Sunday, August 10, 2008
The NYT, Edwards, and McCain: The "Public Editor" hides the ball
Clark Hoyt, as always standing on the wall to make sure that the New York Times does not drift too far toward the center, has written an absolutely baffling column about the Grey Lady's decision not to cover, or even investigate, the John Edwards affair. Yes, his conclusion is that they should have, but much of the column is given over to explaining away the paper's disparate treatment of John McCain and John Edwards:
Murray Bromberg of Bellmore, N.Y., was glad The Times was not touching this seamy business. “I heartily approve,” he said. But everyone else I heard from over the past several weeks was either puzzled or outraged that the newspaper, which carried front-page allegations of a John McCain affair, was ignoring the relationship between Edwards and Hunter. John Boyle of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., said, “I hope you will find the time to tell me why this news story is not reported by your paper.” Some readers, like Bert A. Getz Jr. of Winnetka, Ill., were sure they already knew the answer: liberal bias.
I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it.
But then he writes this:
I would not have published the allegation of a McCain affair, because The Times did not convincingly establish its truth. I would not have recycled the National Enquirer story, either. But I think it was a mistake for Times editors to turn up their noses and not pursue it. “There was a tendency, fair or not, to dismiss what you read in the National Enquirer,” Keller said. “I know they are sometimes right.” When the Enquirer published its first “love child” report, The Times was going energetically after the McCain story. It should have pursued the other story as well.
Good. Hoyt disagreed with the NYT's decision to publish unproven allegations about John McCain on its front page, and he believed it should have at least investigated the allegations against Edwards. But the different treatment has nothing to do with liberal bias. Hoyt reports the editors as having considered the McCain story about lobbying (his alleged paramour was a lobbyist) and therefore more serious, but does not say he agrees with this characterization. He just moves on, closing with a discussion of the internal anguish at the Times over sensational journalism:
Richard Berke, an assistant managing editor, said that The Times has sometimes struggled in an increasingly tabloid news environment to figure out how to deal with such stories. “We are still feeling our way on this,” he said.
Berke said he convened a luncheon of Times editors late last year after controversy in the newsroom over a decision to put an article about Paris Hilton on the front page. Some staffers thought the paper was finally getting with it, while others were embarrassed, he said. Berke said there was a consensus at the luncheon that The Times should “be a little more open and flexible.”
It is a delicate balance to strike for a newspaper like The Times, with a long history of serious purpose and few tabloid instincts.
“We run the risk of looking like we’re totally out of it,” Berke said, “or we’re just like the rest of them — we have no standards."
Hey, I feel for the Times. They are at a strategic crossroads in their business, and they have no idea whether they are on foot or on donkeyback (the latter, I think). But none of that institutional navel-gazing explains away the different attention to McCain -- publishing an unproved story on the front page -- and Edwards -- not even investigating a story that was well on its way to proof. In the whole column, Hoyt never actually says what he believes explains the disparate treatment of the Republican and the Democrat. Except that he does "not think that liberal bias had anything to do with it."
Then what, pray tell, did?
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Aug 10, 08:50:00 AM:
we have no standards
That's the most apt thing I've heard out of the Times in 5 years.
By , at
Sun Aug 10, 09:50:00 AM:
When you consider what the NYT did and what it did not do, their predicament is clear, at least to me.
They did not go after Edwards because, if they did, they'd have to go after other left-wing evil doers. In 2004, John Kerry's girlfriend was reported to have been exiled to Africa for the duration.
Wouldn't the NYT have to investigate the Larry Sinclair claims against Obama? As with Edwards, the NYT probably has a good idea where the trail leads. Remember, printing false and misleading stuff is only half the bias of the legacy media. The other half is refusing to print stuff that is true but inconvenient.
By , at
Sun Aug 10, 10:44:00 AM:
This appalling lack of journalistic integrity from the NY Times is due to something. We deserve a real explanation as to why they continue to slant the news in a world where we can "fact check their ass".
By 
Andrew X, at
Sun Aug 10, 12:21:00 PM:
Fish don't know they are wet.
Neither does fishwrap, apperently.
By , at
Sun Aug 10, 12:46:00 PM:
"The Times" doesn't have a clue. Tabloids are well ahead in the credibility department. Let me help; l i b e r a l b i a s.
Tabloids aren't biased, and seek the underlying story, not a punk the conservative or protect the liberal story.
And the public knows it NYTs.
By JPMcT, at
Sun Aug 10, 01:30:00 PM:
Mr. Hoyt's efforts are understandable, if not somewhat arrogant. I think most people have reached the point with the NYT that they are more apt to believe that President Nixon met with BatBoy than they can stomach anything either on the front page, op/ed page, or by-lined by Frank Rich.
By , at
Wed Aug 13, 10:05:00 AM:
After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant.
Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron, was funneling money to Rielle.
Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards' use of campaign funds.
So it's not just a private matter between two people.
