November 5, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:What's going on at the Times?
Several people have pointed me to this piece on the New York Times, which apparently ran an Op/Ed yesterday urging us not to repudiate Iraq's debt under the odious debts doctrine, without informing its readers that the writer was a paid representative of Iraq's creditors.
Now, one person suggested that this was further evidence of bias at the Times. Huh? If anything, their bias should run the other way.
Another suggested that they shouldn't have run the editorial. But newspapers run editorials all the time by people with axes to grind -- all that grinding tends to sharpen their arguments to a fine point. It's only when you let them hide their agenda (or, IMHO, refuse to run viewpoints from the other side), that it becomes a problem.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they knew about this guy's Iraq connection, and neglected to print it, or they didn't know. If they didn't know, it's sloppy and embarassing, but in fairness, the Times publishes a lot of stuff every day, and the fact-checking system at every paper is set up to catch innocent errors, not deliberate ones.
If they did know, it's less excusable. It could still be sloppiness -- but they'll have some 'splaining to do as to who decided the public didn't need to know this little, crucial tidbit. It could also be (although I find it extremely unbelievable) that someone decided the argument would have more punch if it appeared to come from a neutral source. In that case, someone should be fired.
But it's not bias, and it's not a major fiasco. It does suggest, however, that they need a little more fact-checking on the editorial page, especially after Gail Collins confirmed that they basically don't fact check the editorials, and leave corrections up to the author's discretion. That system might merit reconsideration.
Update
Linda Seebach, who writes editorials for the Rocky Mountain News, sends the following (speaking only for herself, not the paper):
On the main point, leaving it up to a columnist (or a reporter) to decide
whether to run a correction, that's weird. Especially after the paper knows
that there have been substantive complaints about accuracy.But "fact-checking" is a term of art.
I've worked as an editorial writer at three large newspapers and none of
them has a "fact-checking" system in the sense that magazines have, where a
person independent of the one who did the reporting and writing routinely
verifies everything in the article that could reasonably be construed as a
"fact" rather than an opinion. It wouldn't be possible, given the time scale
on which daily papers publish.
That applies equally to reporters, editorial writers and columnists.Treating Caroline Mathis' statement that the NY Times does not fact-check
columnists as if it were an admission of guilt, as Luskin has been doing,
just makes him sound silly. (And I don't recall seeing anywhere else that
Collins said it about editorial writers, but she may have.)What papers have instead is multiple layers of editors - three or four,
typically, depending on the size of the paper. First, it's the writer's
responsibility to get the facts right, and a writer who fails to do that
puts his job on the line. Second is a line editor, and one of the line
editor's responsibilities is a healthy skepticism; "are you sure that's how
Koby Bryant spells his name?" and if there is a question that can't be
answered (it's after 5 p.m. and the writer's source can't be reached by
phone, say) then senior editors are brought in to decide whether the story
should be held or killed. Then there are copy editors and page editors.Given how many facts there are in a newspaper, this works pretty well - at
least as well as magazine fact-checking, which misses stuff too. There are
always things the fact-checker doesn't think to ask about.Linda Seebach
editorial writer, Rocky Mountain News
I now realize I probably had unrealistic expectations of the level of fact-checking a daily can do. But I stick with the original assertion that the editorial page at the Times seems to be making a lot of avoidable, sloppy errors -- and that it should be able to put systems in place that at least mitigate the damage by ensuring timely correction. This is, after all, the Paper of Record we're talking about, not a blog.
Posted by Jane Galt at November 5, 2003 10:43 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Why would their bias run the other way? The debt is primarily to Russia and France. The Cold War is over but Russia has only shifted from actively hostile to less actviely wary about the U.S. and France has its goal in life as weakening us and creating a balancing force. (With them in front of it natch.)
If their bias is against capitalism, then repudiating debts would be fine, but if their bias is against the U.S, or just Bush, then making Iraq keep its odious debt fits their desires nicely. It benefits two fo the countries trying to restrain us while making it more difficult for the new Iraq to succeed. Win-win for the NYT.
CAL
I remember Gail Collins's op-ed columns from before whe was promoted. They were like Maureen Dowd's, but even more lightweight!
I would guess that this snafu is due to Collins's limitations as an editor. I don't think the Times op-ed page can ever be fixed under her leadership.
I remember Gail Collins's op-ed columns from before whe was promoted. They were like Maureen Dowd's, but even more lightweight!
I would guess that this snafu is due to Collins's limitations as an editor. I don't think the Times op-ed page can ever be fixed under her leadership.
I don't have a link, but I read somewhere yesterday that publisher Sulzberger has directed that consideration be given to revising the print-it-as-typed policy for op-eds.
Doesn't necessarily mean that they'll do it, or do it wisely.
I read somewhere that when the article appeared in WaPo, the disclosure about the author was there--in fact, that's how this latest screwup of the NYT came to be known.
Bias? Or just sloppiness? Either one should be devastating to the Gray Lady's reputation.
Luskin describes the newspaper editorial process just as Ms. Seebach does, but notes that no one is taking "ownership" at the NYT to correct the errors that are "cropping up" rather that being cropped out by the layers of editors. Kind of negates the purpose of editors if they do not edit.
I read somewhere that when the article appeared in WaPo, the disclosure about the author was there--in fact, that's how this latest screwup of the NYT came to be known.
I think Rex is referring to this column in the Washington Post. This is not the same column as the NY Times ran recently; the WaPo article appeared on October 19, and dealt with the Patriot Act and confiscation of foreign assets. (Link from HipperCritical.)
They may nto fact-check editorials, but according to Boris Johnson they check them for Political Correctness.
Ms. Seebach says "First, it's the writer's
responsibility to get the facts right, and a writer who fails to do that
puts his job on the line. " Does that mean the Times will be firing some columnists?
Boris Johnson on writing a Times op-ed. Yes, I'd almost forgotten that! From which...
~~
...the charming NY Times op-ed editor, whom I shall call Tobin, because that is his name ... and I spoke the following day...
"Booris," said Tobin, "we love it! Everybody loves it. But we have, uh, a few issues of political correctness that I have to go through with you."...
At every stage, he seemed to imply, he was running up against the NY Times hierarchy. It wasn’t he who objected, I gathered, so much as a procession of sacerdotal figures, each in his or her glass box, each with his or her name on the masthead, sitting in judgment over correctness and style...
I started to get a floaty, out-of-body sensation when he said that he had made a change to a sentence about donations of US overseas aid to key members of the UN Security Council. I had said something to the effect that you don’t make international law by giving new squash courts to the President of Guinea. This now read ‘the President of Chile’. Come again? I said. Qué?
‘Uh, Boris,’ said Tobin, ‘it’s just easier in principle if we don’t say anything deprecatory about a black African country, and since Guinea and Chile are both members of the UN Security Council, and since it doesn’t affect your point, we would like to say Chile.’ In the end, I gave way on this, since it was getting cold and I was worried about the battery of my mobile. But my views of the NY Times were starting to evolve.
How craven and mealy-mouthed can you get? Why is a mild insult more bearable because it is directed at a crisis-ridden Latin American country, rather than a crisis-ridden African country? Is it, heaven forfend, because one country is Hispanic and the other is black?...
~~~
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-03-22&id=2907
So some people have their facts checked and changed by the Times even when they aren't wrong.
Now that I think about it, there's no shortage of other stories like this by Times op-ed contributors floating around too -- though I don't remember any of the other writers being as amusing as Boris.
We broke the story on Sulzberger saying that the columnist correction policy will be reviewed (by the new ombudsman).
Here is the original link.
http://www.thenationaldebate.com/blogger/archive/2003_10_01_TND-ARCHIVE.html#106752888070455566
Don Luskin picked it up and then Mickey Kaus picked up on Luskin.
Comments are Closed.