I used to call the New York Times switchboard to point out errors of fact, suggesting a correction was in order. There was no listed number to call for corrections.
The operator would send me to the “national desk,” where the response was courteous but unavailing.
Eventually, I gave up.
The Times now publishes a phone number of a nameless person to leave a message for a correction.
So much for personal accountability.
But if you persevere, the Times is not hesitant to correct. In the four weeks ending May 10 it published 214 corrections, almost eight a day.
That background is relevant in examining the perfidy of resigned reporter Jayson Blair, who, the Times said, committed “frequent acts of journalistic fraud” and whose “widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the newspaper’s 152-year history.”
The Times’ four-page confession last Sunday said there were “dozens of known journalistic deceptions” but “few complaints from the subjects of his articles.”
The Star Tribune summarized the Times article under a pungent headline by copy editor Chris Havens, “To tell the truth, New York Times reporter decided he didn’t need to.”
A search of Times News Service articles in the Star Tribune discovered only one of the disputed Blair pieces. A correction appeared Tuesday.
Blair’s sociopathic behavior not only undermined the Times’ credibility with its own readers, but also those attracted to its stories in hundreds of U.S. newspapers subscribing to the Times News Service.
Twenty-two years as an ombudsman convinces me that the Blair travesty could have been aborted if the Times had an ombudsman with freedom to write a weekly column about issues of ethics, fairness and completeness.
In contrast to its corrections notice, it would not only publish the ombudsman’s phone number but also the person’s name daily on Page A2.
Past managements at the Times have, in their venom for the ombudsman concept, made it sound like a virus akin to the shredding of the First Amendment.
That was the position it and the major television networks took in the late l970s that led to abandonment of the National News Council. (Minnesota has had a news council for 30 years without a peep that it has infringed on the First Amendment.)
But the First Amendment is alive and well at the Star Tribune and at 31 other U.S. newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, that have ombudsmen.
The irony is that the Times otherwise is a billboard for the First Amendment, a lighthouse for thorough, clear, fearless reporting and editing. The day will come when it discards its Achilles’ heel and names an ombudsman.
Bold perception
Setting the words “Save Our Sons” and “budget cuts” in bold type in a sentence above a photograph on Wednesday’s Metro/State cover read to Mike Grosser like a tilt to the left.
The sentence said: “Save Our Sons aims to help disadvantaged kids stay on track and out of trouble, but budget cuts have begun to reduce its reach.”
It was acceptable to name the program in boldface, Grosser conceded, but doing the same for “budget cuts” was a political statement, he said.
Editors said that the words in bold delivered a quick summary to the reader.
The use of bold in similar summaries in the recent past have been limited to names of people, buildings and programs.
Comment: The face-off between the editor’s intent and Grosser’s perception may be irreconcilable. But if editors listened to my callers for a week they’d think more like a reader.
Make it an inning
Lisa Keller wrote: “Is everyone so obsessed with the Minnesota Wild that they can’t keep their sports straight?”
She referred to Thursday’s picture caption: “Cristian Guzman slides into third base before Joe Randa can make a tag on a first-period triple Wednesday.”
Poor house
Ralph Hoffman contributed it from the Tuesday edition.
“Minneapolis police responding to a report of gunfire . . . found a woman dead and a man with a gunshot wound in the house.”
