Power Line on How the New York Times is Different From Bloggers
Power Line reports on a New York Times “Editors’ Note” from today, which reads:
An article on May 6 described a demonstration at Princeton University against the proposal by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader and a Princeton graduate and board member, to bar filibusters on judicial nominees. The writer, a freelance contributor who is a Princeton student, did not disclose to The Times that before she was assigned the article, she had participated in the demonstration. The Times does not ordinarily allow its writers to cover events in which they have taken part, and the paper’s staff and contributors are not permitted to join rallies or demonstrations on divisive issues. The writer says she was unaware of these policies.
And what steps did the New York Times take to ensure that this college student and freelance writer knew about these policies? Does it come as a shock to the NYT that a Princeton student might have taken part in such a demonstration??
Let’s hope that the Times takes this as a wake-up call that, in the future, it needs to make those policies clear to freelance writers.
Power Line’s comments:
We all know it’s a good thing that august institutions like the New York Times adhere to time-honored standards of rigor and objectivity. As opposed to us bloggers, who are often suspected of being partisans.
. . . .
Note how the demonstration in question was against a Republican, and the undisclosed demostrator is someone who shares the Times’ editorial position.
Rest assured that if we ever report on a demonstration in which we participated, we’ll mention that fact.
Same here.
So much transparency, so little sagacity. At least they spoke up.
As to the Times, they’re gaining a media consultant with credentials: at buzzmachine, “I’m going to work on content development About.com, on a consulting basis, working with Martin Nisenholtz at The New York Times Company, whom I’ve known and respected for more than 10 years now. What excites me today is the meeting of mainstream media and citizens’ media and About at The New York Times Company is just that.”
Ruth (2ed206) — 5/21/2005 @ 11:44 amJust what is wrong with journalists participating in such events? Do journalists check their individual opinions at the door?
oregano (2ed781) — 5/21/2005 @ 12:19 pmThe “paper’s staff and contributors are not permitted to join rallies or demonstrations on divisive issues. The writer says she was unaware of these policies.”
Edward Barrera (bd43ab) — 5/21/2005 @ 12:31 pmDon’t be too hard on the student, NYT staff writers also have been slightly confused with the rules.
I remember when esteemed Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse was caught participating in a pro-abortion rally a few years back. As far as I know, she’s still covering that ‘divisive issue.’
If I may offer a bit of speculation, I have a hypothesis about what happened here that is slightly exculpatory. I offer this exculpation, such as it is, with great reluctance, for as careful readers of my blog know, hardly a day goes by when I don’t rip on the NYT.
Princeton has an organization called “Press Club.” It is a self-selecting group of students who act as “stringers” for the major newspapers and wire services that want to tap into news at the University quickly and easily. Back in 1979, when I applied for admission and was turned down (by current New Yorker editor David Remnick, I might add), there were maybe 30 members of Press Club with “loops” (i.e., responsibility) for a few big papers (including the NYT), the wire services, and a bunch of New Jersey papers. These people are all just rank-and-file undergraduates, and they participate in undergraduate activities. I am virtually certain that the stringer who wrote the NYT story in question was a member of Press Club.
Now, the “filibuster” demonstration was very er, ecumenical. It was surely making a political point, but they let anybody speak. For example, Fausta Wurtz, who writes The Bad Hair Blog and is manifestly conservative, Republican and in no way supportive of the cause, spoke at the “filibuster” demonstration. I went by and they offered to let me speak. People read passages from The Bible, and a group of students performed “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Point is, participation in the Princeton “filibuster” was a gas, and involved all sorts of people who did not necessarily agree with its objective. As far as I’m concerned, it was one of the most creative demonstrations put on at any university anywhere.
So while I suppose the NYT should have bothered to ask whether its reporter participated in this thing, in my considered opinion (knowing a lot about both Press Club and the Princeton filibuster) this is at worst a technical conflict. There is so much worse going on at the NYT, I plan to save my ire for other atrocities.
TigerHawk (981793) — 5/21/2005 @ 2:03 pmthanks for the background TigerHawk.
The Jayson Blair incident will always be the ultimate rip in their credibility. This was sloppy and slanted but easier to understand.
Vermont Neighbor (40e0a4) — 5/22/2005 @ 2:56 pm