It's the Media, Stupid.
Joe Strupp, Editors and Publishers: Many editors were
critical of the fact that the admission appeared on
Page A10, with no Page One teaser and only a short
refer from the corrections page. Others offered mixed
reactions about how damaging the revelations might be,
or whether the paper needs to make an example of any
employees...
David Yarnold, editor of the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury
News, echoed that view. "It was long and pretty
thorough, but the issue is that this is not the first
time," he said, citing the paper's mistakes regarding
its Wen Ho Lee coverage in 2000 that produced a
similar correction. "At some point, someone has to say that the Beltway media has to be more skeptical about being spoon-fed by the Bush administration."
One editor at a leading daily, who requested
anonymity, said simply, "I don't know how Judy Miller
can walk into the building today."
Break the Bush Cabal Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000519819
Editors Weigh in on 'N.Y. Times' Admission on Iraq Reporting
By Joe Strupp
Published: May 27, 2004 12:01 AM EST
NEW YORK The New York Times' editors' note that called
attention to problems with several of its Iraq-related
stories elicited mixed reactions from newspaper
editors and journalism observers alike. Most supported
the effort to come clean, but they differed in opinion
about the severity of the Times' reporting gaffes and
the way the newspaper revealed its mistakes. Some said
the episode was worse than the Jayson Blair scandal.
Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington
Post, declined to comment on the editors' note
specifically, but indirectly took a swipe at the
paper's flawed reporting. "If you look back over the
history of our reporting on this issue, you will see
that it differed from theirs," he said, pointing out
that his paper was "detailing how and why they were
not finding [weapons of mass destruction] and why
their intelligence about it was misinformed."
The note, which appeared Wednesday, admitted errors in
the paper's coverage of several issues related to the
Iraq War, including failing to question some sources
and Bush Administration officials thoroughly. Six
articles are singled out as being particularly
unfortunate, including four written or co-written by
star reporter Judith Miller.
Many editors were critical of the fact that the
admission appeared on Page A10, with no Page One
teaser and only a short refer from the corrections
page. Others offered mixed reactions about how
damaging the revelations might be, or whether the
paper needs to make an example of any employees.
"The criticisms [cited in the editor's note] have been
going on for very long, and the Times has been very
stiff-armed about it," said Doug Clifton, editor of
The Plain Dealer in Cleveland. "I don't know if this
went far enough, I don't know how bad the reporting
was."
David Yarnold, editor of the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury
News, echoed that view. "It was long and pretty
thorough, but the issue is that this is not the first
time," he said, citing the paper's mistakes regarding
its Wen Ho Lee coverage in 2000 that produced a
similar correction. "At some point, someone has to say
that the Beltway media has to be more skeptical about
being spoon-fed by the Bush administration."
Yarnold and Clifton were among several editors who
said the mistakes, in some ways, were worse than the
Jayson Blair affair. "It's worse because it speaks to
the essence of the reporting and editing process,"
Clifton said. "That is worse than one guy screwing
around and playing fast and loose."
One editor at a leading daily, who requested
anonymity, said simply, "I don't know how Judy Miller
can walk into the building today."
But Brian Toolan, editor of The Hartford Courant, took
the focus off of Miller. "I don't think that the
United States has its army in Iraq because of Judith
Miller's reporting," he said.
Other editors said the Times' move sheds important
light on dealing with unnamed sources. "This raises
the whole issue of relying on anonymous sources," said
Ellen Soeteber, editor of the St. Louis (Mo.)
Post-Dispatch. Added Roger Oglesby, editor and
publisher of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "We
should be using them much more sparingly."
Most of the three dozen editors contacted about this
issue either declined to comment, or failed to return
calls to E&P. Some had not read the note, while others
said they did not want to criticize another newspaper.
Others, however, supported the Times' effort to
explain itself, saying it can never hurt to admit
mistakes.
"It doesn't surprise me that a paper run by (Executive
Editor) Bill Keller and (Managing Editor) Jill
Abramson would be introspective about what they put in
the paper," said David M. Shribman, editor of the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "They are people of clarity
and conscience." Phil Bronstein, editor of the San
Francisco Chronicle, agreed. "I'm pretty stunned that
they would do it," he said. "But I think it is good,
it's valuable."
Martin Kaiser, senior vice president/editor of the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, added, "I'm glad they're
trying to be transparent with their readers. This is a
remarkable self-examination of their coverage, and I
commend them for it."
Tom Wicker, a respected former Times writer and
columnist, also praised the editor's note, but said it
did not explain enough about the paper's overall
problems with editorial oversight or who specifically
is to blame. "The fact that they publicize this
suggests there are some fairly serious journalistic
mistakes," he said. "But I don't know how widespread
the errors were."
The Courant's Toolan agreed with the Times' decision
not to publish the names of reporters involved in the
stories. "The New York Times' note was not intended or
should have been intended to hang individuals out to
dry."
Miller, Keller and Abramson did not return calls
seeking comment.
None of those who spoke with E&P were ready to call
for the firing of any Times employees or criticize the
paper for not naming specific employees who were at
fault. "In the way this piece was structured, they did
not need to name reporters," said Kaiser. Rex Seline,
managing editor/news for the Fort Worth (Texas)
Star-Telegram, added, "It is hard for an outsider to
say that this was all Judy Miller or all somebody
else."
Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent, who is working on a
column about the issue for Sunday's paper, said he did
not know when editors had decided to run the editor's
note, adding that he had not asked for it. "People
know I was writing about it and I knew they were doing
something on Tuesday, but we work separately," he
said.
Charles Geraci contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp (Jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is senior
editor of E&P.