Yes, I am Questioning the New York Times’ Patriotism-Updated
Lance on Jan 29 2007 at 11:50 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Lance's Page, Media
Update: Michael has a nice post that looks at another incident to get a better gauge of what the Times past behavior has been. I clarify what bothers me a bit in the comments.
**************************************************************************
This story from Newsbusters is somewhat amusing in a perverse sense. The New York Times and other media organizations reporters express opinions about politics on a regular basis, and it often is carried as news (emphasize what one commander says, sometimes out of the full context of their views, versus another, etc.) It is often complained about. Well the New York Times has taken action and decided to make a point about a reporter making his views known. Let us be clear, it isn’t about distorted news coverage, or expressly making an opinion within the news coverage (as opposed to structuring a story to the same effect) but rather making a clearly labeled personal view known. This should be the least objectionable sin, if one can even call it a sin, but The Times stepped up to squash this public airing of an opinion. What could be so objectionable to stir the Times to action?
“The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 ‘Charlie Rose’ show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed ‘victory is within our grasp.’ The transcript of Mr. Gordon’s response, which he stressed was ‘purely personal,’ includes these comments:”‘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.’”
Huh? A reporter actually wants our effort to succeed? I call that good news, and I suspect one that a significant number of reporters at the Times do not hold. Who is upset about this?
Look, reporters have opinions. My concern is that they let it affect their reporting, not that they have them. Given that it has to effect their reporting I would at least like a good faith effort and a number of people with diverse viewpoints doing the reporting.
Apparently some liberal Times readers complained that Times military reporter Michael Gordon had the bad taste to go on the PBS talk show”Charlie Rose” January 8 and say he wanted the United States to win the war in Iraq.
So the complaints (and I assume we cannot confirm the complaints were all from liberals, rather it is an inference) are not about his reporting, just him airing the opinion? I doubt it, it is about him having the opinion and writing for the Times. Personally I think Mr. Calame and the Times are wrong here.
“I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has ‘long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,’ Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.
“‘I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were 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 unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.’
“It’s a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman — and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon.”
Sad, very sad.
I am hypocritical about this by the way, and unashamedly so. If a reporter were to go on the Charlie Rose show and give their opinion that there was no chance to accomplish something I would be un-offended. However, should a reporter say that he didn’t want the effort to succeed, the opposite of Mr. Gordon’s view, I would have been offended and suggested Mr. Calame take action. Not because he expressed an opinion, but because some opinions are so disgraceful they should be condemned. Hoping the “surge” fails is one such example. Hoping we succeed is not. I’ll give an example of a personal opinion from another Times reporter, Neil Mcfarquhar, I got from Newsbusters as well:
“If you talk to people my age — I’m in my mid-40s — and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk. And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America’s reputation.â€
That is a statement that says a lot, and there is much to criticize. It is certainly a personal opinion, but is it one that I want the editors of the Times to keep him from spouting? No. Nor did they. We could find hundreds more, but what is the purpose of that, because in the end what is striking is that it was Mr. Gordon’s view we get to see being squelched. Darkly amusing indeed.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, New York Times, Michael Gordon
powered by performancing firefox
Sphere: Related Content6 Responses to “Yes, I am Questioning the New York Times’ Patriotism-Updated”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
[...] The recent hullabaloo over the New York Times (NYT) cracking down on its ace war reporter, as covered by Lance below, raised the issue of whether the paper would issue similar admonishments to a reporter expressing an opinion that was more in line with the NYT editorial page. Specifically, would the NYT reader’s representative, Byron Calame, treat a reporter voicing anti-American screeds with the same disapproval as his treatment of Michael Gordon? Lance, via Newsbusters, highlighted one particular instance that suggests it would not: I’ll give an example of a personal opinion from another Times reporter, Neil Mcfarquhar, I got from Newsbusters as well: [...]
I absolutely agree with you on this. Reporters need to be allowed to express their opinions as long as they make the line between opinion and objective reporting clear. I can’t imagine what more the Times could want than this:
I am a liberal. I do not think we should have gone into Iraq. However, since we are there, we need to finish the job. Anyone who wants America to “lose the war in Iraq” obviously hasn’t taken a close look at the word “lose” lately. This opinion of “some liberal Times readers” is absurd:
Good to hear from you Asher. It has been a while.
Yes, I’m still around. You guys just write way, way too much for me to keep track of. I swear I get home every day and there are ten new articles, each at least three pages long! I read the RSS summaries now, only reading the full text of the few posts that catch my eye. Do you people have day jobs, or is this it? Sheesh…
I have a stable of ghost writers;^)
Unfortunately Omar’s has taken off.
[...] An even more important point, who says “real journalists” are not allowed to give their opinion? He mentions the case of Michael Gordon, who as we discussed here and here was rather unfairly singled out. That however is the New York Times. Other journalists and anchors, including ones that the Unraveling Sock himself likes to use as grist for his mill give their opinions on a regular basis. They do this all the time, but the most famous anchor of them all, Walter Cronkite, did it and Michael has the video here. Dan Rather did it on a regular basis as well. Do they not make their opinions on “60 Minutes.” I say so what? The real problem of bias isn’t the clearly marked commentary of Cronkite, Rather, Brit Hume or the investigative advocacy of “60 Minutes,” it is the bias hidden within supposedly objective reporting. It is the actual manufacturing of stories and evidence. Rather’s career was ended by his willingness to play with falsified evidence. [...]