December 7, 2003
QUIS CUSTODIET:
An Advocate for Times Readers Introduces Himself (DANIEL OKRENT, 12/07/03, NY Times)
Let me acknowledge a theological principle of my own: I believe The Times is a great newspaper, but a profoundly fallible one. Deadline pressure, the competition for scoops, the effort at impartiality that can sometimes make you lean over so far backward that you lose your balance altogether — these are inescapably part of the journalism business. So is the boiling resentment toward men and women in power that can arise in a trade that requires, as Russell Baker once wrote, "sitting in marble corridors waiting for important people to lie" to you.Journalistic misfeasance that results from what one might broadly consider working conditions may be explainable, but it isn't excusable. And misfeasance becomes felony when the presentation of news is corrupted by bias, willful manipulation of evidence, unacknowledged conflict of interest — or by a self-protective unwillingness to admit error. That's where you and I come in. As public editor, I plan on doing what I've done for 37 years, reading the paper every day as if I, like you, were asking it to be my primary source of news and commentary (and ruefully expecting it to enrage me every so often as only a loved one can). But to enable me to represent you effectively when you have a complaint about The Times's integrity, the top editors are granting me open access to the entire staff, and space right here, every other week (more often if I think it's necessary), to comment on its work.
My copy will not be edited, except for grammar, spelling, and the like. Staff members are not required to answer my questions about coverage, presentation or other aspects of journalistic practice, but if they choose not to, I'll say so. In the interest of open communication with my fellow readers, I will try very hard not to speak to anyone at The Times off the record, on background, not for attribution, or under the cover of any of the other obfuscating cloud formations that befog modern journalism. I want to be able to let you know what I know — to remain a reader, even if a reader with an all-access backstage pass. I never want to be in the position of saying, "I know they did this right, but I'm not allowed to tell you why." The paper's operations may not always be transparent, but I hope my own arguments, assertions and, as necessary, indictments will be.
If I were running for re-election, you'd have every reason to doubt my independence; consequently, on May 29, 2005, by mutual agreement with executive editor Bill Keller, my name will disappear from the head of this column and from The Times's payroll ledger. Until then, I'll let my fellow readers decide if I'm doing my job honestly. Here's wishing good luck, and good will, to us all. See you in two weeks.
The public editor, who serves as the readers' representative, may be reached by e-mail: public@nytimes.com. Telephone messages: (212) 556-7652. His column will appear at least twice monthly in this section.
If it's the same Daniel Okrent who invented Rotisserie Baseball and wrote the great book Nine Innings, we're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...for now. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 7, 2003 9:42 AM
Basee on Okrent's statement about Michael Moore, I assume that means he still plans to read MoDo and Paul Krugman to check for errors and won't go galavating off to examine the underground rodent poplulation a half mile south of the Times' building when they appear on the op-ed page, even as tempting as the latter option might be.
Posted by: John at December 7, 2003 11:46 AMI find his "theology" rather shallow.
Posted by: jd watson at December 7, 2003 1:10 PM> we're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...for now.
Really? Without even finding out his view on the Designated Hitter abomination????
Posted by: Kirk Parker at December 7, 2003 9:06 PMI get a feeling that Daniel was very reluctantly hired after the New York Times newspaper had been on the receiving end of a battering by the blogosphere for the last 2 years.
When the blogs say: "we can fact-check your a..", the powers-that-be at the Times appear to believe it.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at December 8, 2003 10:02 AM