NYT Dishes it Out, Can't Take it

The New York Times is in hot water again for its use of anonymous sources, this time from the Clinton campaign. The Times published an article that painted Hillary's campaign as going into surrender mode,but relied heavily on unnamed sources for that characterization, while named sources provided analysis of the campaign without the characterization.

The Clinton campaign responded to the Times story with a letter to the editor, which the Times rejected:

Armed with hundreds of signatures from campaign staffers and volunteers, the campaign attempted to respond with a letter to the editor in the Times, but says it was rejected on the grounds that they hold "valuable space" for "ordinary readers."

A Clinton aide pointed out that "This letter is a mere 218 words, and signed by 503 people - thirty three times as many people as the story cites, and all of them by name." Clinton staffers and volunteers also submitted individual letters, which the Times has yet to accept.

A Times editor later revised the paper's position, stating that the rejection was based on the letter being a "thinly disguised press release." That may be true, but the letter makes a legitimate point that deserves a response:

In regards to Patrick Healy's story on Sun, Feb 24, 2008, "Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens" The unnamed advisers and aides the story relies on speak for nobody but themselves. The rest of us - thousands of her supporters, friends, members of her staff and volunteers - are working tirelessly each and every day and night, because we believe in Hillary.

Meanwhile, the Times did take "valuable space" to publish an 8 page defense of their McCain story. After the jump, a quick analysis of the inherent hypocrisy.

First of all, you have to understand that in journalism, a story can be absolutely true, and yet still unprintable by journalistic standards. In my view, neither story meets the Times' standards, and in the case of the McCain story, barely meets Matt Drudge's standards.

In the Hillary story, the headline, and the "sizzle" in the story, is that Hillary Clinton is resigned to defeat. Now, the offers of fact made by the named sources are all consistent with that interpretation, but are not proof of it. The unnamed sources provide the entire impetus for the story.

That alone just makes it a thin story, and I would quibble that the Times followed its sourcing policy with regard to negotiating with the sources and describing them adequately. What makes this reek, however, is that the Clinton campaign's letter is not just a press release. Because it is signed by Hillary's staff and advisers, it constitutes a factual dispute and deserves to be published.

Couple that with the fact that they used 8 pages of "valuable space" to rebut public criticism of themselves, while still not addressing the central journalistic problem with their McCain story (e.g. that the anonymous sources made no offer of fact to support their conclusion), makes this seem all the more unfair.

The New York Times holds itself up as the "paper of record." While their journalistic standards may be higher than others' even on a bad day, lapses such as these give fuel to those who would attack the paper's credibility. Check back with me on Friday for a more detailed analysis of these stories and the issue of anonymous sourcing.


Tommy Links

Tommy Christopher Uncut l TomMySpace l TommYoutube