Truth a casualty of the Times?

Recently, the New York Times public editor ran a critical commentary in his paper under the “Opinion” column, which was one clue that other editors might be distancing themselves from it. Especially with the title “Truth, Justice, Abortion and the Times Magazine.”

I posted this on it at the time, not sure whether it was more amazing that the irresponsible story actually ran in the first place, or that the Times public editor was coming clean on the whole story behind the irresponsible chain of events behind it. It revealed the Times bias toward abortion, clearly, and how shoddy the reporting can be to cast abortion in a sympathetic setting.

The fallout from that story continues.

The New York Times is seriously contemplating removing its public editor (ombudsman) position which was instituted in 2003 to be an independent voice for the public within the paper in order to maintain credibility. 

So much for independence and credibility. 

The new move comes in the wake of current public editor Byron Calame’s confirmation that LifeSiteNews.com was correct in asserting the Times made a major error in reporting on criminal penalties for abortion in El Salvador.

It was a major error that, by the way, made it past several editors. Calame went back to those editors and asked questions about how much fact-checking had been done before the abortion story had gone to print. It appears that those editors didn’t use this opportunity for introspection on how they do their jobs. They used it to reconsider why they have a public editor. 

The first recorded mention of the intention to axe the position was raised at a December 15 New York Times meeting where Times’ executive editor Bill Keller raised the idea.  That meeting was held about a week after Calame began asking very uncomfortable questions of senior editors at the Times, and receiving in response terse replies rejecting his warnings that the NYT magazine had been caught in a serious error which deserved correction.

So it’s apparently a knee-jerk, ‘kill the messenger’ response.

Speaking with the New York Observer about the Times’ contemplation of removing the position, Calame said, “I have been critical of the newsroom.  I’ve also praised the newsroom, and I think that Bill Keller has been-quite obviously-unhappy with some of the things I’ve written.”

“It seems to me that the high degree of independence that has been given to the public editor at The New York Times makes it a situation that inevitably causes criticism,” continued Calame.

He concluded his remarks to the Observer stating: “So it is not a surprise to me that The New York Times-that Bill Keller, the executive editor, and Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher-would want to sit down and think about whether they want to have a public editor.”

Not a surprise, but a shame. They should sit down and think about how they cover the news.