The news media world has been buzzing over the journalistic fraud that occurred at The New York Times, though some readers are neither shocked nor surprised.
The most disturbing aspect of the scandal is that few people who were quoted but never interviewed by former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair complained. Does this show an acceptance of poor journalism? Is it simply disinterest?
Meanwhile, The New York Times is analyzing its corporate culture, and other newsrooms ask, “Can it happen here?” This newspaper does not subscribe to The New York Times News Service and thus did not run Blair’s fraudulent stories.
In any case, I would like to offer some observations:
* The typical culture in newsrooms is “incredibly defensive,” said John Lavine in an interview with this columnist several years ago. As director of the Readership Institute at Northwestern University, Lavine surveyed 5,500 newspaper employees at 90 newspapers nationwide.
Defensive cultures value consistency and conformity. The “just do it” mentality is needed to meet deadlines. And journalists also value their independence to a fault. The result, however, is a failure of journalists to listen to criticism.
A New York Times staffer, in an article in its Sunday magazine, proposed the news ombudsman position in 1967 precisely to break through these barriers. Unfortunately and ironically, the Times has never employed one. An ombudsman is no panacea, but it’s no frill, either. The position is a key component of a newsroom culture that values reader involvement, which is the case at the Times-Union, which introduced a reader advocate in 1976.
* Readers have many misperceptions about how newspapers work. Newspapers are businesses protected by the First Amendment, but the Constitution does not guarantee a profit. So public service often conflicts with profitability. Newspapers need to do a better job of explaining themselves, especially The New York Times as the nation’s premier newspaper. Many newspaper policies are not transparent to readers and require constant labeling and frequent explanations. For instance, most newspapers are woefully deficient in explaining the differences between news stories, opinion columns, editorials and advertising.
* The New York Times and Washington Post are more prone to use anonymous sources than newspapers in the hinterlands. When newspapers use unnamed sources routinely, phony interviews are more difficult to spot.
The Associated Press Managing Editors asked their readers for the comments on The New York Times scandal. The Times-Union participated with our Interactive E-Mail Network. (If you would like to join, send me an e-mail.) Here are some of comments that I chose for incisiveness and brevity.
* William Eisele: “Maybe this is a wake-up call for newspaper management and for readers as well. Too bad that this happened, but if anyone deserved a smack in the hubris, it’s the Times.”
* Jerry Sinclair: “In reality, I am the editor. I choose what to purchase, read or watch. I am very suspicious of the reporters who work for national media and fear that more of this laziness will be forthcoming.”
* Chuck McManus: “I believe that newspapers once were careful to separate news from editorial. Today, I believe the two have been integrated to such an extent as to be indistinguishable.”
* Ted Vollers: “I’m sorry, but I don’t really give newspapers any more credibility than I give to any other institution, and that is very little. Actually, is there anything more important to newspapers than their advertising revenues?”
