Spring-cleaning at the Times
The entire report suggests that the world has come to a standstill because two of NYTøs editors have left.
Dasu Krishnamoorty
The New York Times again proclaimed how important its internal crises are for everyone. On June 6, its front page led with a story on the exit of two of its senior editors as a sequel to the two cases of journalistic fraud and betrayal The Hoot carried sometime ago. Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd left the paper, taking responsibility for newsroom lapses. The former overlooked Bragg`s performance of proxy reporting and the latter plagiarization by Jayson. The June 6 report beginning as a double column item jumped into a whole page in the Metro section.
Jayson quit the paper first and NYT carried on 11 May an extraordinary four-page story. Bragg`s mischief merited only a brief Editor`s Note on May 23. The immediate questions that NYT`s report on the exit of the two editors poses are of newsworthiness and self-aggrandizement in the guise of self-flagellation. How is internal breakdown an event of national importance that deserved repeated and excessive salience? First, readers have no duty to bear the brunt of such exaggerated reaction. Second, it is a misuse of space that is the readers` natural domain. Third, it is an arrogant misappropriation of the right to define news.
The Times has a history of overdoing its information function. For example, it went on mourning 9/11tragedy months after tears of the American public had evaporated. That it is a newspaper of record is no excuse to topple established news values. We, the billion people in
The latest report (June 6) is about mismanagement in the newsroom. How is that the headache of the readers? It amounts to brazenly telling the public how crucial such a failure in the Times is to the nation. The report describes how the Times intends to undo the damage it has suffered. An editorial on the same day refers to New York Times as cocky. Naturally, when someone cocky falters, the rest rejoice. That`s the way of the world.
The June 6 report is full of schmaltz. Read this sentence: "Mr. Raines, clutching a microphone before dozens of reporters, editors, photographers and other newsroom staff members, many of whom sobbed audibly, said, "As I`m standing before you for the last time, I want to thank you for the honour and privilege of being a member of the best journalistic community in the world." Another sentence from the editorial: "The good of any particular institution depends on its people, but this one depends equally on the confidence that the readers place in it, a confidence based on the belief that every day, the paper struggles mightily to get things right." If journalism is an imperfect business, as the editorial says, why all this fuss?
Another gem: "For the news media, the day`s events were the culmination of a story line that had played out for weeks." These words cannot hide the blunt truth of an unpardonable editorial fiasco. A reader Emily Van Ness Schurin wrote (6 June): "Try as I might, it is hard for me now to read anything in the paper and to wonder whether the story has been accurately reported or not." Of what interest is it to the readers that `a committee of editors and reporters as well as several outside news media experts has been charged with taking a sweeping look at the paper`s newsroom practices, and is expected to report its findings in July.` Keep those findings to yourself when they come, I would say.
The president of the New York Association of Black Journalists Errol Cockfield says, `There are many black journalists who are questioning, whether, in an effort to restore its credibility, the Times has gone too far.` I am not black but I am one of them and there are many others who have not spoken out. The entire report suggests that the world has come to a standstill because two of NYT`s editors have left. Despite all this, NYT is a great newspaper but it is for the public to say that and not for the Times. Its June 6 report is a repeat of its May 11 striptease.
Jany Scott and David Carr wrote on the jump page a tribute to Raines and Boyd that reads like a premature obituary. They nostalgically recall, `Yesterday, they (Raines and Boyd) returned to the same spot.` Below this tribute appears an article by James Barron on the interim editor Joseph Lelyweld. Most of it is of value to a prospective employer and very little to the reader. Lelyweld could not have written his bio as well as Barron did.
The whole June 6 coverage betrays a belief that what is good for the Gray Lady is good for
Contact: dasukrishnamoorty@hotmail.com
Subscribe To The Newsletter