[Media]
Bill Keller Memo
Crooks and Liars has just posted a memo purportively sent from the Times' managing editor Bill Keller to the staff. It is carefully worded, but makes no bones about how Keller feels he blundered in the Judy Miller case. Quoting an email he received, he believes
"the paper will go to the mat to back [reporters] up institutionally -- but only to the degree that the reporter has lived up to his or her end of the bargain, specifically to have conducted him or herself in a way consistent with our legal, ethical and journalistic standards, to have been open and candid with the paper about sources, mistakes, conflicts and the like, and generally to deserve having the reputations of all of us put behind him or her."Reading between the lines, Keller seems clearly to be saying that Miller was unethical, compromised, and untruthful to the paper, and this in turn compromised everything the Times has done in the past couple years. He's right--the paper has been compromised, and I think the lesson is now clear.
Is this the signal things are about to change?
7 comments:
Keller's getting a lot of love for this memo. I don't see it. It's just more of the same too-little-too-late, followed by promises to do better that we always get from the NYT.
I disagree. Today's Public Editor captures my sense of things, which is that the Times now recognizes that its own ass--not just Judy's--is on the line; that will make them far more responsive to readers in the future. I think the era of the star journalist may be at a wane in the NYT.
(The public editor also speculated that Judy's time with the Times is done.)
How does ditching Miller without canning Keller show us anything about the NYT's willingness to change? As for being more responsive, Keller has already let us know in where his concerns about readership are.
Hey :) I read the Calame column and I agree with this:
The Times must now face up to three major concerns raised by the leak investigation: First, the tendency by top editors to move cautiously to correct problems about prewar coverage. Second, the journalistic shortcuts taken by Ms. Miller. And third, the deferential treatment of Ms. Miller by editors who failed to dig into problems before they became a mess.
My point is that getting rid of Miller won't do anything about points 1 and 3. Keller has to go. Schulzberger has to apologize. And even then they have to find some kind of magic to restore their credibility. Maybe getting a Dan Froomkin on staff would be a first step. Honestly, that paper is such a disaster, I really don't know where to start. All I know is that I'm still waiting for them to "go forward with really good journalism," which was promised a year ago in the last round of handwringing - when, remember, they thought there was nothing wrong with what Miller was doing.
Calame suggests a review of the paper's anonymous sourcing policy. Charming. But what guarantees is he planning to get that a new one won't be as freely ignored as the current one is?
The rot at the NYT goes way too deep to be solved by tweaking policies nobody pays attention to or by firing a reporter now that she's a PR liability. So far that's all that's been suggested.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought canning Miller was the solution--that was more of an added tidbit for fun.
What I'm saying is that the Times seems to be honestly looking at the problems it's had recently. This is all really speculation based on public statements--we haven't a clue of what's really going on.
But I will offer these three observations, post-facto: 1) you are one of the most aggressive critics of the Times in the blogosphere, and I'm not sure what an eRobin-approved solution would look like, short of starting over from scratch; 2) Keller inherited the mess, and though he handled it badly, I'm not sure that's evidence of the "rot" you see (from my side, it looks more like a relief pitcher who comes in with the bases loaded and no outs and gives up two runs before he can get out of the inning); and 3) the Times has definitely made some errors in the past five years--these, however, don't make the paper a disaster. It gets quite a lot right.
Don't construe this as a defense--only time will tell. But I'm willing to let time tell: I don't know that you're prepared to.
Disclaimer: I'm running late and I can't seem to find words that don't sound strident. Assume any anger you may infer is directed at the NYT.
What I'm saying is that the Times seems to be honestly looking at the problems it's had recently.
This is where we differ.
1) you are one of the most aggressive critics of the Times in the blogosphere, and I'm not sure what an eRobin-approved solution would look like, short of starting over from scratch;
I'm probably in the middle of that pack. If you throw in sites like TimesWatch and the people who refer to every political story filed by a woman they don't like as a "blowjob."
I admit I don't know what a solution would look like to me. Here are some starters: Keller's got to go - no question. Hire a Froomkin and replace the WH Letter with that column. Start afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.
2) Keller inherited the mess, and though he handled it badly, I'm not sure that's evidence of the "rot" you see (from my side, it looks more like a relief pitcher who comes in with the bases loaded and no outs and gives up two runs before he can get out of the inning)
This has been one hell of a long inning. And the metaphorical runs are in reality an illegal war and thousands of dead and injured. Editors' heads rolled over Jayson Blair. This is about a thousand times worse.
3) the Times has definitely made some errors in the past five years--these, however, don't make the paper a disaster. It gets quite a lot right.
I'm generally careful to note that my criticisms of the paper extend only to the political reporting. I don't have a problem with the Arts section.
But I'm willing to let time tell: I don't know that you're prepared to.
You're absolutely right. The enormity of their journalistic malpractice cannot be their defense. My clock starting ticking during the 2000 campaign. For some people it's been running since Jeff Gerth was allowed to run amok - ask the Clintons and Wen Ho Lee about that particular editorial decision. From where I'm sitting, that constitutes rot that goes pretty deep. And requires some gigantic fixes that do not begin and end with Miller, as they would have us believe.
But I do like the movie reviews and the sports section is a good read during baseball season.
I'm all about agreeing to disagree but as for Keller coming in after Miller's crimes, read this from Miller apologist, Howell Raines, written in the wake of the NYT editors note, which was supposed to explain the pre-war reporting. (via Michael at Reading A1): (emph mine)
I assume that Judith Miller is the "individual" reporter who, according to the editors' note, is being singled out by outside critics. Like other Times readers, I could not tell from today's note what the editors found out about the disputes over her stories. I do know that while Judy Miller's work has been widely discussed, her reporting on Al Qaeda was prescient, and much of her work on terrorism over the years has been highly regarded. In any event, on the general subject of Ms. Miller's journalism, there is no shortage of in-house knowledge at The Times. In the years just prior to my editorship, it is my understanding that much of Ms. Miller's work was edited by Steve Engelberg, now of the Portland Oregonian. In his post as investigative editor, Mr. Engelberg reported directly to Bill Keller, then the managing editor of the paper and now its executive editor. When I was executive editor, her work flowed through various editors, including Mr. Engelberg and later Doug Frantz, now of the Los Angeles Times. During my editorship, Ms. Miller also worked often in the Times's Washington Bureau. The bureau chief at that time, Jill Abramson, told me that she had a good rapport with Ms. Miller, who had a conflicted relationship with some colleagues. Ms. Abramson, who is now managing editor, supervised a significant amount of Ms. Miller's reporting and personally edited the resulting stories before they went into the paper. It seems to me unfair to single out Judy Miller, even in a blind reference, or to cite individual stories by other reporters without drawing aside the veil of anonymity around un-bylined editors who worked with them.
Keller's going to get away with pretending to be surprised by the fallout of the NYT criminally bad pre-war reporting and the current, related mess even though he's waist deep in all of it.
Post a Comment