Public Editor to Bill Keller: “You Haven’t Got it.”
Clark Hoyt’s verdict: wrong to run. Mine: “Times editors are extremely smart people prevented by their own codes from thinking politically. Yet those same codes permit intrusions into politics, like the Vicki Iseman story, that require them to think politically or risk terrible missteps.”
 The article turns out not to be as bad as all that, though:
Jeff [Jarvis] says he “can’t figure out what these Timesmen are thinking.†My suggestion: their codes often prevent them from thinking, and their peer culture spins that refusal as necessary and principled, even when it violates the reality principle. (On a related note, see my piece on mindlessness in the campaign press: Beast Without a Brain.) Listen to Jill Abramson explain why the stuff about an affair had to be in the story…
If the editors had summarily decided to edit out the issue of romance, because of possible qualms over “sexual innuendo†or some of the others issues cited in the reader questions, our story would not have been a complete and accurate reflection of what our sources told our reporters.
Now in the pages of the New York Times, readers can be told about “prosecutorial discretion,†and they are expected to be grown-up enough to handle this wrinkle in how the world works. But when it’s time for a lesson in Editor’s Discretion suddenly all sophistication disappears, and we are supposed to believe that the Times had no choice: if sources said “romance†we have to say romance.
But the readers who can handle “not every crime deserves to be prosecuted,†are the same readers who understand that the New York Times did not have to say a word about the romance to publish the essentials of the story. Politically, they are miles ahead of where Abramson’s explainer stands: wiser than their newspaper. This seems to me a kind of credibility gap. How are you going to explain politics to me, if you don’t even understand the politics of what you published last Thursday?
Well, okay, but I don’t think that it’s right to claim that the reason that the NYT editors foolishly misjudge the political understanding of their readers is because they aren’t permitted to think in full political context. I think it’s because they cynically regard the readers as being much more stupid and easily led than they are. At the very least, the Times might have accorded its readers enough intelligence to have recognized that what they’d cinched is that there had been rumor and speculation. After that, they might have understood that there might have been a bit of timing questioning after their having endorsed McCain a few weeks earlier.
What they did was stupid and dishonest. Just because it was stupid, doesn’t mean they aren’t assholes.
I do not even trust their restaurant section anymore.
We went to Esca the other day, NYT had great write up about them some time ago, but the food sucked…
Fiber.
I saw something in the grocery store the other day that made me do a double-take: “sweet and SALTY NUTS cereal bars”. I swear, the label was just like that, and it was a national brand, too!
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.
Exactly so, Dan. What Rosen misses is that Keller’s real puzzlement is that the readers saw through his attempt to pass off an unproven sex scandal story as an almost equally weak story about the appearance of impropriety. Keller (as Jarvis has documented) really does not get that the Internet readership was well aware of the context of the publication of the story — the Drudge item, the passage of time, the impending TNR piece, etc. — and thus does not deem Keller’s explanation credible.
Accordingly, Rosen also gets it completely wrong. Of course he also gets it wrong in the context of the numerous examples where it is obvious on its face that the NYT considers politics in the timing of stories.
After the months of anticipation, not to mention 4 top reporters and the hours invested, the thoughts of the didappointment that would haunt them had they just buried the story and not at least attemped to deliver the “Gotcha”, well, that’s just too awful to contemplate. They’re only human, afterall.
Rosen:
The idea that Bill Keller did not understand how this would play politically is preposterous.
Jay Rosen has a theory that the Bush Administration has sought to create “rollback” of the press. What Jay Rosen can never do, then, is see a story as any kind of evidence that there is good reason not to trust the press.
The New York Times can’t act politically, therefore this story wasn’t a political gambit.
Rosen’s entire world view is built around the fundamental postulate that “Journalism” is a separate and unique profession, like medicine in that its practitioners have unique skills and knowledge not replicable in the general population — but superior to medicine in that Journalists need not have any real connection to their clients, or any knowledge (or empathy) with them. Tell him that a science reporter ought to know who Galileo was, or that a reporter of military affairs needs to know the difference between a Corporal and a Captain, and he will mildly and generously inform you that such knowledge would handicap “independent journalism”. Suggest that the military reporter should know the difference between an Army captain and a Navy one, and he will blow his stack, and he and his commenters will savage you.
According to Rosen, as an Editor, ordained by the (nonexistent) Deity to Dispose upon what is Newsworthy, Bill Keller can by definition do no wrong, because his actions define “right”. Note that his arguments are simply a paraphrase of those the Rev. Mr. Huckabee would use to comfort someone who wasn’t sure how it is that a benevolent and generous God could allow, say, the genocide in Darfur. Arguing the point isn’t reasoning; it’s proselytization, and he’ll treat you like he does the Mormon missionaries who knock on his door.
Regards,
Ric
Jeff [Jarvis] says he “can’t figure out what these Timesmen are thinking.”
hyp.: they aren’t, and they are instead obsessively projecting only their own naked titillation as a dominant force behind their brand of “journalism”. But in their minds that also makes them ‘human’ and therefore ‘rational’ at the same time, because they think everyone ‘thinks’ like they do, another projection born of their own Malignant Narcissism, imo. And, of course, no one will notice as they do it right in front of us, then claim their mighty rules prove they aren’t doing it.
Recall that at Jeff Jarvis’ own blog on iterfacing blogs with the MSM in order to better serve the Public, Keller summarily dismissed all blogs as a “one man circle jerk”.
He was projecting, and enjoying it, right in front of us. Even Pee Wee Herman was more discreet and did not claim that what he did was for the Public good, impossibly, or something.
Of course, Keller’s, et al, obsession with titillation certainly does not mean the timesmen don’t have other, even worse obsessions and drives which are essentially irrational.
impossible, not impossibly
I’m a reporter. My sources tell me things all the time, often about important people who do big things. Many things they tell me can’t be stood up with on-the-record quotes or using documents. So I don’t use what my sources tell me in the stories I write and I keep on digging.
After a certain point, after enough hours are invested, and there is not enough results from the effort I have made, I drop the line of inquiry.
This is not patented, or even rocket-science, but it has kept me from writing this sort of story. So I am grateful.
Thanks, McGruder. So are we.
mcgruder – unfortunately, you are an exception, a rare exception, to the rule.
That’s not true, JD. Keep in mind that the decision to print that crap was much debated even at NYT.
McGruder,
That may be so, and if so I respect you for it. But —
When the troops arrive and install me as Satrap of Earth for the Galactic Empire, one of my first acts will be to inform journalists that they only have four “W”s to deal with. Addressing “why”, even obliquely, will be grounds for, at minimum, bastinado followed by discharge with prejudice.
The rest of it you’re doing to yourselves. Insisting that reporters not only can be, but must be, stone-ignorant of the subjects they’re “reporting” on, on the grounds that if they are not it’s a conflict of interest, has reached the point where, for the even reasonably sophisticated, seeing something in the news is of minimal value. Essentially, out of the myriad possible things that might have occurred, the one thing we know beyond any reasonable doubt is that what is reported did not happen as depicted.
I, personally, have been involved in a dozen or so events which “made the paper”. Not one of the eventual stories bore more than a minimal, peripheral resemblance to what actually occurred. As the blogosphere expands and ramifies, you guys are gonna be forced to start knowing what the f* you’re talking about, lest you end up on the frequently-cited Ash Heap of History.
Regrds,
Ric
Times editors are extremely smart people
The New York one?
The editors that caption Bradleys, “tanks,” on the Front Page above the fold?
Unknown unknowns, I guess.
I wish you’d stop murdering people, Ric.
Keller …really does not get that the Internet readership
That’s TBKRDG #234, for those of you keeping score at home.
Keller, during a C-SPAN interview, ca2004.
Most UPH (umms per minute), ever. Looking down at his shoes. Hemming and weaving. He’s either dumb as a post, or was stoned to the Bejeezus.
UPM, Mr. Post.
No, I’ll give Mr. Keller the benefit of the nuance.
Drunk.
That’s halfway, right?
15.
thats ashame youve seen shitty journalism and shitty reporters. glad im not one.
youre point on reportorial ignorance is valid, though I have no idea what youre talking about. I cover financial topics and worked as a bond trader; I know of a half-dozen lawyers who cover legal affairs, ex-techies who cover the tech stuff, really, i dont get it. Are you saying ex-military people cant cover the military? ex-doctors cant cover medical stuff?
And, what are you gonna do about the people who lie to and mislead reporters? Even, heaven forfend, if they’re on your (mine as well) team?
Now just because you think you’re so pretty,
And you ain’t pretty.
And just because you think you’re so hot,
Honey you ain’t hot.
And just because you think that you got somethin’,
Honey you ain’t got nothin’,
That nobody else ain’t got…
Jay Rosen in his comments section today:
Got that? The NYT publishing this for political purposes is as absurd as Trutherism.
Ric: You’ve left the planet of fact and truth when it comes to your comments about me. Everything you said is wrong. You are a fabulist. You spread untruths.
Ric: Rosen’s entire world view is built around the fundamental postulate that “Journalism†is a separate and unique profession, like medicine in that its practitioners have unique skills and knowledge not replicable in the general population.
Actually, I don’t think journalists have unique and separate skills that divide them from the general population. You may quote me on that. They are in my view unlike surgeons and engineers; whatever skills they have are simply heightened versions of things everyone should be able to do. About 40 percent of the people in newsrooms never went to journalism school, and there is no requirement that they go. I favor keeping it that way, though I teach in a journalism program at NYU. Do you know any law professors who favor opening up the legal profession to people who never went to law schools? I’ll answer for you: you don’t.
At NYU, you cannot major in journalism without also majoring in another field also. We require a double major because we don’t think “journalism” has enough knowledge specific to it. That was one of the major changes I got passed when I was chair of the department.
So you are not only wrong, but the truth is the opposite of what you said.
At the graduate level, if you applied to NYU Journalism and had a journalism degree as an undergrad we wouldn’t take you. Why? Because we want you to know something other than journalism.
Ric says: Tell him that a science reporter ought to know who Galileo was… and he will mildly and generously inform you that such knowledge would handicap “independent journalism.”
You’re a fabulist, making stuff up. At NYU, we have a science and enviornmental reporting program that requires an undergraduate degree in a hard science. If you don’t know who Galileo was you won’t get in. Does that work for ya? We have a business and economic reporting program that recruits people with business backgrounds and trains them to be reporters. Did you know that when you made your comment?
Suggest that the military reporter should know the difference between an Army captain and a Navy one, and he will blow his stack, and he and his commenters will savage you.
You’re a fabulist, Ric. You made that up too. You may quote me: REPORTERS ON THE MILITARY BEAT SHOULD BE STEEPED IN THE CULTURE AND INSTITUTIONS ON THE UNITED STATES MILITARY AND IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THEY WERE EX-MILITARY. That is what I think. Got that, Ric?
If a major newspaper calls a Bradley Fighting Vehicle a “tank” on the front page this indicates a problem in military literacy within that organization and it’s mighty embarrassing. I think that too.
I would go further. I think the whole “diversity” crusade in American newsrooms is flawed at its core because the categories used to diversify the staff are tired, PC-driven, campus left categories–black, hispanic, women, gays–and they ignore other missing groups that need to be recruited into newsrooms, ex-military being one, people from rural environments and working class homes being two more.
Do you know what I really think, Ric? You don’t know what I really think. You’re a fabulist. You make stuff up.
The fabulist again: “According to Rosen, as an Editor, ordained by the (nonexistent) Deity to Dispose upon what is Newsworthy, Bill Keller can by definition do no wrong.”
Keller was wrong to run the recent McCain story. Did you hear me? That man who can do no wrong in my world, according to you? He was dead wrong last week. His decision-making was bad, his explanations do not make sense, and his statement, “the story speaks for itself” was ludicrous. The Times public editor slammed him for it, and I cheered the wisdom of the public editor for doing so. In fact, as I am typing this, my piece saying just that is on the front page of the Hufffington post.
You’re a fabulist. You don’t know what you are talking about. You make stuff up. Everything you said about me is wrong.
And it’s… kinda annoying.
All of that, but it was not political, right Jay? Just horrific fucking journalism.
You are a fabulist, and annoying.
[…] It’s a pretty complicated story, with an interesting cast of Middle Eastern-connected characters. Seems that maybe Obama was taking property investment lessons from Harry Reid.Strangely, the NYT, ever-vigilant to the possible appearance of impropriety in a presidential candidate, seems unconcerned by this little matter.Meanwhile (h/t MayBee), Jay Rosen demonstrates the kind of supercilious self-assurance that leads to fiaschi like this. […]
Jay Rosen might think it’s a good idea to have reporters know what they’re talking about.
He might. But when they don’t…no problema.
[…] New York Times, having whiffed on its “maybe McCain had an affair” story, and having whiffed again on its “maybe […]
[…] American electorate hungers for such stories. Where is the crack investigative staff of the New York Times when we need it? Posted by Karl @ 5:51 am | Trackback Share […]
[…] W. Bush a “white-knuckle drunk.”  And in which the New York Times recently peddled sexual innuendo about John McCain.  And in which Obama supporters claimed that McCain’s “biography tour” was […]
I think Ric really owes Rosen a response, but I’d suspect Rosen has stopped paying attention to this, given that it’s a couple of months old.