I was completely unaware that The New York Times had a standards editor, because I thought they had jettisoned all their standards long ago, since before Jayson Blair's made-up stories. I had to laugh at this memo from The New York Times' "standards editor," Craig Whitney, according to The New York Observer:
On a recent road trip, I found numerous funny, bittersweet, or just bitter or idiotic political bumper stickers a welcome distraction from $4.50 gas, but also thought I should remind everybody who has anything to do with creating or displaying news content why they shouldn't display their own political views, on cars or elsewhere, in this campaign season or afterward.
The following two provisions of our Ethical Journalism policy apply:
Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics. They should recognize that a bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as theirs, no matter who in their household actually placed the sticker or the sign.
Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Craig Whitney
And
another memo:
Fellow newsroom hands:
I should have also mentioned avoiding some other potential political entanglements: Web sites, personal blogs, YouTube, Facebook, slogans and so on in e-mails and instant messaging systems. When Facebook asks what your political preferences are, don't answer, and don't say anything in a blog, video, radio or television program or any other medium that you couldn't say in the paper or on our Website -- about politics or anything else.
This provision in Ethical Journalism is also worth keeping in mind:
"Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements, sign ads taking a position on public issues, or lend their name to campaigns, benefit dinners or similar events if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or The Times's ability to function as neutral observers in covering the news. Staff members must keep in mind that neighbors and other observers commonly see them as representatives of The Times."
Thanks again,
Craig Whitney
The whole concept of The Times' staffers pretending to be impartial is laughable, really. The New York Times' politics are quite clear in almost every story, every headline, every editorial. Why try to hide it? Some people argue that "journalists" should make their politics clear, so that readers know which way they're biased. Others argue that "journalists" have freedom of expression just like anyone else, and so they cannot be regulated. I say that it's silly to pretend that The New York Times' staffers don't have political opinions, because their fetid opinions permeate everything that they produce for print or online consumption. It's the equivalent of the "silent but deadly" fart in a closed room. There's no escaping its smell, and no amount of deodorizer is going to cover it up very soon.
(I keep using quotes for "journalists" because I regard very few people in the media industry today to be actual journalists - they're mainly just disgruntled hacks with an axe to grind.)
My point is that "journalists" already wield an incredibly powerful tool, a giant megaphone with which to inflict their generally unreasoned and ignorant views on a populace that is already suffering from a dearth of knowledge and critical-thinking skills. Today's "journalists" just make the problem worse. Real journalists tell the truth, whatever it is, and educate the public. They're not interested in manipulating the public into believing as the journalist does, or voting for the causes or people that the journalist supports. Which is what The New York Times (and most of the old media) has forgotten.
Journalists have a responsibility to their readers and viewers, to wield that megaphone in a fair and accurate and dispassionate manner, without stumping for pet causes or candidates. And sadly, most do not use that megaphone responsibly. They seize it, and shout their silly opinions through it, and then they wonder why fewer readers and viewers every year are still paying attention. People are not stupid. They may lack knowledge, but they can discern opinion from fact. And they're getting tired of being bludgeoned by the opinions of holier-than-thou "journalists."
I am a trained journalist. I weep for the profession. And I exclude myself from it on purpose. It is no longer worthy of my assistance, or my loyalty, if indeed it ever was.
Perhaps The New York Times' blatant political views, and the blatant political views of its staffers, are why its
circulation continues to decline, soon to pass below the one million mark. And why its
stock price has declined to the lowest point since 1997, at $13.91 a share. And why
it couldn't get people to pay to see its content online. People won't pay for junk. And they don't value the stock of a company that creates junk.
People want the truth, not some disgruntled hack's vision of what the truth ought to be. Perhaps the inevitable bankruptcy will help The New York Times learn that.
I doubt it. ;-)
