Just how much trouble is the NY Times in?
The "Plamegate" issue has also brought a great deal of criticism on the heads of those who run the New York Times - including its executive editor, Bill Keller and its publisher, Arthur Salzberger. In particular, Judith Miller's actions have been the subject of much controversy. The Times's own public editor or ombudsman, Byron Calame, has opened up on his web site a public comments section that has been inundated with submissions; he did this after penning a stinging rebuke to Miller and the Times ("The Miller Mess: Lingering Issues Among the Answers") in last Sunday's paper - a rebuke that basically called for Miller to lose her job. Maureen Dowd, another Times columnist, also more-or-less called on Miller not to come back in a separate column last week.
Elsewhere, the Times has had criticism heaped upon it from all sides. Editor & Publisher editor Greg Mitchell has called for Miller's head. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has stated in his influential Pressthink site that the paper is now only the second best paper in the country, after the Washington Post (and only just in front of the Wall Street Journal). In an interview with Howard Kurtz on CNN's Reliable Sources on Oct. 9, Rosen said that the Times
- has lost the capacity to tell the truth about itself in this story. It’s completely overidentified itself and the majesty of the institution with Judy Miller and what its own people describe as her personal decision making… It isn’t the First Amendment drama that they think it is. It’s a much more complicated, darker and ultimately dubious tale.
Glenn Reynolds and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, also appearing on that show, seemed to agree.
So just how much trouble is the Times really in? Well, the paper's probably ready to let Judy Miller go (as quietly as possible), though that won't stop the criticism. Still, the paper's not about to shut up shop and shuffle off into history - it's still far too important for that. The Times remains financially healthy, both on its own terms and as the core of a significant media mini-empire that includes nineteen newspapers (including the Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune), as well as eight TV stations and the widely syndicated New York Times News Service. Certainly it's true, as Slate's Jack Shafer points out, that this latest scandal - "like Jayson Blair's journalistic malfeasance and the embarrassments of the Wen Ho Lee episode before it - has sent the old gray palooka down to the mat once again, where we find it wheezing, bleeding, and struggling to find its feet." (The Jayson Blair incident, btw, also led to the resignation in 2003 of the Times' previous editor, Howell Raines in a cloud of uncertainty that seemed to infect all journalism for a while.) But the paper will get back up again, shake itself off, and keep going. Still, I note Rosen's position that the Times is no longer America's number one paper. I'm still pondering that one; but I am sure that the paper is in a continuing downward spiral, so if it's not number two - or three - yet, it could well slip down there before much longer. The New York Times has almost 110 years of accrued status, respectability and economic success - going all the way back to Adolph Ochs in 1896 - that keeps its stock high. But it can't keep taking hits like this forever.
One thing is for sure: Those liberals who hope that the Plame affair turns into another Watergate won't find their Woodward and Bernstein anywhere near Ms Miller. (Nor, for that matter with Time magazine's Matt Cooper, who caved in to the special prosecutor and whose bosses at Time willingly handed over his journalist notes to the grand jury investigation.) In fact, it's going to be tough to find any knight in shining armor in the media.
posted by hdougie at 10/28/2005 08:44:00 AM
4 Comments:
I thought it was interesting that back in July, former New Tork Times columnist Anthony Lewis was not buying his old paper's picture of Miller as press-freedom martyr.
He wrote in the New York Review of Books: "There is no doubt that journalists must sometimes rely on confidential sources. . . . And if a reporter promises confidentiality, he or she must keep the promise. But it does not follow that the law must always back off from an attempt to discover the sources." And he continued: "Reputations can easily be ruined by false reports in the press. Do we really want the authors of defamatory articles to be able to hide behind alleged anonymous sources? And the argument that journalists should be given a privilege against having to testify, whether by judicial decision or a new federal shield law, courts another danger. It would risk adding to the already evident public feeling that the press thinks it is entitled to special treatment. The press does not need, right now, to separate itself further from the public. Any privilege that is won should surely be qualified, not absolute, with judges balancing the interests, as Judge Tatel indicated, and with his respectful care."
I find the differences between Watergate and "Plamegate" very surprising. Both cases involved reporters writing about highly sensitive issues revolving around very powerful people; and refusing to reveal their source. The Washington Post, although skeptically, stood behind Woodward and Bernstein and encouraged them to keep reporting. The New York Times, however, is very quick to turn the criticism they are receiving into criticism towards Miller. They are showing no loyalty or faith in their employee. Could this be because lately one scandle can ruin a reputation for good?
Elizabeth Cronin
I highly doubt this "bad press" will ultimately negatively affect the NY Times in terms of sales or popularity. Like Professor Bicket said, this publication has over 100 years of a good reputation to tarnish. Yes, this is a scandal right now, but we must remember the general respectability of the publication, as well as the fact that most people who don't read newspapers everyday still trust what the NY Times is telling them. The public is indeed fickle about many things, but I doubt the overall opinion of the NY Times will drastically change in upcoming years. Ultimately, it comes down to what the public decides, but I'm fairly confident that the NY Times will bounce back quickly from this minor disaster and stay in the top 3 for years to come.
-Libby Donaldson
It's a very interesting assertion made by Jay Rosen in his site "Pressthink," where he stated that the NYT was now, in his opinion, second best after WaPo. For many years, and for as long as popular culture has had it, the NYT was generally the most prestigious newspaper in the country, if not the world. I, myself, was one who thought the same, however, upon reading Rosen's viewpoint in the whole "Judy Miller's Times" matter, and the lack of press that the controversy was given in the NYT, I am beginning to side with Rosen, and many others who now view the NYT as "failing" in its efforts in being a credible news source. It goes to show just how far an institution will go, even a highly influencing news media outlet, to keep its reputation alive; even if it meant that they had to basically block out any news relating to the matter of Judy Miller in order to "save-face." It is painfully obviously now that the NYT is struggling, and they are struggling hard. WaPo now seems to be the newspaper to go to, however, just as Dougie mentioned how the NYT is a "media mini-empire", it is very unlikely that people will start reading WaPo over the NYT just because of this one very important, yet secretly overlooked ordeal by the Times.
-sokin (david) yoon
Post a Comment
<< Home