Here’s a quiz for the newly appointed ombudsman, or “public editor,” of the New York Times:
Headline: “Medicare Law’s Costs and Benefits Are Elusive”
Lead Sentence: “Now that President Bush has signed a landmark bill adding drug benefits to Medicare, an overriding question remains: How well will it work? … [N]o one knows whether the legislation will work as intended.
Is the above headline and opening lines of a piece that appeared in the New York Times (Dec. 9, 2003) part of:
- An editorial
- Op-ed column
- News analysis
- Front-page news story?
If you chose “4,” you were right. The stated opinion that the new Medicare law’s “costs and benefits are elusive” – the headline for a thinly disguised set of talking points for Democrats eager to criticize President Bush’s success at adding prescription-drug coverage to the Medicare system – is not identified or labeled as an editorial, opinion column or even a “news analysis.”
Yet, it was featured above-the-fold on the front page of the New York Times as “news.” A lot of people think there is something dishonest about that, and the presentation of opinion under the guise of news is one of the primary reasons why the New York Times is losing the trust of its readers.
On Dec. 1, Daniel Okrent went to work for the New York Times as the paper’s “public editor,” someone responsible for holding the newspaper accountable for just this kind of biased reporting. In theory, the appointment of a public editor would tend to restore trust in the paper.
But important practical questions remained: What kind of person would the Times appoint and will that person have the independence necessary to the job “without fear or favor”? Will the Times appoint a true independent voice? Or will they choose a journalistic insider likely to pay only lip service to enforcing accuracy and impartiality? And, even if the public editor is effective in pointing out bias and inaccuracies, will the Times listen and change their behavior?
Last Sunday, we got our first glimpse of the Times’ new public editor when Daniel Okrent wrote his first piece for the paper, “An Advocate for Times Readers Introduces Himself” (Dec. 7, 2003).
Of course, it’s too early to tell whether Mr. Okrent will succeed as a true advocate for the Times readers. Nevertheless, in his debut piece for the Times, Mr. Okrent gave us some hope by displaying his brilliant skills with the pen, an encouraging level of candor, and a wonderful sense of humor. For openers, he writes:
When the New York Times invites you to be the first person charged with publicly evaluating, criticizing and otherwise commenting on the paper’s integrity, it’s hard to say no: this is a pretty invigorating challenge. It’s also hard to say yes: there are easier ways to make friends.
Mr. Okrent’s concern – that being a critic of the paper might not endear him to the powers that be at the Times – seemed to be a poignant understatement of his keen understanding of those who hired him: a group whose self-importance allows them little tolerance for anyone who should blow the whistle in their direction.
He went on to describe his own political leanings: “a registered Democrat, but notably to the right of my fellow Democrats on Manhattan’s Upper West Side.” Fair enough. How many journalists do you know who have been honest enough to publicly disclose their political party affiliations?
However, trying to make himself seem more moderate than it would appear, Okrent placed himself at “about the half way point” within the spectrum of liberal and conservative op-ed columns appearing regularly in the Times. It was a sleight of hand that better showcased his writing skills than his candor. William Safire and David Brooks are hardly as “staunch” in their conservatism as Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman are “flaming” in their liberalism. If Okrent places himself in the middle, then he actually leans quite a way to the left. It may be that he doesn’t quite know where the middle is, in which case it could be a troubling indication of his sense for what is impartial and what is biased.
His sense of humor?
I’d rather spend my weekends exterminating rats in the tunnels below Penn Station than read a book by either Bill O’Reilly or Michael Moore.
While the reference to O’Reilly may have been misplaced, the line still garnered a laugh from where I sit.
And, from where I sit, the most encouraging thing Mr. Okrent said was this:
[M]isfeasance becomes felony when the presentation of news is corrupted by bias … That’s where you and I come in.
Bravo! The fact that “bias” is even on the table is one giant step in the right direction. More important, while branding as “misfeasance” the failings that result from a journalist’s deadline pressure and the like, he classifies “bias” as a form of journalistic “felony.” Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and he just may arrive this Christmas Eve in the likeness of Mr. Daniel Okrent.
His embrace of impartiality, objectivity or fairness (whatever you want to call it) as a journalistic virtue and bias as a journalistic felony is something you just don’t see in today’s establishment media institutions like the Columbia Journalism Review, the Poynter Institute, and the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Yes, Okrent understands the laws of journalism: to bias the news is to commit a journalistic felony. (His language is even stronger than my own: I thought I was going far enough by equating news bias with “Journalistic Fraud,” which became the title of my book). But depicting himself as a bias hawk is one thing – taking action is another.
Will he recognize bias when he sees it? Will he hold the Times accountable for not only misfeasance, but also for felonies? The person who appointed Okrent to his position apparently cannot see bias when it’s staring him in the face. Earlier this year, the Times new executive editor Bill Keller told his troops that charges that the paper’s newsroom is liberally biased are “unfounded.” Will Mr. Okrent borrow the conscience of Mr. Keller or will he seriously consider charges of bias when readers point it out to him?
He doesn’t have to always agree with the judgment of his readers, but if he listens, perhaps he too will begin to recognize the subtle and not-so-subtle techniques employed by the Times to disguise their editorial opinions in the form of straight news articles. In many cases, it is as simple as being able to distinguish among an editorial, an op-ed column, a news analysis and a news story.
Syria and America’s bloody diplomacy
Mike Pottage