The New Republic has their take on the behind-the-scenes struggle that led to today's NYT piece on McCain. If you care at all about how a newsroom works, or about how editorial decisions are made, this is an absolute must-read.
Given my previous focus on timing, I want to highlight one small part:
Two days after that meeting, on December 20, news of the Times' unpublished investigation burst into public view when Matt Drudge posted an anonymously sourced item on the Drudge Report. "MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY," the headline proclaimed; the story hinted around the core of the allegations and focused on Keller's decision to hold the piece. "Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday," the item said, quoting unnamed sources, "but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about journalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election."
This actually directly contradicts what Keller said today timing, and given the importance of this, there really needs to be some follow-up to clarify. More generally, however, it raises a troubling aspect of the debate over timing that I hinted at but didn't make explicit.
Take a close look at the section I highlighted at the end and think through the full implications of what Keller is saying. Because he feared this story might be damaging to McCain, he decided to hold off on publishing so close to the election. But inaction can be as powerful as action, and in this case clearly it was. Rather than publish what the newspaper believed was the truth - and clearly they must think the story truthful, or else why publish it today? - they held of for fear that it might influence the outcome of the election. But what is the purpose of a newspaper like the New York Times if not to uncover the truth? Isn't their purpose - their sole reason for existence, even - to inform the public about matters of public interest?
It can't possibly be the policy of the NYT that they will purposely withhold all negative information about candidates until after an election has been completed, can it? If so, that is an admission that their policy is deliberately designed to withhold crucial information from the public when it would be of most use. If the Times truly believes its own reporting, it should feel no hesitation in publishing close to an election. In fact, if anything the proximity to an election should increase its desire to publish, not decrease it.
Assuming that you believe the information you are holding to be true, withholding information is just as manipulative as releasing it. Thus, it should be their quest for the truth that guides their actions, and not the relative proximity to a particular political event.
UPDATE: Attytood has much, much more here on the history of timing at the NYT. Back in 2004, for example, they spiked a story on the President's illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program for fear of influencing the election. Because if there's one thing the public wouldn't want to and shouldn't know about prior to an election, it is illegal activity in the White House.
And if you're really into the inside baseball stuff, Jay Rosen is as always a must read
Subscribe to this blog's feed
