Without fear and friends - Rebecca Blumenstein in interview

m&k: Before you go to the New York Times you were working for the renowned Wall Street Journal active. For example, you headed the WSJ bureau in Beijing from 2005 to 2009. What was life like as a Western journalist in China?

Rebecca Blumenstein: Going to China was definitely one of the best decisions I've ever made. It was a big risk because in 2005 I didn't speak Mandarin, I had never been there and I had three young children. But I went at a time when the story of China's rise was becoming one of the biggest stories you could write about; when the world was realizing how the country was determined to transform everything. But unfortunately our time in China is unlikely to be repeated - so many Western journalists have now been expelled from the country ...

You experienced a policy of openness before the 2008 Olympic Games - and then the beginning of a "crackdown" ...

Before the 2008 Olympic Games, China wanted to prove to the world that it was capable of staging such a major event. In the run-up to the Games, in addition to a major agreement with the World Trade Organization, it also wanted to demonstrate a certain degree of media openness. Although the domestic press was persecuted and monitored and the foreign press had been monitored in China in the past, many of these restrictions were lifted. For example, we were relatively free in our reporting. And we wrote what we wanted to write about, even if the Chinese government was sometimes outraged. That's almost all a thing of the past now. To be honest, it's enormously sad when you consider how little access most of the Western press has to China. I very much hope that the US and Chinese governments can revive their relations, because it is essential for both countries to understand each other.

Do you think that the strategic goals of the Chinese are still underestimated - for example, because trade and the economy work quite well as it is?

Well, the Chinese are organized, determined, long-term planners and unwavering in their efforts to establish their country's global dominance. And recently they have become more and more aggressive in doing so. This is why we are currently experiencing an estrangement between the USA and China. The big question is whether this will continue. You know, what you have to bear in mind - and what sets China apart from almost every other country in the world - is the size of its population. And the fact that the Chinese market is something that no company can ignore. The Chinese influence on the global climate, the automotive industry, healthcare is huge ... and the list goes on and on.

"We certainly didn't choose the feud with Trump."

At the same time, many countries are dependent on Chinese suppliers to keep their own companies running.

I have long been of the opinion that we make it too easy for ourselves when we blame China for everything. Saying that the country is responsible for the pollution and all these dirty factories ... I very often hear the question: "Why can't they just be more like us?". And I think we need to stop and reflect on the fact that the Chinese make our phones and our clothes and so much of what we use in our everyday lives. I think that sometimes we belittle them by almost blaming them solely for the resulting pollution. As I said, I am convinced that the rise of China is the biggest story of our lifetime - and in the US, as in Europe, we must prepare to share the power and wealth we have long enjoyed. Every product, every sector of the economy will be completely transformed by China, which will lead the way in many ways.

"I went to China at a time when the story of the country's rise was becoming one of the biggest stories ..."

After you left China and returned to the USA, you held various high-ranking positions at the Wall Street Journal before she was appointed New York Times moved to. In February 2021, you were asked to take on an exclusively created position there - Deputy Editor in the Publisher's Office. Could you tell us what this position entails?

The publisher of the TimesA. G. Sulzberger, asked me if I would be open to such a task. He has to manage a company with around 5,000 employees and needs help to steer it. We meet at the Times The same questions as many other companies - such as: "What can we do to improve our internal culture?" or "How can we ensure that the Times is the place where everyone feels encouraged to do the best work of their career?"

What else do you do?

In addition to working on the answers to these questions, I support our publisher in expanding our internal and external public relations work: On the 15th floor of the Times-On the wall of the Publisher's Lunch building are pictures of heads of state from around the world who have attended Publisher's Lunches in recent years. After the pandemic, we very much hope to hold this event again and invite political and business leaders to talk to our reporters and editors. This exchange is very valuable and helps to ensure that we hear the most important opinions; that we keep an open mind.

Speaking of political leaders - in your first week at the TimesIn 2017, Donald Trump began referring to you and your colleagues as "enemies of the people". Can you remember how you felt at the time?

I can assure you that this is definitely a feud that the Times has never pushed. What began in 2017 was a time that reminded many people of the importance of the free press. It's something we had long taken for granted in America, and suddenly ...

Suddenly it must have felt like there was an attempt to restrict this freedom.

Yes, there were constant campaigns to discredit basic facts and the truth. That, by the way, is a pretty ugly legacy from that period that we have to continue to live with. There was a deliberate attempt to damage our credibility, to portray the Times and other media as "enemies of the people". This served and continues to serve to incite and incite. As our publisher A. G. Sulzberger repeatedly emphasizes, this is extremely dangerous. Work and life have become more dangerous for Times reporters, for reporters all over America, all over the world. For so long, the US was a beacon and a champion of freedom; it was the country that spurred other countries to live up to the ideals of a free press and the foundations of democracy. That the US has now become the instigator for the abandonment of those very principles has given many heads of state around the world a political blank check to crack down on journalism as well. So the Trump presidency has set a dynamic in motion that is ... very unfortunate, to say the least.

But did that also help you to revisit the values of the Times?

Well, we've just remained steadfast in what we've always done; which is to report on the world without fear or favor to anyone. In fact, if you like, we've redoubled our efforts; whether it's on politics or the Corona Tracker, for which we've just won a Public Service Award. Because we are the only company in the world that records every single Covid case.

Did you have the feeling that your readers backed you when you came under political pressure?

We have definitely felt the support of our readers through our subscriptions. The number of subscribers has risen steadily in recent years - since we introduced the paywall, the number of subscribers has grown to more than eight million. But, as I said, we are convinced that readers are not "just" interested in politics. In fact, our reporting on the coronavirus, our data, the vaccine tracker, our cooking app, our puzzles ... have fueled the increase in subscriptions. And we really, really appreciate the support of our readership. We need it. I think one of the things that makes me so optimistic about journalism itself right now is that the collapse of the notion of truth within social media has led many people to conclude that they get what they pay for. And that quality content is not free.

When a newspaper like the New York Times is attacked from one side of the political spectrum in particular, how difficult is it to maintain neutrality and "fight back" at the same time?

We certainly don't want to be the newspaper of one particular side. And I think that on many days we annoy the political left as much or more than the political right. Some of the harshest criticism we face comes from the political left and sometimes, frankly, that's when we especially know we've scored a hit (laughs). We need to understand, describe and, if necessary, criticize both sides.

There have been some intense discussions in Switzerland recently about the situation of women working in the media. As someone who has had an impressive career in the media, how would you assess this situation?I think it is constantly improving. But I know that there is still a lot to do. For example, it can be difficult for women to speak up in meetings. Some people think that Zoom meetings and remote working have made it easier ... I think it's even harder now! I always encourage women to speak up early in meetings, but many of them really struggle with this. I also think that many women, especially those who have children, give up on themselves to some extent and think that they can no longer make it at work. I was lucky enough to always be shown new opportunities in those moments of doubt. And I'm still working on returning the favor and encouraging women who find themselves in a similar situation. Sometimes it really depresses me when we have a vacancy for a foreign correspondent and not a single woman applies!

Do you think that the pandemic - and the fact that many companies are now working remotely - is opening up new opportunities for working mothers?

Yes, perhaps we are seeing some changes that will give women the flexibility they have been asking for. Two days in the office, three days working from home ... that's something that could really help women, because it makes it much easier to balance family and career. And the companies benefit from this very, very much: I used to work for an editor-in-chief who always said: "Mothers are deadline-focused people, they do what they're told!" (laughs)

"What can we do to improve our internal culture?"

Looking into the not-too-distant future, do you think populism has reached its peak - or is it just taking off?

Now, I'm not a political journalist. But I'm from a town in Michigan called Bay City. I wrote a story about the city in the run-up to the election: it's a place that was a Democratic stronghold but went to Donald Trump in 2016 and again in 2020, although Michigan was won - albeit narrowly - by the Democrats. So I guess the answer to your question is: we don't know what's going to happen, but we always have to be on the ground and do our best to understand what's happening. It is enormously unfortunate, for example, that the issue of vaccination has become partisan politics in the United States while the rest of the world is scrambling to get vaccine doses at all. I fear that partisanship will not go away.

What can journalists do to help with understanding?What we need to do as journalists is to try to get people out of their "information bubbles". Precisely because social media is in many ways incapable of correcting misinformation. We need to be able to provide people with facts - we need to be able to agree on at least that, a common factual basis. But at the same time, I firmly believe that it makes no sense to demonize people for their beliefs - even if you don't agree with them. For a newspaper like ours, there is generally nothing better than being on the ground and trying to see the world from a different perspective. Going back to your previous question: The midterm elections in the US will be interesting; no one knows how they will turn out, but there is a lot at stake. It's going to be an incredible story to cover.