A double standard on reporters who express opinions? Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:33:33 -0600 (CST) http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3282 Activism Update A double standard on reporters who express opinions? Letter to NY Times' public editor Clark Hoyt 2/12/08 On February 12, FAIR sent a letter to the New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt regarding a recent editors' note that suggested that the newspaper has double standards for reporters who publicly express opinions. The following is the letter. We encourage others who have concerns to also email Hoyt at: public@nytimes.com. *** Dear Clark Hoyt, The New York Times recently published an unusual editor's note about the February 4 front-page article, "Time Runs Out for an Afghan Held by the U.S." The note concerned Andy Worthington, one of the two journalists identified in the article's byline: Mr. Worthington has written a book, The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison, in which he takes the position that Guantanamo is part of what he describes as a cruel and misguided response by the Bush administration to the September 11 attacks. He has also expressed strong criticism of Guantanamo in articles published elsewhere. The editors were not aware of Mr. Worthington's outspoken position on Guantanamo. They should have described his contribution to the reporting instead of listing him as co-author, and noted that he had a point of view. There is no indication that Worthington's reporting was flawed in any way. What the paper is saying is that Worthington's critical view of Guantanamo disqualifies him from having a byline on a Times article on the subject, and must be noted whenever he contributes to such a story. Is this rule applied to all Times reporters covering any subject? It would seem not. The Times' response to its chief military correspondent Michael Gordon expressing a point of view on national TV on the very topic he covers as a reporter provides an instructive comparison. On the Charlie Rose show (1/8/07), the host asked Gordon if he believed "victory is within our grasp." Gordon responded by endorsing the White House's call for a "troop surge": So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it's worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something. The Times' public editor at the time, Byron Calame, wrote (1/28/07) that he "raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon's voicing of personal opinions with top editors." The Washington bureau chief assured Calame that Gordon's remarks were merely "a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and un-opinionated way. Gordon continued to write about the "surge" for the Times, with no mention made of the fact that he had publicly voiced support for the military strategy. Of course, Gordon is a Times staffer, while Worthington is a freelancer. But it's unclear why you would want more stringent rules for opinions expressed by occasional freelancers as opposed to staffers who write regularly for your publication. Another perhaps more relevant difference between the two cases is that Gordon's opinion was strongly supportive of the White House, while Worthington had been critical. Was this a factor in the Times decision-making? Was the editor's note prompted by Bush administration complaints? The Times' response regarding the Guantanamo article stands in sharp contrast to its inaction regarding a complaint brought by FAIR about another recent Times article, a front-page piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (1/28/08) that claimed that George W. Bush "has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents." This assertion has no basis in fact (see FAIR's Action Alert, 1/28/08), yet the Times had no response to FAIR's request for a correction. When the paper moves swiftly to distance itself from an article with no apparent factual problems, one can't help but wonder about the paper's journalistic priorities. We look forward to your response. Isabel Macdonald Communications Director FAIR ****** Our subscriber list is kept confidential. To unsubscribe from this list at any time, visit our web at: http://www.demaction.org/fair/unsubscribe.jsp and follow the instructions. Or send an email to fair@democracyinaction.org with "unsubscribe" in the subject line. Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org. Your donation to FAIR goes a long way. Help us hold mainstream media accountable. Make a difference -- support FAIR today! http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=103 If you would prefer to receive these messages in HTML format, please visit our website to change your Email Preferences. Go to: http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/fair/signUp.jsp?key=708. SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR FOUNDER JEFF COHEN'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE: Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=106 FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=110 FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=115 FAIR (212) 633-6700 http://www.fair.org/ E-mail: fair@fair.org