I somehow missed this a few days back. Here's part of the NYT's public defense for their inclusion of sexual innuendo in their now famous (or infamous?) story on John McCain:
We believed it was vital for the story to accurately reflect the range of concerns shared by our sources....If the editors had summarily decided to edit out the issue of romance, because of possible qualms over "sexual innuendo" or some of the others issues cited in the reader questions, our story would not have been a complete and accurate reflection of what our sources told our reporters. The editors and the reporting team believed it was important for readers to know what could have concerned top advisers so much that they confronted their boss. We believe the story did this fairly and accurately, giving readers as much information as we could.
This is absolutely pathetic. The point of investigative journalism isn't to simply report whatever it is that someone tells you. The point is to investigate and then report the facts that you have discovered. So what if some sources were concerned McCain's relationship might be romantic? Without evidence, that is a rumor, not a fact. Since when has the Times been in the business of passing of rumors as facts? (Oh, wait.)
The way Abramson tells it, the moment her sources passed along rumors, the NYT was compelled to print them. And that's just nonsense.
All of this is part of the general trend at our establishment media outlets to act more like court stenographers than independent seekers of truth. It's a point I've already written about at length, and that Glenn Greenwald has has turned into a career, but it is nevertheless worth repeating whenever it is required.
The role of the media in a democracy is not to mindless regurgitate whatever their sources tell them. Their role is to marshall their resources - resources that the average citizen could never possibly have - to learn the truth about our political system.
Now there is, as Kevin Drum points out, one possible out here, and it comes in the last line of her defense. Here's Kevin's take:
But I'm also intrigued by Abramson's claim that the Times piece gave readers "as much information as we could." That's not the same thing as "all the information we had." Does this signify something, or am I reading too much meaning into her choice of words?
Even if he is right to find an important implied meaning there, I'm still not sure this saves them. The article provided no evidence. It was all rumor and hearsay, and nothing more. With a charge of this nature, surely they must understand that the public is going to be skeptical. And if they don't - if they truly were surprised by the outrage this tory sparked, as Bill Keller seemed to very clearly suggest - than they are even more clueless that I had previously suspected.
It's not that the standards of evidence need to hold up in a court of law. But for god's sake, there at least needs to be some evidence provided.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
