Posts

The NY Times Leaves out Levon, Twice

It often takes me a few days to catch up to the weekend papers, so today, on glancing at the New York Times of Saturday, April 21, I was glad to see they’d featured Bob Dylan’s eulogy for Levon Helm that I also cited on this blog in Reflecting on The Band’s Break-up and Levon’s Death. Oddly, with the benefit of time passing, I often discover mistakes in the paper days after publication, as happened some months ago with Times coverage of the Romneys’ horses.  Sure enough, as I began to read last Saturday’s story I was surprised to see that the photograph of Dylan and The Band they used with their item didn’t actually include Levon in it. Clearly, others had noticed the error before me, because on the Times website I’ve found this correction accompanying the article where the erroneous photo has been removed.

Because of an editing error, a report in the “Arts, Briefly” column on Saturday about Bob Dylan’s recollections of collaborating with Levon Helm, the drummer and singer who died last week at 71, erroneously included Mr. Helm among the musicians pictured at a 1974 performance. Another drummer, who was not identified, was shown with the group; Mr. Helm was not pictured.

As corrections too often do, this one piles error on top of error, with the reference to “another drummer” an additional mistake. First, the bearded person seated in a hat, who the Times wanted readers at first to incorrectly assume was Levon, is not some anonymous walk-on, but actually Richard Manuel, member of The Band going back to their earliest days when they were called The Hawks. Manuel ordinarily played piano (the instrument he is actually seated at in the Times photo), but would slide over to drums when Levon played mandolin or guitar. Unfortunately, as can be seen in my photos of the item, it had no caption at all, and the Times didn’t ID any of the musicians, apparently content to let readers infer that Levon Helm was in the shot. Had the brief carried a caption this error-riddled series of cascading confusions might’ve never been set in motion, or maybe it would have anyway, since it’s obvious that whoever was editing this section of the paper knew little about The Band. To sum it up, the person vaguely implied in the Times brief to be Levon was not him, and the person described in the correction was not at the drums in the photo, but at the piano. Presumably, Levon was on stage, seated at his drum kit, out of the frame of Times photographer Larry Morris’s lens, or was cropped out of the image at some point.

As journalist and author Craig Silverman points out in his fine book, Regret the Error, which I edited and published with him in 2008, media errors are often quite avoidable, and the Times‘ multiple failures here surely fall into that category. As shown in the extensive coverage of Levon’s terminal illness and death, it is clear that there are scores of photos of Bob Dylan and The Band that include him, such as the one shown below from the Los Angeles Times. It’s a pity they couldn’t have found one like it that included Levon, either in the print edition, or at worst, even later, online where no photo now appears. An error in an obituary or a eulogy is one of the most serious mistakes a media outfit can make, and the Times royally messed up here. They owe their readers better, both in print, and online.
// click through to see all photos and captions . . .

Prizing Great Journalism with the Sidney Hillman Foundation May 1

I look forward to attending the 2012 Sidney Hillman Foundation Prize reception at the New York Times Center on May 1, and am pleased that friend and fellow blogger Tom Watson of causewired.com has invited me and other bloggers as a special contingent for the evening. Among the honorees that night will be the amazing Ta-Nehisi Coates who writes and publishes great blog essays at the Atlantic, ColorLines: News for Action who will be recognized for their report, Thousands of Kids Lost From Parents In U.S. Deportation System, and Frank Bardacke, author of  of the current book Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers from Verso Books.

The Sidney Hillman Foundation “honors excellence in journalism in service of the common good.” Their “awards and programs honor the legacy and vision of union pioneer and New Deal architect Sidney Hillman.” It should be an inspiring occasion.

 

 

Hyp–Hyp–Hypocrisy!

From Saturday’s NY Times: “Although Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has been leading the national fight against requiring Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and charities to cover birth control in their health insurance plans for employees and students, some Catholic institutions in his own diocese and others throughout New York State have for 10 years been complying with state law mandating precisely that coverage. The state began requiring contraception coverage in 2002, and Catholic institutions, after losing a court battle over the issue, have followed the law. . . . ‘We currently follow New York State law,’ Mr. Howe [Fordham’s director of communications] said. ‘For employees and students, we provide insurance coverage that includes contraception. That’s the law.'”

Governor of New York State in 2002? Republican George Pataki.

It’s pretty obvious the Catholic bishops’ opposition to the Obama’s administration’s policy of requiring contraceptive coverage is really all about opportunism, and trying to give President Obama a hard time.

Such hypocrisy.

A Modest Proposal to Media: Please Replace “Said” with “Claimed”

“Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante?” is the title of an online column today by New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane. It’s raising a lot of dust, and well it should. Is there something lawless about printing the truth? Are reporters some sort of lynch mob? Brisbane chose a terrible word for his headline. What’s more, news consumers have been expressing their frustation for years about politicians and public figures uttering lie after lie and getting away with it, while news organization stand by abetting the outrage by uncritically repeating these statements. By now, readers might well appreciate a reader going rogue and unleashing a fury of anger on an obfuscating source. To cut Brisbane some slack, I think he’s asks readers if Times reporters and editors should be calling out the falsehoods uttered by public figures–calling a lie a lie line by line–or continue simply reporting the statements of those figures, surround those statements with deep and solid reporting, allow readers to judge the veracity of those remarks, and leave the up-front opining on such statements to features clearly marked “News Analysis” and to writers and columnists on the Editorial and Op-Ed pages. While I’ve also long been frustrated with news reporting’s refusal to call a lie a lie (i.e. the Swift Boating of John Kerry), I think before we make reporters into referees of truth–which could make reading a news story as boring as watching a football game when a disputed touchdown has been sent up to the replay booth for labored review–there is a very simple way to ameliorate much of the problem. I recommend that news organizations institue the following policy.

Reporters and editors at newspapers and all news orgs should routinely replace the word “said,” as in “Mitt Romney SAID President Obama apologized for America”–which is the false statement at issue in the public editor’s column–to”Mitt Romney CLAIMED President Obama apologized for America.” This would signal clearly to readers that Romney’s statement was an assertion of opinion, not a statement of objective or established fact.

I’ve been doing this for years as I read news article and I urge you to do it for yourself. Try it the next time you read or hear a news story that does little more than give a platform to a typically tendentious statement by say, a press flack blowing smoke about a defective consumer product, duly repeated in a news story. Like this,

“Spokesman Joe Flaherty said that Prostate & Grumble uses only the finest materials in assembling their baby cribs. Flaherty also said the company had received no other complaints about their cribs collapsing in a heap.” Now, try this:  “Spokesman Joe Flaherty claimed that Prostate & Grumble uses only the finest materials in assembling their baby cribs. Flaherty also claimed the company had received no other complaints about their cribs collapsing in a heap.” It takes the unearned authority away from the statement, rendering it less powerful, not so magisterial.

A final point regarding Mr. Brisbane’s column. Why did the Times close comments online so quickly? Yes, there was lots of pushback, but so what. Guess they can’t handle the truth.

Please try it and let me know what you think. If you like it as much as I do, please recommend it to your favorite news organization.

“Classy” Way to Bow Out of a Job

As reported by ace media observer Jim Romenesko, the delivery person of the NY Times for a subscriber in the Bay Area lost his job delivering the paper. This subscriber is like me a Romenesko reader. Under the Twitter handle ‘@KatieS’ she sent Jim a tweet: “Sad day for my @nytimes delivery man. Laid off as they find a cheaper delivery service.” As a goodbye to his customers, the gentleman found it in himself to make a final delivery to his customers–this large-hearted farewell letter. Later, Romenesko received an update from @KatieS: “Thanks to everyone for the kind words (and better yet, some great job leads!) for our classy @nytimes delivery man.”

From the Annals of Colossal Republican Nerve & Media Failure

From the NY Times article: “The president [Addington] said violated constitutional law. ‘I’m kind of surprised he did it, because more so than most presidents, this guy has a personal ability to assess the constitutional implications,’ Mr. Addington said, referring to Mr. Obama’s experience as a teacher of constitutional law. ‘It’s flabbergasting and, to be honest, a little chilling.’”

Nowhere in the following paragraphs does reporter Weisman point to the appalling and rich irony that this statement was made by a veteran of an administration that never failed to arrogate more power to itself. Surely, Weisman could have pointed at this without injecting the dreaded appearance of undue opinion-making into his piece. His editor should have insisted on more perspective in the story. It is journalism like this that makes news consumers like me disgusted with the New York Times and other media that consistently refuse to point out self-serving and tendentious statements made by partisan sources. // more. . .

Is the FBI probing Bain Capital?

A letter the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request suggests that an investigation of Bain Capital–the company that Mitt Romney worked at for many years, and from which the New York Times has reported continues to receive significant compensation–is ongoing or possibly commencing within the Bureau. The letter, viewable on Scribd.com, has had the name of the person requesting information redacted, as well as the date it was written. The top of the letter reads “Subject: Bain Capital” The relevant paragraph in the letter, signed by the FBI’s David Hardy, Records/Information Dissemination Section Chief reads,

“I have determined that the records responsive to your request are law enforcement records; that there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records; and that the release of the information contained in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with the enforcement proceedings.” // see letter in post . . .

The 99% at the NY Times


Since I’m an optimist, I’ll offer a hopeful observation that this labor conflict at the Times ought to make the paper’s coverage of the #OWS Movement more respectful and less dismissive, as so much of their reporting has been over the past few months, like this snarky article by Ginia Bellafante from last September. I’ll be watching for any change of tone, even as I realize my optimism is probably unwarranted. // more. . .