PressThink: Public Editor to Bill Keller: "You Haven't Got it."

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."

As I expected, Clark Hoyt, public editor of the New York Times, told the Times what Ben Bradlee tells Woodward and Bernstein in one memorable scene from All the President’s Men: “You haven’t got it,” he says about a draft of their story. The reporters try to argue back, but Bradlee cuts them off. “Get some harder information next time.”

That is what Hoyt told Bill Keller and the Times staff in his column Sunday, What That McCain Article Didn’t Say. Next time you decide to suggest that a leading presidential candidate had an affair that compromises his reputation and threatens his entire campaign, my god, get some harder information. You cannot go with a story like that and base it on what anonymous sources believed. Your angry readers are right. And you were wrong to run it.

Ombudsman columns are rarely so definitive:

If a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

It’s hard to see how editorial judgment at the Times could suffer a defeat in the court of opinion more clear cut than this.

The judgment I made, which is the same as the one Clark Hoyt made, and the one that Jeff Jarvis, Greg Sargent, Kevin Drum made, along with thousands of Times readers, plus many other journalists and peers, differs drastically from the thinking of executive editor Bill Keller, managing editor Jill Abramson, and the Times staff that worked on this story. (Kurtz: “A rough consensus is emerging among journalists that the Times story was fatally flawed.”)

Into that gap I offer these ideas.

The art of thinking politically

Readers often have more political sense than is permitted to editors of the New York Times, but editors of the Times do not necessarily know this. The most telling moment in Friday’s Q and A with readers was Bill Keller’s sense of shock. “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.”

Cheap but consequential. Readers knew it would hurt the Times, boost McCain and re-ignite the culture war. Their political sense was stronger than Keller’s. Why would this be? Well, 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.

When I say, “think politically,” I do not mean “carry out a political agenda in the news pages.” Full stop. I mean exhibiting common sense by recognizing the larger political realities in which you are a participant. I was watching MSNBC Wednesday night when they interrupted “Hardball” to bring viewers a live bulletin on what had just been posted at nytimes.com. What had just been posted, said the network, was a Times report suggesting that John McCain had an affair with an attractive, blond female lobbyist whose firm had business before his committee, and here’s her picture….

No, no, says Bill Keller, waving his arms at us. Cut! What was posted that night was one installment in a biographical series called “The Long Run,” where we examine key moments in the life and career of the candidates. This story was about an apparent contradiction in McCain’s character: he wills attention to his own rectitude and yet allows appearances to compromise that image. His relationship with Ms. Iseman is a case in point. The story is not about a romance, not about sex. It’s about the character of a man who would be president.

An enterprise-threatening event

The public editor had to explain things to him. In presidential politics, the suggestion of an illicit romance can be an “enterprise threatening event,” as they say in corporate law. If the New York Times had uncovered an affair, and McCain’s denial did not hold up, that would probably be fatal for his campaign. Which is why the news broke so big.

This automatically changes what the story is “about,” Clark Hoyt argued. Readers were not wrong to focus on the insinuations of an affair. That was the enterprise-threatening event! You cannot trigger a potential crisis like that using second hand information from eight years ago that you didn’t confirm. It puts you in a weak position. “The stakes are just too big,” writes Hoyt. Which is exactly what I mean by thinking politically.

“They can’t be that clueless, can they?,” writes Jarvis.

They can’t be that bad at understanding news and politics, public opinion and media, surely. So are they merely trying to spin us? Are they embarrassed at what they did? Are they trying to convince themselves as well as us that this sex story — the sort of thing these high-fallutin’ journalists would usually insist is the stuff of Drudge and blogs and tabloids — is just an illustration in their bigger point about the life and times of John McCain? Surely, they can’t think we’re that dumb. Surely, they’re not that dumb.

Jeff 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” the story has 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? (Times watchers of a certain age: perhaps you remember “a little wild streak” and “”I can’t account for every weird mind that reads The New York Times.”)

The character trap

Another factor involves the investigation of “character,” a key word in Keller’s explainers. I don’t think journalists are particularly good judges of character in politicians. (Do you?) But making an “issue” of it forces them to be exactly that: good judges. How can you report on a politician’s character without knowing what good character is within the sphere of practical politics? Yet journalists are naturally squeamish about making those judgments. It violates their code, threatens their political innocence, disturbs the illusion I once called the view from nowhere.

In order to prevent these code violations from seeming too flagrant, political reporters can rely on conventional morality. Obedience to that becomes “character.” (Can’t go wrong with the ten commandments, right?) Or they can try to judge a politician on grounds he himself has set out. Either way innocence in the press is restored to character coverage. The Times story relied on both methods. It had “thou shall not commit adultery” and “McCain holds himself up as….”

Information that violates self-asserted standards is seized on as revelatory in the character department, but part of the newsroom’s enthusiasm for such discoveries is the insta-innocence factor: Hey, these aren’t our standards, they’re the candidates own. Who can fairly criticize us for holding him to that? No one! Hah!

This may have given them a bit of false confidence.

The swamp of appearances

If reporting on “character” is an intellectual trap, so too with reports about “appearances.” In the Q and A, Keller pointed out how McCain understood that “questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics.” Somewhere along the line in an “appearances are reality” story, journalists will conclude that it doesn’t matter if it happened, the appearance that it happened is enough to mean something or other. That might be one way you run with Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened… when you don’t even know if the top advisers were right. The anxiety of the aides shows the power of appearances. Letting an appearance problem fester shows character flaws. It’s both a swamp, and the appearance of one!

Then there’s the fact that the Times doesn’t listen all that well. I base this on some experiences with (some) Times people, and their record in public controversies like this one. An amusing example came during Friday’s Emergency Q and A with readers (see my Cliff Notes version of what the Times said there) when it took up a question identical to one I posed at PressThink. Why did the Times endorse McCain when it knew this was coming?

Times people typically listen to your question with ears that have heard (they think) the same question a hundred times. It’s sometimes hard to get them to concentrate on what you are actually saying because they are always jumping ahead to what they think your real agenda is— and to illusions about the Times they can overturn for you. Here, they simply heard the question as the same ‘ol one about the newsroom taking its cues from the editorial page. So they answered that, using political editor Richard Stevenson. (“…totally separate operations that do not consult or coordinate.”)

When it came to the reader’s actual question—why didn’t the editorial page take better cues from the newsroom?—Stevenson said he had no idea, and wasn’t the right person to be answering this at all. Which is funny. Here’s the question from Debbie Collazo, Tucson, Ariz.

Why did The New York Times strongly endorse Senator McCain to be the Republican Party nominee in January, if at the same time the paper was well aware of and continuing to investigate what it considered to be front-page, damaging, “un-presidential” charges?

Times to Debbie: Why are you asking us!

Accountability and the cathedral of news

As I said, they don’t always listen well. But as Tim Schmoyer notes, since 2004, the Times has been getting steadily better at accountability moments and two-way dialogue. The most poignant part in the Q and A with readers was this question:

Hasn’t The Times’s defense of itself been too aloof and passive? Anyone who turns on the TV or radio, or logs on to the Internet is viewing a completely lopsided argument. Almost every commentator or guest denounces, curses, or at least questions the NYT, while there is nearly no push-back or defense from The Times. How can you allow yourself to be punching bags, but still convince the public that your controversial stories have merit?

Keller said it was a fair question, and he didn’t know what the answer was. “We want to stick up for our journalism, but we resist becoming the story, and we especially resist seeing a long, painstaking work of reporting reduced to a war of sound bites.”

And I can well understand that.

Final note: I don’t know Bill Keller, and don’t claim to understand him. Watching him from a distance, and reading his explanations of things, I get the sense that he while he has accepted the need for transparency, intellectually, he is also pulled, as many at the Times are pulled, toward an opposite idea: the cathedral of news, an authority so strong that it doesn’t have to explain itself, or take questions from doubters. Instead you have to watch the paper for what the paper decides to do next. This notion is not dead at the Times. But it’s the opposite of transparency. It’s an idea about editorial mystique.

Let’s not forget Keller’s declaration on Thursday: “We think the story speaks for itself.” The next day the Times was publishing 6,000 words that spoke further for the story that was to speak for itself.

* * *

Posted by Jay Rosen at February 25, 2008 1:03 AM Print

Listen to me: Culture war is rotting your brain. The longer you continue with it, the dumber you are going to get. Already you've gotten dumber, just in this thread. You have no idea what I think and where you disagree with it. You're not actually tracking the politics of this case.

But at least you said "apocryphal." Way to go! That's a sign that it's not too late.

The person who developed an obsession about Augusta (Howell Raines) was fired, but not for that, although it definitely hurt him at the Times. The post is called Rollback, not rowback. I would definitely consider "unwilling to admit a mistake" a major factor in this mess. The title of the Huffington Post version is Bill Keller: "I'm proud to stand by this story." Times Public Editor: You Were Wrong to Run it, which highlights that refusal to admit error. In this post I made specific reference to the subculture that suffuses the profession as a factor in what happened. So much for your, "you would never consider..." charge.

Because of the culture war that is making you dumber by the day, you don't even recognize that I am what you would call a liberal, slamming the editors of what you would call a liberal newspaper for its decision to run a story that could have been very damaging to the Republican standard-bearer and the party. I said they were wrong to publish it and that their reasons make no sense. Check it out! Look up from your script, wake up to the actual politics of the moment. Culture war is rotting your brain. But it's not too late. The first step is to stop making yourself dumber by the post.

Look: I understand that "they wanted to throw the election," while worthless analytically, is expressive of the rage you feel toward people in the press. I know it makes you feel like a proud solider in the thick of the fight to keep repeating it. And really, I don't mind the sound of that. It's like singing "we shall overcome" or something. Creates solidarity. Sing it loud, sing it proud.

No one is going to begrudge you that. In Pittsburgh it's "We are fam-a-lee." In Detroit, "We will, we will rock you." In Green Bay they put cheeses on their heads. And at LGF and townhall.com they charge the press with trying to throw the election.

But that's a creature that cannot live in the intellectual wild. It cannot survive an hour of cold inquiry. It's not a "hypothesis." It's not an "idea." It's in the same general category with: the Jews plotted to bring about 9/11, and "Obama is a muslim." Same level of "thought." If you actually believed it, you would be rejoicing right now.

Keller hired Clark Hoyt. He has the power to fire him tomorrow. People willing to throw an election can't fire whistle blowers on their own staff? How crazy is that? You come here because you're baffled by what the Times did, as we are sometimes baffled by how baboons behave when we watch them at the zoo, and you're hoping I can offer some insights into the nature of the beast.

It's not a sin to be baffled. Like "apocryphal," it's a sign pointing to the way back. Take it.

Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day...

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 9:48 AM | Permalink

I think this excerpt from The Daily Howler (2/25/08) bears on this discussion:

COUNTING THE DONUTS: We’re approaching ten full years at this post. If we were to list the things we’ve learned about the mainstream press in that time, these might be the two most important:

They hunt as a pack: The most remarkable thing about the mainstream press is the way they all insist on saying the very same things. This contradicts everything we’re told, in iconic texts, about the way a press corps functions in an open society. Meanwhile, it’s impossible for average citizens to observe this cultural trait of the so-called press corps. You can only observe this trait if you examine a wide array of news sources. Obviously, most people don’t.

We’re all with Stupid: Second counterintuitive fact: There’s nothing so stupid that pundits won’t say it, once it becomes a Standard Text. And uh-oh! We’ve come to feel, in recent years, that many people simply can’t process this basic fact about the press. We’re all accustomed to the idea that major journalists may be “biased.” For many people, though, it seems to be very hard to come to terms with the stupidity of these big players. And yet, you simply can’t describe our modern “press corps” without explaining how stupid they are.

Meanwhile, how stupid will our biggest journalists be? Consider these clips from Dowd and Rich, in yesterday’s “esteemed” New York Times:

DOWD (2/24/08): Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.

RICH (2/24/08): Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

Readers, you’re with Stupid! Rich and Dowd were determined to tell you: The Clinton campaign “spent $1200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone!”

The sheer stupidity of that statement captures the way this “press corps” does business. Surely, no one believes that something significant can be learned from the fact that Clinton spent money on donuts. Yet, each of the monkeys sat down and typed it.

Clinton spent $1200 on donuts? The sheer stupidity of that script didn’t keep it out of these columns. But then, we’ve been with Stupid for a good many years.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Permalink

Whether or not the Times might be trying to influence elections is irrelevant; what's important is that they do influence elections -- never more so than now when nearly everyone else is constrained in some fashion by McCain/Feingold. Since the press is, in fact, a player, the probity of their editorial judgments is a legitimate and paramount public concern. Bias, real or imagined, can be largely offset by rigorous professionalism. The lapse of rigor is what is both most obvious here and most damaging to the New York Times flagging reputation. What is worse, however, is that it distorts and derails the very political dialogue the press is tasked with informing, and in doing so betrays the public trust from which press privileges derive.

The basis for mistrust here is threefold and profound. First, there is irrefutable irresponsibility at the smoking gun level, which includes questionable sourcing. Second, it certainly appears that the Times used the "Long Run" series as a vehicle for the allegation of a romance which they could not confirm. That story was being pursued independently in Washington as news, not background, and the "appearances" question looks like a flagrant editorial shoehorn. Those two professional failures are dramatically compounded by the disingenuousness of Keller's own "larger point" defense. In elementary terms of structure alone, Keller's expression of surprise that the romance angle would overwhelm to pedestrian rehash of old material which followed is simply not credible, unless we're prepared to posit that Keller is incompetent.

Whether Keller likes it or not, the Times is in fact, is the real story here, and contra his protest, it should be. The inescapable larger point is the Catch-22 which confronts both the consumer and the conveyor of news. That's where Jay's point about political thinking comes in, although political obtuseness might be a more useful term There is a reason for the existence of an entire election industry devoted to influencing the press: press coverage influences elections. This is a story that the New York Times not only refuses to report, it refuses even to acknowledge. That's because the Times has an appearance problem that's far more serious than McCain's; existence as they know it depends on maintaining the ether of objectivity. They can only exhort readers to trust them on anonymous sources if they are seen as operating above the fray. To acknowledge any role as a player would be to relinquish the symbolic independence that protects them from the kind of transaparency and accountability they demand of everyone else.

The idea that actually responding to their critics represents some sort of advance on the part of the Times is risible. If they were, indeed, willing to report on themselves, that story would open with "stonewall." Installing your own Public Editor to manage consumer complaints is self-serving risk management. It preempts more onerous forms of accountability which the public might otherwise demand. When you return a defective product to Customer Service at your local Target store, they replace it. What happens after Clark Hoyt announces that Times' readers have a valid complaint?

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 2:21 PM | Permalink

When you return a defective product to Customer Service at your local Target store, they replace it. What happens after Clark Hoyt announces that Times' readers have a valid complaint?

I think that is a very good question, JM.

I've been making the argument you made here for many years. Specifically, in writing about the press as a player that cannot admit to being a player because it has no answer, permissible within its codes, for the obvious questions that follow from the admission, which would otherwise seem long overdue.

If you're a player, what are you playing for?

Or: what is your agenda? How does that square with your interest and the observables in your performance. ( I think these are hard questions, by the way. Hard to answer adequately.)

I wrote a whole book about this problem. It's where modern American press think doesn't really go. And so there is great pressure--huge pressure--to describe the press (and describe yourself to yourself) as an observer and recorder, an onlooker, an order-keeper, and fact-finder. Or as these certified public accountants (self-certified) who do equal opportunity background checks on the candidates. Jim Lehrer's approach: I ask the questions, up to a point; it's up to the pol to answer for everything after that.

This bundle of beliefs and practices I've called the quest for "innocence" in political journalism. Very often, it seems to me, strange things the press does can be explained by the quest for innocence. But there is no good language for it.

Sometimes people want the press to be more of a player: investigate Obama, he's gotten a free ride! Sometimes people want the press to be less of a player: Just tell me what happened, okay? Don't put your spin on it! Rare for us to say: okay, the press is a player. Now what do we need from it?

To make things weirder, as an empirical claim, the observation that the press is player, a material factor in campaigns and elections... this is conceded by everyone, including journalists. Take their matter-of-fact observations on the "expectations game," during the primary season.

But wait a second: if silence and obfuscation surround the subject of what to play for, but journalists speak about being players all the time, because they know they are, isn't that kind of... well, embarrassing and professionally awkward?

Bingo. It is. And the "answer" to that is mindlessness in campaign coverage (horse race journalism) and the cult of savviness in judging the race, which permits irony toward the media's role as a player with lousy instructions.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Permalink

If you're a player, what are you playing for? Or: what is your agenda? How does that square with your interest and the observables in your performance. ( I think these are hard questions, by the way. Hard to answer adequately.)"

Conventional wisdom may hold that there are no wrong questions, but I think these are the wrong questions here. Short of receiving an outright list of talking points straight from Bill Keller, you will never find a smoking gun where intentions or agendas are concerned. That's precisely the same reason that complaining that Keller et al are BIASED! or were trying to influence an election is a factual dead-end. It will never rise above an allegation, because no one will ever admit to it. As suggested above, no one can afford to admit to it -- especially if it's true. Even as someone who earns his keep assessing the business, you'll never be able to offer anything more than persuasive, but thus arguable, insights in response to questions you're posing, not answers.

Motive based criticism is the current scourge of both politics and commentary. On the political front, the actual merits of policy and legislative initiatives have become nearly irrelevant; at it's crudest and most convenient, your opponent can do no right if his intentions are evil. You recognize a simliar dynamic in what I gather you mean by culture war commentary on the press. You seem to stop short of wondering if your own exploration of intention, though less programmatic, might be similarly flawed. Intentions remain the most problematic element in law, where prosecutors have the advantage of the most intrustive of tools available; they remain even less susceptible to discovery outside of legal proceedings, and less susceptible still when it comes to the most fiercely guarded work product of all, in journalism. As readers, we can only speculate about motives at the Times. Your speculation may be more informed than most, and it may be fascinating in its complexity, but if, as you yourself point out, even you can't be definitive, perhaps it's time to start barking up a different tree. Ironically, I'd look to what I believe may have been your original starting point.

We can only intuit motive at the Times, but we can actually measure their performance against both the professional standards they purport to follow and against the standards which we expect them to uphold if they intend to retain our confidence -- the confidence upon which the entire edifice they occupy ultimately rests. You are in a unique position to do this. The Times seems perfectly willing to educate its readers about the the business of journalism. What I'm looking for is someone, and in the case of journalism that would be you, who can and will hold their feet to the professional fire. I think you can, but will you? We have never been more in need of a paper of record, and trusted sources; the only remedial power I have as a consumer -- which consists of canceling a subscription or eschewing a webseite -- is utterly self-defeating. If plummeting stock values, plummeting poll numbers on public trust, and nearly universal outrage in the present case, don't leave a dent, what will?

The press which freely notes the current polarization in politics, neglects the polarization occurring, not just within certain quarters of the business itself, but between the press and the public from whom they, like government putatively derive their power. They rely absolutely and explicitly on the collective "public right to know" to open doors and files that are closed to citizens as individuals. That "right" to know is not the only right which ironically stops at the pressroom door, chief among others is the right to confront one's accusers, whose anonymity seems to grow more comprehensive in direct proportion to the damage the charges they level may do. The Times reserves, almost to itself alone, the right to avoid self-incrimination. With shield laws in the offing that will make the barriers between the people, not just government, and the press almost impossible to scale, what or who will be left to balance or check the power of what is essentially the fourth, and itself essential, branch of democratic governance? If you won't step up to that plate who will? The political outfits that bird dog the press have credibility problems of their own.

The professional offenses in the McCain story couldn't be clearer. The explanation for those failures couldn't be more opaque, evasive, self-serving or condescending. You may have other interests, but the only question I think worth asking right now is the one I've already posed: What happens after Clark Hoyt announces that Times' readers have a valid complaint? Until we ferret that out, the answers to the questions you formulated above don't really matter much, even if you could provide them, do they? If I were to recast my concerns in the terms you offered I would say: If you're a player, what are your obligations? How do you square your power to operate behind closed doors with a clear and present public interest in evaluating your probity? Intentions and agendas are fluid things, obligations are not.

No one needs to explain the need to protect whistleblowers, for the nth time. The public understands that need almost intuitively and has always been willing to grant the press enormous latitude accordingly. The only thing that isn't clear is how we identify and protect ourselves from abuses of that power without means of discovery or discernable consequences. That question is hard to answer too; it's infinitely more important.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Permalink

Tim

"But I'm curious, what's your opinion on a New York or mid-Atlantic News Council?"

As described, per your links, they sound a little like glorified correction mechanisms, but I'd need to know more about how they function and what sort of results they have aimed for and achieved. In general, I don't think the processing of individual complaints is the problem we're talking about here.

In terms of public perception, outreach, and putative bias, one the best things the New York Times could do, IMO, would be to eliminate their own editorials. I can't remember reading an editorial on Iraq, for example, without wondering afterwards if the author(s) ever actually read John Burns', or now Michael Gordon's, reporting in their own paper. Ditto that feeling almost across the board, where the contrast often verges on embarassing. While everyone apparently agrees that the editorial page should certainly not drive the news, surely news should drive editorials! If that link is non-existent (a matter which clearly concerned readers of the McCain story and which went unaddressed) what purpose do such editorials serve? If they are not demonstrably informed by the Times own reporting, whose (uniformed!) opinions do they actually represent, and why should they carry the Times imprimateur and the weight that aegis is clearly designed to supply? In short, what are we supposed to make of them? Are they not intended to exert political presssure? The most frankly bias driven pages are the furthest removed from scrutiny, and yet concern over the McCain endorsement suggests they may influence the political process more directly than anything else the Times produces -- with the exception of highly problematic lapses like those at the heart of the current brouhaha. When editorials are left unsigned for the express purpose of conveying a New York Times position on controversial issues, even the vaunted divide between editorials and news cannot forestall the obvious imputation of official agenda from officially sanctioned opinion.

What I, personally, would like to see in a paper of record is a lot less journalism and a lot more reporting. Use your editorial board to fill in where you're weakest, put MoDo & Co in the entertainment section where they belong, and spend as much money as you can squeeze from a stone on reporters with real experience in the fields they cover, not journalism degrees. It does seem to me that the more reporters you field, and the more diverse their expertise, the less likely you are to develop an institutional point of view or "culture," and the more substantial an edge you'll end up having on your competition -- whether it's other newsrooms or web based competition for readers' attention. On a lesser note, I would certainly applaud rewarding copy writers for come hither headlines that accurately reflect the content of the stories they lead.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 10:36 PM | Permalink

Got some kind of techtard thing going, so I'll have to be literal here:

The Aussie blogger, Tim Blair, has a link to a 54-point fisking of the NYT story. Masterful, andn done from the point of view of a journalist.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 9:44 AM | Permalink

Hoyt did not seem to read the article all that carefully. There is plenty of evidence that McCain went to bat for Iseman's clients.

True, the article was poorly constructed and lost focus immediately, bringing in the most important evidence only toward the end. But there is a significant body of evidence. To argue that two anonymous sources plus one source who went on the record, all saying that McCain staffers were discussing McCain's relationship with Iseman, and then agreeing to act to shut her up and drive her away from McCain, are not sufficient to go into print, strikes me as extreme.

And Iseman is an essential part of the story. The Times needed to explain why McCain would go to such lengths to assist her clients that he'd evoke a rebuke from the FCC chair. It would have been a disservice to suppress that part of the story.

The Times could have done a much better job assembling and presenting the evidence of McCain doing favors for Iseman's clients. The article read like a sprawling New Yorker essay more than a news report. Further, the Times failed to note some obvious examples of Iseman's clients getting favorable treatment from McCain, especially the 1998 letter McCain wrote threatening to turn the FCC upside down if the client didn't get the outcome it wanted. But in any case, some of that has come out more clearly as a result of the Times' story.

What is really lacking, from the Times as from most other coverage of this story, is real balance and context. McCain's self-presentation as the purest of pure politicians is preposterous. There is abundant evidence that he has continued to peddle influence even while he peddles the McCain Myth. The allegations in the NYT story should not be treated in the abstract. They are part of a pattern of behavior.

The NYT can be faulted however for buying half-way into the McCain Myth. The story as published pretended that the main problem with McCain's behavior is that he fails to recognize that his actions might be construed as unethical because he takes such a firm line on corruption. No. The problem is that his actions are unethical and corrupt. If the man is a hypocrite, that is his personal problem.

Posted by: smintheus at February 25, 2008 9:53 AM | Permalink

Well observed, Jay. From a cultural perspective, I'd add that this event is further evidence that it's getting harder and harder to fool all of the people some of the time. That's not to say that the Times deliberately set out to fool people; it's just that our culture has moved past the point where the deconstructing of arguments is reserved for academicians and elites. For the press, this is problematic, to say the least, and we dare not underestimate what it means for the future.

Posted by: Terry Heaton at February 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Permalink

Occam's Razor--take the simplest explanation--conflicts with the NYT's explanation and what passes for charitable explanations here and elsewhere.
Given the NYT's performance in the past--ex. el Kaka ammo dump--their propensity for faking up stories to throw presidential elections, or otherwise inconvenience republicans means the simplest explanation here is that they're doing it again.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Permalink

their propensity for faking up stories to throw presidential elections, or otherwise inconvenience republicans means the simplest explanation here is that they're doing it again.

It's like you people haven't lived through the '90s at all. Hello? Gennifer Flowers? My god, Whitewater? I mean, hello? Impeachment?

Geebus. It ain't even history yet.

Posted by: hellblazer at February 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Permalink

Hell.

Not sure what you're talking about. The stories you reference were true.

This one is full of crap. Ditto al-Kaka. For example.

There's the difference.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 10:43 AM | Permalink

“Trust us, we’re the New York Times,”

vs.

"Trust me, I'm John McCain"

That would be bad enough for the Times, even without the fact that they've spent the last ten years talking about what an honest maverick McCain is.

For lovers of culture war—and I am not one—there is almost nothing better than a story like this.

Your hate for the hypothesis does not decrease its obvious explanatory power:

As for the cultural right, of course they will drop this story into the "liberal media bias" narrative. They've been predicting MSM hit pieces about McCain since Romney dropped out of the nomination contest. Hence the grim tone of the RNC's statement -- the Times is acting just as the RNC had foreseen.

In science, the ability to correctly predict events is considered an indication of a good theory.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Permalink

"Times editors are extremely smart people prevented by their own codes from [admitting to others or even themselves that they are] thinking politically.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Permalink

I just can't believe that Keller was unaware that many on the right were predicting that the Times would turn against McCain as soon as he had the nomination locked up, and that this story would deliver unto them the mother of all "Told you so!" moments. Nobody's reality bubble can be that impervious.

Given that Keller sat on this story for months, and apparently was pushed into publishing it by scoop prssure from the New Repbulic (I say "apparently" because the main source of information on this is TNR itself, who are an even less reliable source of information than the NYT) I think the most parsimonious explanation is that Keller knows and always knew full well exactly how and how badly this story sucked, was somehow pushed into publishing it anyway against his own better judgement, and is unsurprisingly unwilling to publicly admit that that is what happened.

As to whether said pressure was fear of being scooped or politically-motivated pressure from Pinch of exactly the sort the Right believes is the case - well until the Times starts addressing this screwup honestly (which begins with acknowledging that it is a screwup) I'm gonna assume that reason #2 was at least part of what drove the decision.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 11:10 AM | Permalink

From your Cliff Notes:

We publish stories when they’re ready. Period. No matter when we publish them people see dark motives.

No information in that story hadn't been collected weeks ago. TNR was about to report that the NYT was sitting on a story. I am inclined to believe that the above quote is a bald-faced lie.

Would do it again. It was an excellent story and we’re proud of it.

Either that's a face-saving lie, or these people are incapable of learning. Either way, this answer does not improve the Times' credibility.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Permalink

I and my journalist colleagues all came to exactly the same conclusion just about everybody else has: The Times didn't "nail" the McCain-Iseman romantic connection. The irony is that, as others have observed, the Times had a legitimate wrapup of McCain's entanglements with lobbyists, despite his protestations of purity. The Times could have gone with that, and held the McCain-Iseman stuff until there was adequate Bradlee-level confirmation. You have to wonder, didn't at least one high-level editor urge more reporting?

Posted by: Tom Grubisich at February 25, 2008 1:46 PM | Permalink

Bill Bradley says:

prior to becoming the Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, Dean Baquet was with the Los Angeles Times. Most recently, he was its editor, and won widespread praise in the journalism profession for getting fired rather than carry out yet another round of cuts. But prior to that hero-making stance, he was the managing editor of the Los Angeles Times. And in that role at the LA Times, Baquet was deeply involved with and a key internal advocate of the late-breaking LA Times story during the 2003 California recall slamming Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And you want me to believe this wasn't a deliberately political act in the same vein as Dan Rather's phony memos story? Please come up with some evidence for that stance other than your repeated declaration that "the bias debate makes you stupid." It only makes you stupid if you're unwilling to admit the obvious.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Permalink

You have to wonder, didn't at least one high-level editor urge more reporting?

According to TNR, Keller did. If TNR is to be believed (and that is always a big if) Keller is now stuck defending a story he internally opposed.

It appears that noone outside of the NYT thought this was good journalism - even their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Boston Globe, chose to go with the WaPo's superior sex-free influence-peddling-only version. Given the broad consensus even among liberals and the rest of the MSM that this story didn't deserve to run, the big question appears to me to be:

What management pathology at the Times resulted in the decision to run this piece?

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Permalink

I think that's a pretty good--and fair--question.

I do not think liberals know the answer. I don't think conservatives know the answer. Culture war knows, but that's different from real people with working minds. I don't think journalists know either. Some people at the Times may have an explanation or two, but I doubt they will speak up.

What I tried to do in this piece is examine a few blind spots, or places where the press think goes bad, traps or glitches that might cause a bad decision to look plausible to them, or even, if Jill Abramson is believed, required, necessary.

My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain. Of course this is the bias--and the loneliness--of the long form blogger :-)

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Permalink

I suppose you could do the same chin-pulling about Baquet's hit piece(s) on Ahnold.
But you'd be wasting your time.
Both were deliberate, ginned-up hit pieces designed to affect an election.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Permalink

Posted by: Richard Aubrey

And both were so transparent that they backfired.

Why is it that the editors of the Boston Globe and the Seattle P.I. were able to see that they were so transparent that they would backfire, but the editors of the LAT and NYT were not?

If TNR is to be believed (and that is always a big if) Keller did recognize the above and was overruled, presumably by someone with more fanaticism than sense when it comes to promoting his political views (*cough*PinchSulzberger*cough*).

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Permalink

Culture war knows, but that's different from real people with working minds.

And so you glibly dismiss the possibility liberal bias is a factor.

Remember the quote above: "Hence the grim tone of the RNC's statement -- the Times is acting just as the RNC had foreseen." Karl Popper says when someone keeps on making successful predictions, it probably means they know something useful.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Permalink

It is comforting, in a minor key, to consider that other newspapers noticed. There is at least something their colleagues can do which is considered unacceptable, in some foam-cushion sense.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Permalink

That's why the notion of a liberal media conspiracy is so ludicrous. The media isn't a monolith, and I can point to just as many conservative media outlets that spin things their way and liberal outlets.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Permalink

That phrase "the view from nowhere" reminded me of this:

He's as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see, Nowhere Man can you see me at all? Doesn't have a point of view, Knows not where he's going to, Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 25, 2008 5:42 PM | Permalink

Jay, thanks for the link!

I wanted to add this from the Siegal report to your "Let’s not forget Keller’s declaration on Thursday: 'We think the story speaks for itself.' The next day the Times was publishing 6,000 words that spoke further for the story that was to speak for itself."

We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself. In today’s media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility. Critics, competitors and partisans can too easily caricature who we are and what we do. And loyal readers gain no solid understanding of what the truth really is....

This aim [explaining ourselves - ed.] can best be met by making use of all our assets — the newspaper, the Web, New York Times television and ourselves. It can be met most effectively if the effort is led by the newsroom, with support and advice from our corporate communications, marketing and legal departments. Though more can be done, the recommendations above represent the most important steps.

Posted by: Tim at February 25, 2008 5:53 PM | Permalink

Thanks for that, Tim; I forgot it was in there, but I believe I noted it at the time.

You're right: the issues now are the same as in the Siegal Report, but the Times has added an apparatus that simply wasn't there before, and in that sense it's way more accountable and two-way than it was five years ago. Have they gotten proper credit for it? Probably not.

Isn't there a contradiction, though, between "the story speaks for itself" and "we don't want to be glib?" I am pretty sure there is, would love to hear your (anyone's) thoughts.

From Howard Kurtz's chat with post readers:

Fort Wayne, Ind.: As an editor who read the Times' piece, I thought it was rather convoluted, trying to weave accusations of a romantic relationship into a broader narrative about McCain's lapses in judgment. I also think it was a mistake to have Weaver's comments down toward the end of the story, in which he says he doesn't think the relationship was romantic. The Times may say people are missing the larger point, but if you're going to report that a presidential candidate had a romantic relationship with someone other than his wife -- something that heretofore hasn't been reported -- then that's pretty much going to be the story.
Howard Kurtz: That seems self-evident, doesn't it? And yet Bill Keller, judging from his comments to me and more recently online, didn't see it that way. I think he now accepts that most readers saw the piece very differently from the way says he he intended.

* This is another eye opening chat between readers and a journalist on the McCain story.

Culture war knows, but that's different from real people with working minds.
And so you glibly dismiss the possibility liberal bias is a factor.

Actually, what I said was you are less likely to discover what failures drove the decision if you already know what they are. People enthusiastic about culture war typically know tons of things before they check into them. It is that to which I object.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 25, 2008 6:41 PM | Permalink

Jay, re: glib and Keller

Well, fair question. We're a little schizophrenic about this. We want to stick up for our journalism, but we resist becoming the story, and we especially resist seeing a long, painstaking work of reporting reduced to a war of sound bites. Personally, I think there are lots of things television excels at in the realm of news and public affairs. I have enormous respect for quite a few television journalists, and occasionally one of them convinces me to subdue my stage fright and go on TV. But in the heat of television, sober reflection on serious, subtle questions tends to lose out to the glib, the confrontational, the sensational, the snide, the belligerent. At its worst — and on this subject, much of television has been at its worst — it's not discussion. It's mud wrestling. What we're having here on the Web may fall short of a memorable Socratic dialogue, but at least there is time to pause and explain and think.

I said earlier that I consider "the story speaks for itself" and "we publish when we're ready" to be pro-jo spin. Unthinking reactive spin. Totally worthless except for its ability to elucidate the pedestrian nature of a news organization.

Does "not wanting to be glib" contradict "the story speaks for itself?" Sure. "The story speaks for itself" means "we don't explain ourselves" and "you're too stupid to get it because it's there - in the story." "Not wanting to be glib" means "we don't trust ourselves" and need to control the medium, the questions and the pace.

Of course, any good pro-jo knows that the only way to get the truth is to take the interviewee out of his comfort zone and off his talking points so he'll say something unintended (but true!).

Obviously, this is something the NYT doesn't trust their pro-jo's to handle from their own readers or other pro-jo's. So questions must be submitted on their forum for their approval with time to pause and think before explaining.

Either that or the free-for-all "tough" questioning pro-jo's practice on others isn't really a good model for truth-getting and explaining.

Posted by: Tim at February 25, 2008 7:40 PM | Permalink

You sometimes seem to suffer from the mirror image of this problem. You are also less likely to discover what failures drove the decision if you've already decided what they couldn't be.

I propose the following hypotheses:

(A) This was an attempt to influence an election. Supporting evidence: Baquet has undeniably tried to influence elections in the past. Whoever it is at the Times who put the "Augusta National doesn't allow women!" story on the front page for all that time clearly allows their own personal crusades to crowd out issues of both newsworthyness and profitability.

(B) The guys who wrote this story thought it was worth publishing, and the folks who published it thought it would go over with the audience, because they spend most of their time in a subculture with a very limited range of views and attitudes that they falsely believe their audience shares. That subculture happens to be pretty "liberal" by the standards of the US as a whole. Supporting evidence: too much to gather in one place, though the apocryphal Pauline Kael/Nixon voters anecdote summarizes it pretty well.

(C) They know they did wrong, and the lameness of their response is due to the Times' (and press in general's) unwillingness to ever admit to having made an error. Supporting evidence: your prior post on "rowbacks".

(D) Keller's claim to have been surprised by the reaction to this story is completely disingenuous. Supporting evidence: TNR's claim that he sat on the story for months until the threat of being scooped by TNR forced the Times to act.

None of these hypotheses should be assumed to be true. But all of them deserve serious consideration; instead you seem to go out of your way to not even think about them.

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 26, 2008 8:33 AM | Permalink

The issue of trying to throw an election could be demonstrated to be false more easily if...there weren't examples.
Dan Rather.
NYT on el Kaka.
Dean Baquet on gropergate in California.

Sure, the Augusta issue hurt Howell Raines. The problem is that a nutcase like that ought not to have progressed beyond delivering papers. That he got to one of the highest posts in the NYT indicates that they either liked his style of nuttiness, didn't mind it, or didn't notice it. None of those makes the NYT look good.

Raines' support of Blair is another example of nuttiness, but then, we have him supported by the NYT until the last possible moment, after the last possible example of being a nutcase could be sustained.
This is not good.

But, anyway, the choices of why to run this stupid story as it was run make the NYT look awfully stupid. Nutty, willfully, blindly stupid. Reputation permanently destroyingly stupid.

So, if that's better than trying to throw an election, go for it.

But, considering these guys are all professional journalists who are widely considered, by other professional journalists, as being at least as intelligent as a sea cucumber, the idea that they are that stupid is harder to accept than that they are acting true to form and trying to throw an election.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Permalink

The NYT has lost its marbles. It did so when it hired Kristol to write columns, and continues to let Maureen Dowd spew her hate.

I don't think the editors are stupid--I think their bottom-line-driven bosses are. They're veering toward tabloid techniques to sell papers. Even the great NYT probably has seen circulation/advertising declines, though I don't have any evidence of it.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Permalink

My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain.

Jay - Why do you start out from a position of arrogance in thinking that you have an advantage? It suggests a closed mind, like those at the NY Times. Rerunning conflict of interest stories on which they got no traction in 2000 suggests the story was all about sex, which was the only new information, in spite of Keller's denials. Running stories when they are ready is also a bunch of balogna, they sat on Risen's FISA story for a year by Keller's own admission.

Posted by: daleyrocks at February 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Permalink

In further thinking, I considered the possibility that Prof. Rosen is correct about the NYT and this story.
That's not good.

Because for several years, he's been trying to quell the idea that big-time journos are so insulated and incestuous that they don't know a great deal the ought to know, some of what they do know is wrong, and they haven't a clue what the don't know. And ther egos prevent them from hearing anybody else.
The result is the dog's breakfast Jason and I and several others have been detailing so laboriously, to little acclaim.

Now, when it's handy, why these guys, according to Prof. Rosen, have been living in a silk-lined telephone booth talking only to each other and confirming each other's superiority to the rest of the unwashed.

THAT'S how this McCain story came about. Yup. I see it all so clearly now.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Permalink

most obvious indication that culture war arguments might be inadequate: that both sides are utterly convinced the _Times_, specifically, and the media, generally, is in the tank for the other guys....

Posted by: nick l at February 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Permalink

if the "culture wars" have any relevance, here, it's in that the _Times_ is sluggishly responding to them as an external threat; to argue the _Times_ is an active player? naaah...too big, too slow, too complex....

Posted by: nick l at February 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Permalink

daleyrocks: You know, I agree with you. "My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain," which I wrote earlier, sounds pretty arrogant. It's something from the Stanley Fish school of discourse. But it's also a piece of writing.

A few wrinkles folded into it, then:

If, like me, you don't start by thinking that the Times actions in this case are easy to understand, the statement doesn't sound... quite so out of line.

Therefore it's saying one thing to readers who don't think the Times actions in this case are easy to explain, and saying another thing to those who definitely do.

The PressThink "base," if you will, has both kinds of people in it. Readers of both types are found here.

The category of people who don't think the Times actions are easy to understand can, of course, include people from the left, people from the right, as well as people frustrated by both left and right. There are journalists in this category, readers, critics, Times people.

Meanwhile, the simple to explain this people are a diverse category too. Includes the "trying to throw the elections" crowd on the right, but "look at how the corporate media backed down and made it all about sex" people coming from an opposite political direction. Both think the explanation is pretty simple, really.

One of the things I like about that second category is that it also includes Jill Abramson, managing editor of the New York Times: "Our report reflects reality. Are there any other questions?"

And so, daley, if... I say if, Sir... you too think it's simple to explain how the Times got there let me introduce you to Jill. You two think alike!

Another thing you may be overlooking about "My advantage over many of you is that I don't start by thinking it's easy to explain..." is that, while it definitely has that spit-in-your-eye arrogance you mentioned, I'm also saying:

It's my job to understand this stuff. I study the Times for a living. And I don't know what happened here.

But instead of saying it that way I used this little piece of writing.

Finally, if you approach, "my advantage over you..." with a culture war mentality, your head tends to explode. I mean it's designed--written--that way. So I wouldn't do that if I were you. :-)

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Permalink

Prof. Rosen uses the term "culture war" in an interesting fashion.

In fact, he uses it in a particular fashion which seems to suggest that there is no "culture war".

It's possible that he would admit there is a culture war but that it does not affect journalism.

If he thinks either of those two things, or alternates them on and odd-even date basis, he's as lost as the journalists.
He apparently thinks the rest of us do not read journalists, or that those of us who post here do not actually seek out journalists to talk to about our concerns.

Thus, we should believe Prof. Rosen.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Permalink

Jay - Thank you for the thoughtful response.

How about a reaction to the fact that the Times ran (one of the same reporters) stories relating to McCain's potential FCC conflict of interests in 2000 and got no traction so that the only new angle here was the romantic one?

Posted by: daleyrocks at February 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Permalink

Okay, let's take that...

It's definitely true that because the story dealt with a lot of old, already reported material, there had to be something new to make it front page "news," according to the Times. And the "inappropriate" relationship with the lobbyist was doing that work for the team.

But... It is also true that in the kind of article the Times was doing, and the kind of "check" it was performing (it thought) on McCain, there is ample warrant for looking back; the requirement that you have something new is actually weaker in this kind of story.

For when a public figure turns into a serious candidate for president, political journalists feel they have license to examine their whole life and re-visit "old" controversies. They would feel more room to do that now, more righteous urgency, then at any point in McCain's career.

Not so simple. However, looking at what made the story new enough to qualify as front page news in their eyes-- that is one way to take apart their decision-making, examine and criticize it.

Second however: they would feel fine with publishing a front page article with virtually no new information, reviewing the Keating Five scandal in juicy detail. Under the "vetting candidates for president" rules of big league journalism, which I am simply describing not endorsing, that is "allowed."

So they didn't necessarily need a lot that was new, dig?

Some who are old enough will recall Roger Mudd's CBS News interview with Ted Kennedy, shortly after Teddy declared for president against Jimmy Carter. The first question was about the Chappaquiddick incident. Kennedy was unprepared for it. His campaign never recovered.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Permalink

Jay.

I presume they'll be doing the same with Obama.

If they don't...that would mean something. It cannot not mean something.

Money from a middle eastern businessman who apparently defrauded the Brits' NHS. Issue? The Rezko thing. Might be dirty. Might not. Influence or just trimming?

Does his church preach anti-white sentiment? Support by Farrakhan? Mean something? Meeting schedules with Farrakhan?

Point is, I don't expect the NYT to do the same exhaustive research on dusty old stories when Obama is the candidate in question. And I'll be right.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Permalink

Richard, You're exactly right. Obama's skeletons have gotten very little airing in ANY media. Lefty vehicles like Talking Points Memo and Huffington Post might as well be satellite offices of Obama for President. Hillary has been pilloried early and often everywhere. And places like the NYT twiddle their thumbs and wait for their stories to be "ready."

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Permalink

It's hard to tell newspapers what kinds of agendas they ought to be pursuing. Tabloids have a kind of story, partisan blogs have another, and community papers have yet another. One size does not fit all. What I think we'd all like for papers like the NYT to do is come clean about their agenda and stop calling themselves the paper of record or serious journalists. They are a combination of many things precisely because they are for-profit companies with capitalist bosses. Because they haven't come clean, the public has done the same thing Bush has done--rollback--but we've found alternatives or created DIY newspapers.

Posted by: Ferdy at February 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Permalink

Dr. Rosen: the main difficulty with your complaint against the crude and simple-minded "culture war" explanation for the Times' publishing unprovable but salacious gossip about McCain is that, given the facts we have, that crude and simple-minded explanation is more plausible than any alternative yet offered. What's worse, everything you have said about the Times' reasoning so far is quite compatible with the notion that the Times set out deliberately to destroy McCain's chance to become the next President. The belief of Times-people that the Times' judgement cannot be seriously questioned, that they stand on the peak of Mount Olympus surveying the fields of battle, is ideally suited to tempt them into thinking that they can hurl thunderbolts at a warrior to help his opponents, and that even if they miss nobody in the battle can hit them with counterfire. (It also explains why Times-people cannot "think politically", that is, cannot recognize their true position in the battle, and not above it.)

It's fine not to jump to "liberal bias" as a first explanation and stick to it. It's not so fine to reject it, even when no alternative stands up to scrutiny, just because others, whose judgement you find risible in general, instantly accepted it. Sometimes the fools are right.

Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Permalink

re: NYT and Obama

February 9, the NYT ran a front page "The Long Run" story on Obama's drug use. On February 12, the NYT published two disapproving letters to the editor.

JM Hanes: "The idea that actually responding to their critics represents some sort of advance on the part of the Times is risible...."

Hardly. But I'm curious, what's your opinion on a New York or mid-Atlantic News Council?

Posted by: Tim at February 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Permalink

I dislike the presumption that a result of an action which is convenient to the actor must be the motivation.

Thus, I do not think Diane Feinstein's votes in Congress are aimed at enriching her husband. It just happens to be that way, if she forgets to recuse herself.

The key to assessing probable motivation is to see if the action in question is likely to lead to the ostensible goal, or to something else. If the actor claims to be seeking A, while doing things which will foreclose the possibilty of A, and making Z almost inevitable, we have a question. If, after having achieved Z a couple of times, he continues, while claiming to still be seeking A, we have a lunatic or a liar.

He is particularly likely to be a liar instead of insane if Z is a tough sell to the audience, and A is fluffy bunnies and Mom's apple pie.

In the current case, none of the NYT's excuses show much hope of convincing us that A was the goal, when Z was inevitable.

Prof. Rosen hasn't helped them, either, by insisting they were coming down someplace around M.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 26, 2008 9:31 PM | Permalink

i think JM gets it almost right.

Jay, you're trying to critique a particular incarnation of American stupidity, one which you call "pressthink"; this stupidity manifests itself in an obsessive shallow attention to individuals and their motives, an attention which in turns lends itself to everything from celebrity gossip to inside baseball to conspiracy theories. So far, so good.

But when you use terms like "motives" or "agendas" you confuse people like JM, who think that imputing "bias" or "interest" is some sort of critique, aimed at particular flawed individuals. Your point--as I take it--is that the "agenda", "bias", what have you, is not personal but structural: to be a journalist is to have such a bias!

Which brings me to my question: have you read much of Bourdieu's sociology of cultural fields? It seems to me that what you're after is something very close to what he'd call the journalistic "habitus"....

Posted by: nick l at February 26, 2008 10:17 PM | Permalink

nick l:

I'm willing to take responsibilty for the fact that you seem a bit confused about my drift yourself, however right you may be about Jay's. You would be correct in assuming that I have a certain personal bias against unified theories in general though, because they have structural imperatives of their own and often tend to reveal more about the theorist than the actual object of study, where their real world utility is likely to be tenuous. I'd like to see Jay take on a different role, but as I noted myself, I'm not at all sure that's where his enthusiasms lie.

Posted by: JM Hanes at February 26, 2008 11:00 PM | Permalink

JM: You interpreted my word "agenda" to mean "hidden agenda" and then further translated it into "motives," (a term that I did not use, Nick. ) You then said motives were unknowable.

I agree that we cannot know what an editor's motives are from afar. Sometimes we cannot know the motives of a spouse! If we ask Jill Abramson what her motives were in running this story she is going to give us a completely useless reply like, "refecting reality."

This is not the direction I was going in when I wrote, If you're a player, what are you playing for? Or: what is your agenda? How does that square with your interest and the observables in your performance?

I was talking there about a publicly-stated agenda that would at least begin to 1.) tell journalists as players what to play for during a campaign season, 2.) tell the public what to expect of the press, not as a reflector of reality but as a player, an influential force, and 3.) gain some legitimacy in the public sphere and the political system because it seems like reasonable set of instructions.

The best I have been able to do in suggesting what journalists should play for in election coverage was the final paragraph of Beast Without a Brain.

The job of the campaign press is not to preempt the voters' decision by asking endlessly, and predicting constantly, who's going to win. The job is to make certain that what needs to be discussed will be discussed in time to make a difference – and then report on that.

You wrote about "the polarization occurring, not just within certain quarters of the business itself, but between the press and the public from whom they, like government putatively derive their power." That is something I have been warning people the press about since 1989, not in academic forums but in their forums.

The New York Times doesn't listen to someone like me. I mean the leadership, the people who direct it. The rank and file sometimes reads PressThink if there's a public agony and I am writing consistently about it. But my influence is very negligible with that institution. In fact, I have never been to the building because I have never been invited.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2008 11:02 PM | Permalink

Well said JM Hanes I agree completely with you. If Keller was a doctor and the NYT a hospital who would trust a family member to their care?

Other unasked and unanswered questions, do some tenets of journalism make professionalism more difficult? Do values such as speaking truth to power, civil journalism, and making a difference in the world contribute to journalism’s basic mission? Do they add or subtract from an adversarial attitude, from skepticism to all points of view? Do they aid or inhibit the injection of personal attitudes into stories?

Activism and professionalism are frequently at odds and a façade of innocence, as has recently been shown by the NYT, is a poor substitute for professionalism. Was this activism? It certainly was not professionalism and as JM Hanes points out it is impossible to know true motives and all we have are Keller’s cries of innocence.

Nor do I believe this lack of professionalism is isolated to the NYT. This in some ways makes the whole culture war thing pertinent. You, Prof Rosen, may not care about the political leanings of the press as a whole, but maybe if they were around 90% conservative in their political leanings they would matter. The herd of independent minds is primarily comprised of minds with thoughts and beliefs at odds with my own, making the collective mind of the herd quite alien to me. Should I question its motives since it spews garbage at odds with reality and rational thought? No according to you, not because it is professional and competent, but because it is a mindless beast, yet another form of the innocence excuse. The herd's motives are pure because because the herd is mindless. I just find it hard to fathom though that the tribe of the culture war that comprises the majority of the herd's mind does not influence the direction the herd travels.

So while the culture war argument just makes you dumber, so does the innocence excuse. It makes as gross an assumption of motive as does charges of bias, or throwing elections.

So charges of bias aside, what reason do we have to trust a press does not represent the general population?

Professionalism? …snort

Innocence? Get real

Posted by: abad man at February 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Permalink

Nick: I think journalism is a "field" in Bourdieu's sense, yes. My personal point of departure as a critic is not the "structure" of the media, although I agree that structural bias is far more important than the bias of individuals.

I start with questions of legitimacy. We're a free people, what makes the press a legitimate force in our public life?

Legitimacy in journalism breaks down. It constantly needs to be repaired, renewed. People in journalism lose sight of where their legitimacy comes from. They misinterpret what it requires. Practices they think are building it may be unbuilding it (he said, she said, for example). They do things that have no legitimacy, or they give reasons that have no legitimacy. That's my terrain.

What the culture warriors say is... Legitimacy? The MSM? You've got to be kidding. That went away a long time ago. It's an illegitimate institution now. The frustration for them is that the institution is still around, and a lot of Americans have a residual reliance on it. It retains some legitimacy even though in their eyes it deserves none. That's why they go to war. They've already decided the question of legitimacy. There's a point in the process where inquiry ceases.

Whereas for me the legitimacy of the press is something I worry about. I see it as in the balance, up for grabs. And of course the press is expanding all around us, and so new players are legitimating themselves in new ways.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Permalink