Arnie Weissmann
Throughout this political season, I'm constantly reminded of a line from the Simon and Garfunkel song "The Boxer": "All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Selective listening -- or perhaps, selective reading -- seems apropos whenever Travel Weekly's coverage of the industry touches politics. The question in this column's headline was asked, in polite and not-so-polite ways, after we posted the cover story on the intersection of hospitality and politics ("Trump: Hotels, resorts, casinos, politics," July 25).
In protest to our running that story, we received requests to cancel subscriptions. Our Facebook page was unfollowed. The "angry" emoji was clicked (even more so under Donald Trump's photo, which separately racked up nine angry clicks).
We were accused of pandering to, and promoting, Trump. A reader was "nauseated" at the thought of our wasting so much space on this topic and man. Would we, one reader wondered, provide equal time to the Democratic candidate?
While the number of readers who reacted was a relatively small slice of our readership, those who did provide feedback did so, for the most part, with unusual intensity.
On the other hand, there were also "likes" and "thumbs -ups." One reader simply wrote that he enjoyed staying at the Trump International Hotel in "a wahoo, Hawaii," which confused us a bit until we read it out loud.
But it seemed ironic to me that we were accused of promoting Trump. Trump the candidate stopped speaking to Washington Post reporters because he felt its coverage about him was unfair, and similarly, Trump Hotels stopped responding to inquiries from Travel Weekly because it felt our coverage of its hotels, when mentioned in the context of the political campaign, has been "negative" and "inaccurate."
The article they cited as particularly upsetting to them was written by senior editor Danny King. He reported comments by hotel executives at the New York University Hospitality Conference in June that appeared to criticize Trump and his proposed policies. It also reported that the website Hipmunk had said bookings for Trump Hotels were down this year, suggesting that Trump's political positions hurt the brand. Trump Hotels' response to Hipmunk's conclusion, that the numbers cited were too limited to be meaningful, was also duly reported in the article.
Despite Trump Hotels' decision not to cooperate with us on future coverage, we nonetheless wondered whether travel advisers also were witnessing what Hipmunk had reported, i.e., that clients were avoiding Trump properties as a result of the candidate's positions.
Or not.
We were also struck by the unprecedented circumstance of the chairman of a hotel company being nominated as a candidate for the presidency by a major party, and were curious about any possible implications that might be of interest to others in the travel industry. Could, for example, Trump keep his post as chairman of Trump Hotels if he were elected? Were there legal requirements that would oblige him to put his business interests at arm's length?
Our news editor, Johanna Jainchill, is a former New York Times journalist, as is her boss, Travel Weekly editor Rob Fixmer. She took on the assignment and did what good journalists do: She asked questions on behalf of our readers and reported the responses to our readers.
To be honest, I was surprised that the agents she contacted and who booked Trump properties for clients said his candidacy was having little-to-no impact on bookings. Agents were, by and large, very complimentary of the Trump organization's properties, its corporate culture and its travel-agent-friendly attitudes. Employees of Trump hotels talked about working for the organization in positive terms, and the Trump children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, who are all involved in running the company, were characterized by agents as being easy to work with.
And Ivanka and Eric, who apparently didn't get the memo not to cooperate with Travel Weekly, agreed to interviews.
Conversely, our article also reported that several major wholesalers who do business in Mexico suspended promotions and sales of Trump properties and that one agent reported a wedding had been switched from a Trump property because the family was concerned that controversy surrounding Trump the candidate might be a distraction.
In all cases, Jainchill simply reported exactly what she heard in response to her questions.
The concluding portion of the article looked into the legal implications on Trump's role as chairman of the company, should he be elected president.
The media is sometimes chastised by candidates as being biased and blamed by voters for distorting coverage. But I think Travel Weekly's coverage has provided an interesting case study of what happens when, in essence, the media reports honestly what other people are saying, but those quotes are read through the lens of a reader's own political viewpoints.
I'm not saying that the media is always fair or that a reporter's bias can't show up in a news story. I am saying that Travel Weekly has an institutional obligation to report honestly what people say.
And, when examined in aggregate, our coverage, if not 100% free of bias, is balanced in this sense: It is equally aggravating to people at both ends of the political spectrum.