but that doesn’t make it a fault. Sometimes, the facts lead away from an individual’s sad story to the greater good. Sometimes, they just lead where they lead. Gravity may suck, but we’re stuck with it.

Your paragraph ends with “we believe truth should be pursued wherever it leads.” Truth is subjective. It’s what one makes of facts, as filtered through our belief systems, our bias, our experiences and our sensibilities. But when you focus on truth, what you will find is that instead of pursuing it, your time and effort will be spent validating it. You will go down the paths that prove your truth to be right.

Truth can be the enemy of facts. Empathy can be the enemy of thought. There may be profit in promoting truth and empathy, as there are a great many readers out there looking for a newspaper to confirm that their deepest beliefs are right. They need to believe they are the good people, they are helping, they are part of the solution and will save us from evil. And they may buy the New York Times if you give them what they need.

But there are also people out there (here, for me) who seek facts. I might write “true facts,” but facts, by definition are facts. I am not suggesting that the old-school practice of giving two sides to every issue, even when one is facially false, is required. At the same time, I’m not really interested in having the world explained to me by your reporters, giving only those facts that lead me to their desired conclusion about right and wrong, good and evil. You report. I’ll decide. I realize Fox spoiled that phrase, but it was a damn good slogan.

I’ll close with an anecdote, if you will forgive me. Years ago, I had the honor of sitting in the Green Room at Firing Line and listening to two of the most brilliant people ever, William F. Buckley and John Kenneth Galbraith, as they sniped at each other. Both had an amazing command of the facts, yet their views were polar opposites. While they disagreed with each other vehemently, neither was so arrogant as to believe that he knew the truth. Do your reporters and editors know better? Do you?

People may want the truth, but they need the facts. Best of luck in your new position as publisher.

Your pal,
Scott