Discuss amongst yourselves
It is a public bad that I fight...
Evidently, good writing is no longer a requirement for employment at the NYT.
I love this stuff.
What a humungous weenie!
This a perfect practical everyday example of why I'm against unnamed sourcing. If somebody tells me something of consequence about some current event or news item they should know that it's now on the record. I may have recourse to use it in an article or blog post. And no amount of seven veils dancing to the tune of "I'm telling you this in confidence because I know you'd understand" is going to mean one damned thing.
These characters long to indulge in the "thrill of the forbidden" -- and demand that you play along with their sub-adolescent nonsense.
Good for you for having none of it, Cathy.
Yes, Catherine, who does these people think they are? :)
A very fine and powerful post, Cathy. I'm appreciative, too, of what other writers offer by way of their experiences and reactions.
Thus began a series of calls from Sharon to the self-employed p.r. person she suspected was my source, in which she threatened to "burn" him ...Or else.
Cathy,
Is this standard operating procedure too? Does this sort of thing happen more often then we might expect?
WOW.
I may be naive but it seems to me if reporters are threatening people in order to get them to say something that would scandalous, no?
The implication also that people would just say dishonest things in order to get a reporter off their back or out of fear, yikes.
Am I the only one shocked by this?
Also
I mean, really, have they lost their minds? Is there something about working for the New York Times that now and then makes people there -- besides Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg et al -- think they are both above the rules and can also make them up for other people?
Yes. In a roundabout way I think it is called blogs.
The arrogance part I think comes with the badge they hand out at orientation (kinda like Cowardly Lion in reverse!)
"...substantive journalism will continue to drift towards stenography."
Oh, that it were so! Remember when news was supposed to be factual?
"I mean, really, have they lost their minds?"
Yes, around round about Woodward/Bernstein's era.
Cathy,
I do not think it is a matter of losing their minds. It is however, a sense of importance that can easily be inflated and is rarely called into question.
peace
What the...that scene played out like a bad parody of James Cagney's early gangster films: "I'm gonna get ya if ya squeal, nobody likes a rat, nobody drops a dime on me, I'll rub ya out if ya tell anyone," etc.
"But I suspect, on some level, that this makes me sound like a pompous git."
You're being far too kind in this regard, Cathy - more like a rapacious buggarer.
Cathy, I'll bet Matt has a thing or two to say about this. Upon reflection, (although it wasn't needed) this seems like something that would irritate him rather profoundly. I betcha Ken Layne has thoughts as well.
It seems like a no-win situation for the dummies once the word gets around.
'I'd been disrespectful. And that he'd asked for confidentiality "because your column left me with a sense of distrust about you, a concern about your integrity." Also: "It is a public bad that I fight... Your column, I believe, undermines the sense of trust between reporter and source" '
Oh. My. God. What guilt-tripping little anal orifices.
"But I suspect, on some level, that this makes me sound like a pompous git."
DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!
"I mean, really, have they lost their minds? Is there something about working for the New York Times that now and then makes people there -- besides Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg et al -- think they are both above the rules and can also make them up for other people?"
Apparently, yes and yes!
"doesn't give a crap what some self-important prig at the NY Times thinks"
BRAVISSIMA!
Just think, before the age of email all of this would have happened in an underground car park somewhere.
OMG. I'm crying. Great post. Superb rant.
More, more, more.
OhmyGod !
These people cannot be real.
Are you sure this is not a parody ?
I thought that the NY Times was full of itself but I cannot believe that they are this dense.
Why would they think you would keep all this confidential ? Do they really belive that others will not see them as ridiculous a**holes ?
Cheney was right . Big Time.
"Evidently, good writing is no longer a requirement for employment at the NYT."
Hasn't been for years. Employment at the Times is determined by having the right Ivy League education, the right diversity credentials and a lockstep conformity with liberal orthodoxy that would make a lemming blush. Reading Fumento's explanation of the Times story, I'm surprised I ever thought it had any merit. It's just another hatchet job by the "paper of record"
"This a perfect practical everyday example of why I'm against unnamed sourcing. If somebody tells me something of consequence about some current event or news item they should know that it's now on the record. I may have recourse to use it in an article or blog post. And no amount of seven veils dancing to the tune of "I'm telling you this in confidence because I know you'd understand" is going to mean one damned thing."
So you'd have outed the leaker who gave the NSA story to the Times? I never thought of you as a patriot. I happen to agree with you about unnamed sources, but for a different reason. If someone wants to blow the whistle on a program that they disagree with anonymously, they obviously care more about their careers than their principles.
And yes, Odysseus isn't my real name, but I registered my blog with my chain of command, which is exactly what an anonymous leaker wouldn't do, and I haven't put out any classified information.
"Just think, before the age of email all of this would have happened in an underground car park somewhere."
I'm waiting for Lewis to point out that most of David's love life also happened in underground car parks.
It is tough, honest journalists like you that keep the rotten apples from putrifying the entirety of the press. What a girl! A lovely evisceration of arrogant fools led by their own haughty sense of self-importance. So pathetic, they don't realize that stench wafting through the NYT newsroom is simply toxic hubris. Yet another example of why the public has such mistrust of the media. Excellent piece.
"Thus began a series of calls from Sharon to the self-employed p.r. person she suspected was my source, in which she threatened to "burn" him (by contacting his other clients, all small non-political businesses) if he didn't cooperate with her..."
perphaps my naievete, but isn't making threats to 'burn' someone, slightly illegal...or at least harrassment?
Who was the one who said that in five years the New York Times will probably be defunct? Well I'm just waiting for when the bell tolls for the Times.
Dana-
get out of my head! That was my original question.
Ody-
So you'd have outed the leaker who gave the NSA story to the Times? I never thought of you as a patriot.
Apples? oranges? anyone?
Nevertheless, I would be interested in your thoughts on the NYT's distinction in this story
"A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known. On Wednesday, Mr. Barrett declined to discuss the report, saying he would not talk about it until it was officially made public."
vs.,... say NSA ( ahem Tice, ahem) or any?
I don't give a rats ass that that they made the distinction "here" ( take it as a "no duh" moment) but um, don't all source deserve this special disclaimer?
apologies... didn't read comments first, was gasping for fresh air after absorbing the noxious fumes of nyt dolts, that i scrolled straight down and pounded the keys in a heated huff!
Cathy, deep down, why does this episode surprise you? Just listen to the utter disrespect shown to the President and Scott McClellan at their press conferences and briefings. Yes, there is an adversarial relationship, but it can be conducted with civility and respect. Trials before a judge and jury are serious adversarial proceedings that are conducted with professional courtesy. I grew up in a newspaper household--my dad was an editor on the NY Journal-American--and as a kid I was fascinated by the give and take at JFK's press conferences, and others that might occasionally be televised. I never remember the attitude of the reporters descending to the immaturity that is routinely displayed today. No wonder the press is losing its credibility--and its reader/viewership.
Can someone please comment on the CHILDISHNESS of all this?
Too many journalists make noises about being made wise by traveling around and seeing the world. When they can't conduct their routine communications without relying on the mores of seventh-grade gossip, we see why so few of them have ever built a business or lead a team to do something interesting.
Bwahahaha. That's the best thing you've posted in a while, Cathy. Hoorah for you for sticking it to the wackos...!!
Oh no Dana
I wasn't being snarky or rude, I was just glad that someone else pointed out the obvious.
I am still wondering if pressuring, threatening AKA MOB tactics are SOP.
I think that "Gosh, Catherine" would be an excellent title for your biography, or collection of Greatest Media Zingers.
The assumption that a source should automatically keep a reporter confidential is self-evidently funny. At least to everyone who finds it funny.
It actually does not require much heavy lifting to say the words, "Luke, could you please not write this in your blog?" And I've found it's worked every time.
Idle threats, presumptive agreements, unsoliticted advice, supreme self-importance bordering on pathology, and, then, one of the best smackdowns I've read in a long time. Very cool!
That is just wonderful! How do you do it Cathy? You can almost see the neck vein erections through the email. And we know it’s all true because you are too good a writer to make up cartoon villain dialog like that.
I was going to quibble with the original post because I felt that secrecy or at least lack of transparency was a bigger deal in the play-for-pay incidents than you were making it. Now it seems that big-time journalism is a sacred Masonic brotherhood. Fumento fits in with these guys just fine. Did you miss the meeting where they gave out the secret decoder ring and applied the hidden tattoo?
topsecretk9: I'm with you. I'm floored that a NYT's reporter would threaten a source, and that, just when I thought the NYT's could floor me no more.
Any additional continuing drop in readership/profitability, and little "Pinche" Salzburger will be back in his playroom.
The schmucks running the Times may write odes to Mao (as they did last week), but the public stockholders own the company, and they're getting shafted.
Money talks...
Sam, Scottie and the Peznit do not deserve one iota of respect.
As for your prediuctions about the NYT, Maia, you're right on target insofar as relevance is concerned. They have enough moolah to trundle on for quite number of years. But the curtain's come down and the audience has gone home. They're playing to the clean-up crew.
Likewise the Washington Post -- whose Howellgate meltdown has been providing hours of internet entertainment over the past week. (Hugh Hewitt's rushing to Brady's defense being particularly hilarious.)
Cathy,
Great story -- well done. You are providing an important service to journalists by exposing this nonsense.
I haven't put together all the pieces (always difficult in things like this), but with all shaking down, bullying, conspiracy, and threats I'm thinking the RICO laws might apply.
Thanks.
John Mark
Wonderful Cathy, give em hell.
On a related note, here's another NYT response to criticism that's been directed their way, concerning their fraudulent posting of a picture showing a man with child, posing with a 20+ year - old missile, the one that was supposedly used in our attacks on the village in Pakistan:
http://www.americanthinker.com/
a...article_id=5179
Bill Keller must be hating his new job these days.
Am I the only person who noticed that Cathy puts in quotes parts of a conversation she heard second hand? And from an anonymous person no less? Someone who might actually be inflating events?
I don't think Cathy is lying. But I think maybe we should start licensing journalists just so we can revoke hers for this sloppy, unethical and unprofessional piece of gossip.
All of you take for fact that this conversation actually took place? A reporter threatened someone Soprano style and you all believe it without a moment hesitation? I know you all hate the NYTimes, but really, what if a story you didn't find amusing were so poorly sourced? You'd all be outraged.
Isn't Odysseus the one who's always going on about how he knows what's happening in Iraq better than anybody because he was there? And yet now he blindly accepts something that nobody here witnessed first hand?
Soupy smells a rat. Soupy doesn't believe a word of it. Soupy thinks you're a bunch of gullible saps who are buying into this because it bolsers your opinions about the out-of-control media.
If *I* had related such a story, you'd rightfully be skeptical. Where are your critical-thinking caps now?
Saps.
As they say in the talk shows... You go, Girl!
I love that Sharon invokes the sacred "we're all in this club together" clause of the Sweaty Wordslingers' Sisterhood and tries to make you share her problem. Who cares if she can run the story or not? Did she tell you that she'd get fired if she didn't get the information? And that her kids would starve?
Did you write David back with a "Gollygee David Cay" salutation? What a patronizing chump.
"I can imagine how I would feel if you had done to me what you just did to Waxman or any other working reporter."
The problem is, many people don't behave fairly and ethically, but instead have a pretense to being fair and ethical.
If you make it your business to act in a way you consider exemplary, whether or not anybody's looking, it's no big deal if anyone finds out.
In other words, the blameworthy person isn't the one who revealed the behavior -- but the behaver him (or her)self.
Nice mention in Tim Rutten's column this morning.
"A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known. On Wednesday, Mr. Barrett declined to discuss the report, saying he would not talk about it until it was officially made public."
No argument. The guy should have gone on the record.
The culture of leaking is completely corrosive to good government. It becomes impossible to keep necessary secrets (and no one but a complete loon believes that everything done in wartime has to be open sourced), as well as encouraging worse conduct. One of the spy scandals of the late 70s involved a member of the armed forces who saw classified information getting put out to the Washington Post on a daily basis and decided that if it was going to be leaked anyway, he might as well sell the information to the highest bidder.
"All of you take for fact that this conversation actually took place? A reporter threatened someone Soprano style and you all believe it without a moment hesitation? I know you all hate the NYTimes, but really, what if a story you didn't find amusing were so poorly sourced? You'd all be outraged."
What's poorly sourced? Cathy is presenting a conversation to which she was a party. The only way that this would be more solid is if she were under oath.
"Isn't Odysseus the one who's always going on about how he knows what's happening in Iraq better than anybody because he was there? And yet now he blindly accepts something that nobody here witnessed first hand?"
Cathy witnessed her story firsthand. That's good enough for me. I accepted Fumento's side of his Times story because he and I had corresponded and I found him to be gracious and decent and the Times is clearly looking to play "gotch!" with him over what is obviously not an ethics violation. Cathy and Fumento strike me as more believable than the NY Times, which has demonstrated the journalistic sins of arrogance, incompetence and bias so often that I no longer bother reading it.
"Soupy smells a rat. Soupy doesn't believe a word of it. Soupy thinks you're a bunch of gullible saps who are buying into this because it bolsers your opinions about the out-of-control media.
If *I* had related such a story, you'd rightfully be skeptical. Where are your critical-thinking caps now?"
Maybe it's because Soupy keeps referring to Soupy in the third person. We give Cathy the benefit of the doubt for the same reason that most of us come to her blog. We like her. More importantly, we respect her and are willing to give her views and observations credence. But Soupy is right about one thing. If you (sorry, but I had to switch to a pronoun) had made a similar claim, we'd have blown you off, and for the same reason that we took Cathy's word for it. Trust and respect. She's earned both.
Cathy is my hero!
It won't be long before stenography will be preferable to the MSM.
Amy,
The problem is, many people don't behave fairly and ethically, but instead have a pretense to being fair and ethical.
Indeed! Worse, and more corrosive, is that human nature dictates that we see ourselves as fair and ethical. From the highwayman Dick Turpin, to Wall Street, to pols, cops and reporters, we rationalize what we do as being for the greater good. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions which are permuted rationalizations.
Ody,
As for Fumento, he can certainly take care of himself. While I've found his recent writing less than congruent with my (current) beliefs, I enjoy reading him. While great fun was made as a result of his pic post, it really doesn't change his more substantive work.
I totally agree with your comments about Cathy.
And yes, I too intially thought it a Lewis fill in. Until I read it.
Cathy:
Just so you don't feel alone, I've been a journalist for 30 years, as reporter, copy editor and editor.
Your take on the exchanges with Waxman and Johnston is correct. You have no ex post facto obligation to protect others from their own utterances.
Assuming that you reported those utterances accurately - and I see no challenge from them to your reporting - they must contend with the fallout of publicity. They're no different that anyone else quoted in any of their stories -- a source in a newspaper story has to deal with fallout long after the reporter has gone onto the next assignment.
Their obligation to mind their mouths should come as no surprise. Court have held reporters/media are liable for information reporters may spread (although not publicize) in the process in reporting.
Consider the court case in a Midwest city that I don't immediately recall. Two reporters questioned many people about unconfirmed reports a local banking figure was involved in shady dealings, and subject to prosecution. Well, no prosecution came down, but the banker successfully sued the publication for spreading slanderous comments that harmed his professional reputation.
Reporters shouldn't forget they operate in the public domain. They must And a reporter who can't keep his or her mouth shut isn't worth very much.
Kent
Ody, boobie, learn how to read and then get back to me:
"Thus began a series of calls from Sharon to the self-employed p.r. person she suspected was my source, in which she threatened to "burn" him..."
Cathy somehow witnissed this exchange? Was she hiding under a desk? DId she have her ear pressed against the wall?
Where was she, Ody? Like I said, I don't think she lied. I think she took second-hand information and reported it as true (quote marks and all) That's sloppy and irresponsible.
Or are you suddenly endorsing sloppy and irresponsible reporting? Yeah, I guess so. I guess it's OK when it's on your side.
I hope you realize that you won't ever get to write for the NYTimes and that, more importantly, your daughter's wedding won't be mentioned. Ever. Didn't think of that, did you?
It's true I wasn't there listening in on the phone during the series of exchanges between Sharon Waxman and the self-employed p.r. person. But I did hear about them in detail afterward. Still, notice that my only quotes there are around the word "burn," because although I can't accurately quote paragraphs of dialogue I didn't hear, I can be sure she said that.
The anonymous p.r. person is no longer quite so anonymous, because yesterday he sent a signed letter to Sharon's supervising editors about her threats to him. Until he gives me the OK, though, I'm not saying his name here.
"Until he gives me the OK, though, I'm not saying his name here."
Again, ethical behavior is evidenced.
Ironically, this a.m. on Cspan, Caroline Fredrickson, ACLU rep, of all things, was testifying against Bush's 'domestic spying tactics', and citing as her points of reference, various NYT articles, of all things.... hm.
My favorite line from today's Tim Rutten:
"(Their employer might want to note, though, that if this PR rep thought Seipp was ripe for a bribe, either they were unfamiliar with her work or have a serious reading comprehension problem.)"
Soupy smells a rat.
Then Soupy needs to take a shower....or move to France.
Cathy ... you are .... completely right!
"Cathy somehow witnissed this exchange? Was she hiding under a desk? DId she have her ear pressed against the wall?"
I'll put my reading over your spelling any day.
"Where was she, Ody? Like I said, I don't think she lied. I think she took second-hand information and reported it as true (quote marks and all) That's sloppy and irresponsible."
Speaking of learning to read, go back to Cathy's comments about where she put the quote. And no, she didn't claim to have witnessed the exchange, she was told about it by the PR person.
"Or are you suddenly endorsing sloppy and irresponsible reporting? Yeah, I guess so. I guess it's OK when it's on your side."
No, Soupy. If I wanted to endorse sloppy and irresponsible reporting, I'd subscribe to the Times (LA or NY, the only difference is that the LA Times has a comics page, while the NY Times' unintentional comic relief is Maureen Dowd). Again, it's not that Cathy can do no wrong, but in this case, as usual, she happens to be right.
from "Kill Pinch"
Cathy the Bride:
When it comes to the NYT, it's mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack; not rationality.
Johnston, I've allowed you to keep your wicked life for two reasons. And the second reason is so you can tell Pinch in person everything that happened here. I want him to witness the extent of my mercy by witnessing your deformed reputation. I want you to tell him all the information you told me. I want him to know what I know. I want him to know I want him to know. And I want them all to know they'll all soon be as dead as Howell Raines.
That whole pundit payola thing is a minefield for your lot, isn't it? It's fairly easy to imagine a freelancer who's scraping by biting on a dirty offer to write something he or she doesn't disbelieve in, and then having the whole career shot to hell by it. I don't think pundits of the left are ever faced with this temptation. You might get foundation dough and the foundation might have an ideological interest, but it's not a profit-making enterprise. Even when there was a Soviet Union I don't think they'd pay you unless you engaged in actual espionage. Opinion writing was not the sort of thing they had to pay for.
"Still, notice that my only quotes there are around the word "burn," because although I can't accurately quote paragraphs of dialogue I didn't hear, I can be sure she said that."
If you say so, doll face.
And to Ody on the slow bus: It doesn't matter WHERE she put quotes. It matters that she used them at all. She quoted something she didn't hear, even if it's only one word (and a rather charged word at that). You want to defend it? Go ahead. It's not like I expect consistency from that little pea-sized brain of yours.
She says she's certain that someone said it, even though she admits she wasn't there. I dunno, maybe Cathy has magical powers. But I say it's not something a responsible journalist would ever do.
You say she happens to be right? I say if you had read that kind of unreliable information in the Times, you would have made the same point I'm making now.
Good on ya, Cathy. I agree. I've always wondered why journalists expected all sorts of favors from me such as you described when I have no relationship with them and have made no agreement with them.
> Soupy smells a rat. Soupy doesn't
> believe a word of it. Soupy thinks
> you're a bunch of gullible saps
Soupy refers to himself in the third person, but doesn't therefore convey integrity.
> ...critical-thinking...
I fergit. What's the difference between "critical thinking" and just plain thinking?
Ugh God, I truly hate anyone that start's a statement with the following:
"As a journalist, I ..."
"As an artist, I ..."
"As an educater, I ..."
Funny, isn't it, you never hear engineers, or accountants, or electricians, or auto mechanics speak like that.
This is a great piece, Ms. Seipp.
I used to read the NYT, believing it had truly great reporters providing superior coverage. Sadly, that standard is no longer evident there and I long ago gave up reading that paper at all. Nowadays, the only people who believe the NYT seem to be the extreme far left. Your examples of their reporter’s behavior go a long way toward explaining the collapse in credibility.
I think that some time during the Watergate era, newspapers and news media in general stopped being about reporting the news. Instead, they took on a self-appointed role as the makers of the news. I recently heard some journalism professor (sorry, I forget his name) pontificating on NPR about how “journalistic duties” trumped “citizenship duties”. Unfortunately, that kind of says it all.
Gaius
It "says it all" particularly as regards Judy Miller and Bob Woodward.
One of the funniest things I've read in awhile. FOr a big-time reporter to write this kind of stuff and be unaware of the irony is absolutely rich.
Cathy, you're a treasure.
"I fergit. What's the difference between "critical thinking" and just plain thinking?"
Gosh, Crid, let me help you out. We have, in the English language, something known as an adjective. Adjectives modify nouns.
With me so far?
In this case, the adjective was "critical," which my "dictionary" defines as:
"characterized by careful evaluation and judgment"
This is different from regular thinking in that monkeys, dogs and you all think, but none of you do it critically.
We have this sentence as evidence: "Soupy refers to himself in the third person, but doesn't therefore convey integrity."
Longtime fans know that I appreciate a good zinger thrown my way (Ody, foolish as he is, often gets a good one in), but that just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Always glad to be of service to the readers here at Cathy's Corner!
Echoing what has already been written: Fantastic piece, Cathy.
It says so much about Cathy's character that she is held in such high esteem by those who know her. The kind of credibility Cathy has - even with those who often disagree and spar with her - is something of which The Times's editors could only dream. You set a great example, Miss Seipp.
Context is crucial in journalism, but Seipp, a press critic, posted material out of context. Many here, as a result, wrote comments that bear little relationship to reality and or to the issue I raised with Seipp, which she has refused, so far, to examine
Back to that in a moment, but first I want to address a few of the more wildly off the mark posts here.
Odysseus writes that “employment at the Times is determined by hanging the right Ivy League education....” I went to work at 10, fulltime at 13, graduated from night high school, went to junior colleges, SF State, Michigan State and despite 135 credits did not get a degree. I also had a five-month fellowship at the University of Chicago. I attended college on the GI Bill as the son of a 100% disabled WW2 veteran who had three years of formal schooling. Near my desk at The Times sit the granddaughter of a coal miner, the daughter of a school teacher, the son of... .(I could go on here at length, but the facts are not what Odysseus imagines.)
As for unnamed sources, for 25 years I have lectured and written about excessive and abusive use of unnamed sources, which I rarely use myself.
Back in 1987 I wrote a Columbia Journalism Review piece that exposed abusive use of unnamed sources and showed how to get sources onto the record. I also wrote an American Journalism Review piece on fraudulent news articles and how to spot them before publication. I also exposed a broadcast chain for news manipulations and blackouts, resulting in its being forced off the air. I volunteer several weekend each year to teach working reporters how to deal with the growing demands by government and business that they not name sources, even official spokesmen, a policy that helps only the lazy among reporters.
Others here write as if I favor reporters threatening sources, yet Seipp knows this is false because I sent her (but she did not post) this:
** If Waxman has threatened you, as you seem to charge, then you ought to report that to the Public Editor and to her supervising editors. That would be improper conduct and a potential firing offense. Indeed, it would be wrong of you to fail to make the charge if it is true.**
As for my request that she treat my initial email as confidential -- I emailed her from my private email. I was not seeking information for any article. I was not reporting.
I wanted Seipp, as a press critic, to think about the effect of alerting the world to a story in progress. It struck me not as a public good, but the opposite, which I wrote would be a “public bad.”
I think what Seipp did was bad because quality journalism often takes time. Checking and cross checking to get the facts straight is not exactly compatible with the instantaneous of our Internet world. The evidence is that we have far too little checking and cross checking these days.
You can agree or disagree, but I hope no one thinks the issue unworthy of serious debate.
Do you want reporters to have to negotiate with every source, before they ask any questions, whether that source is going to tell the world that a story is in progress? Surely a press critic would consider that worth serious consideration. Not Seipp who, so far, has responded only with crude, rude and flippant emails. That is her right, but just how does that improve journalism, which seems relevant to press criticism.
I am open to discussing these matters with anyone here who wants to engage in serious and thoughtful examination of the issues.
Those who are troubled by my request, awkwardly worded for sure, that Seipp should “please” treat my complaint as confidential or else ignore it may want to review Seipp’s own words, starting in the middle of the third paragraph of her NRO column.
Seipp writes that she is protecting the identity of the person who asked her to undertake what she writes would be unethical journalistic conduct.
Discuss?
David Cay Johnston
Did you guys all get messages from Mr. DCJ?
Did you guys who use your real "private" emails get messages from Mr. DCJ? I did and it bothers me. I post here with my real name, etc., and I pretty much expect commments to stay here, not get sent to me at my own email addy.
> Always glad to be of service to
> the readers here at Cathy's Corner!
Half-caf; no cream, no sugar. Thanks!
Sorry for the double post--I'm befuddled.
While I don't agree with Ody's views of the NYT as a hotbed of the Ivy League, I also don't see what a parent's occupation or veteran status has to do with someone's abilites to do a job. Lysenko persecuted my husband's grandfather, and I'm pretty sure that acquired chartacteristics can't be inherited.
Cathy's not on trial here, but it's starting to seem like the Spanish Inquisition--the one nobody ever expects.
"Did you guys all get messages from Mr. DCJ?"
I just got one in my e-mail box:
I encourage you to go back to Cathy's World and read my post.
David Cay Johnston
I find that incredibly...well, to be kind...weird! I've posted on a lot of sites over the years, but the comments typically stay in the comments section; you don't find commenters chasing you down by e-mail.
Regarding his remark here (in between all the bits about walking barefoot to the steel mill at 13) "Context is crucial in journalism, but Seipp, a press critic, posted material out of context."
Who says he gets to decide whether something is in or out of context?
yes I received a personal email too!
Gosh David...
>* If Waxman has threatened you, as you seem to charge, then you ought to report that to the Public Editor and to her supervising editors. T
I read it pretty thoroughly, but I missed the part where Cathy said Ms. Waxman threatened her. I did read where Ms. Waxman threatened the PR Person to go on the record or else she would 'burn" him.
Do you want reporters to have to negotiate with every source, before they ask any questions, whether that source is going to tell the world that a story is in progress?
This is where I am lost. If I speak to a reporter about something that has happened to me does having spoke to the reporter preclude me from writing, talking about the same topic, as well as writing a first hand account?
Is answering a reporters questions tantamount to relinquishing rights to a personal experience? That's silly, arrogant or dumb in my opinion.
Mr. Johnston...I wonder if, say another reporter at another paper had contacted Cathy before Ms. Waxman, do you believe Cathy would have to decline to answer Ms. Waxman's questions because reporter A asked first?
I suspect your answer would be hell no.
not on the record but..
"Thus began a series of calls from Sharon to the self-employed p.r. person she suspected was my source, in which she threatened to "burn" him (by contacting his other clients, all small non-political businesses) if he didn't cooperate with her -- by telling her things she wanted to know,"
I stand corrected.
What a great two-for-one fisking (?fisketting). The arrogance of the two NYT reporters is astounding.
Do you want reporters to have to negotiate with every source, before they ask any questions, whether that source is going to tell the world that a story is in progress?
Yes. Or more precisely, I don't think that reporters should ever assume that sources will automatically guarantee their confidentiality. There may be an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" of sorts between fellow colleagues (it's very rare that I ever feel the need to request confidentiality/privacy when communicating with someone), but such agreements are stronger when it's between people who know & respect each other, and/or who are treating each other respectfully within the given exchange.
If an investigative reporter treated me & my friends rudely and with untoward pressure in the pursuit of some non-crucial Gotcha, I see no reason to grant that person unearned confidentiality.
What's more, I might gently suggest a little extra caution in these matters when dealing with a media critic, especially one who draws heavily from her personal experiences, and who has a very popular weblog where she writes about these things.
"What's more, I might gently suggest a little extra caution in these matters when dealing with a media critic, especially one who draws heavily from her personal experiences, and who has a very popular weblog where she writes about these things."
Matt makes a good point. This is known as "using common sense." My lawyer makes a good point about that, quoting her grandmother: "If sense were so common, everyone would have it."
Do you want reporters to have to negotiate with every source, before they ask any questions, whether that source is going to tell the world that a story is in progress?
I'm guessing that Cathy Seipp is being perceived or treated differently because she's a member of the writing/journalism profession? If not, then I'd say it's naive to assume that any person who's contacted by a reporter, particularly if he or she is from a well-known publication, won't pass that bit of news along in casual daily conversation, which extends to blogs, etc, in the age of the Internet.
And if it's merely a matter of observing professional courtesy among one another, then Sharon Waxman appears to have lost that privilege when she became way too heavy-handed or overbearing in trying to dig up information for her article.
I think, topsecretk9, you misunderstood my post. Let me try again.
I wrote to Seipp about her NRO column. Seipp emailed me a reply that (I later learned) assumed I had read her Cathy’s World blog, whose existence I was unaware of. If you look at her blog, as I later did, you will see that she states that my email to her was about her NRO column.
Now, knowing that context, this is what Seipp emailed to me:
** And I'll tell you something else you can forward to any interested parties awaiting your opinion before you roll it up and stick it up your ass: When journalists go from keeping secrets about their sources to expecting sources to keep secrets about THEM -- as you, and Sharon Waxman, for some reason are now doing, which in her case involves threats and bullying -- then something in the press has begun to stink with self-importance.**
That language was unclear about who was being threatened, Seipp or someone unnamed. So, I wrote a carefully nuanced response to Seipp. I also made it clear that if Waxman really had threatened anyone then Seipp had a duty to report it to the Public Editor and Waxman’s editors.
What’s wrong with that?
Now think for a moment about another issue – the solicitation of Seipp to commit what Seipp says was an unethical act.
If anything Seipp, as a press critic, should have written about it when it happened. Indeed, she could have pressed the issue with the person who approached her until she found out just who was beyond this and exposed this kind of corrupt conduct. That would be good reporting.
I do not fault her for not doing so because she may have had better or more important work to do or may not have thought the solicitation important.
Back to her NRO column. While I have no quarrel with Seipp writing about how a PR person tried to lure her into unethical conduct, it does strike me that her conduct is not consistent.
Seipp blasts me for asking (awkwardly, I acknowledge) that she “please” either treat my email as confidential or ignore it. I sent it to her not as a reporter seeking information, but as a reader’s complaint from my home email. I harshly criticized her conduct and asked her to consider what she had done.
Yet while Seipp jumps on me she conceals the name of the person who tried to lure her into unethical journalistic conduct.
Is this consistent?
I think you also misunderstand my initial complaint.
My complaint was ONLY about Seipp announcing to the world that a reporter was working on a story, which also alerts competitors and puts pressure on the reporter to get the story in, perhaps before it is thoroughly reported. (See my earlier post on the decline in cross-checking facts.) Had the wronged reporter been from another newspaper I would have sent the same note.
As to your question about Reporters A and B, I think Seipp is free to do as she chooses. No one is obligated when a reporter calls to answer them.
But it one thing to decline answering questions and another to do what Seipp did in revealing a story in progress.
The issue, still unexamined by Seipp, is whether telling the world about a story in progress is a public good. This troubles me for reasons rooted in both experience and economic theory.
While I don’t see how Seipp’s NRO column disclosure that Waxman was working on a story served any public good or journalistic value, but I am open to the prospect that the world has changed and I am wrong.
How does what Seipp did encourage thoroughness and care in reporting? Does it encourage a culture of rushing to print, or online, before a thorough job is done lest someone else break the story? Or does an issue I have not considered trump my concerns?
And does Seipp have a consistent standard about confidentiality?
I think if you post your email publicly, yes, you may expect emails from anyone at all! I guess I've been lucky, because I've "met" some lovely people who emailed me through comments here or elsewhere, and it's all good.
David Cay Johnston, I commend you for courage in setting out your case here, like entering the cage of feisty lions, just because. (although the guy that did that in the LA Zoo was dead before morning.)
And I'm looking forward to the glowing pictures of either Cathy or Maia in the wedding sections of either Times.
DCJ's main complaint is that Cathy wrote about a story which was still being developed, thus eliminating some of the "here is fresh information" aspect of the pending story.
This is a fallacious complaint. It's illogical for Waxman to spend days or weeks developing a story, yet expect the story to enjoy some imagined right to "here is fresh information" status. Following DCJ's logic, the value of Waxman's story is that it was information which was carefully researched and edited - NOT that it was "fresh information." The marketplace gets to decide the relative value of each story.
DCJ's complaint, at heart, is not that Cathy published her story - certainly there is nothing unethical about her publishing an incident about which she has first hand knowledge. His complaint is that a large clientele read her story. If I had published Cathy's story for the smattering of people who read my blog, DCJ would not have complained. His complaint is really about the large numbers of people who make up the NRO and the "Cathy's World" readerships.
Beyond that, DCJ may feel an ethical, journalistic insider line has been crossed because Cathy is piggybacking onto the NYT to create material for her own column and blog. I see no ethical difference between Cathy's reporting on the NYT developing a story vs. the NYT reporting on government developing new legislation. They report. She reports. If there wasn't a market, neither would report.
My complaint was ONLY about Seipp announcing to the world that a reporter was working on a story, which also alerts competitors and puts pressure on the reporter to get the story in, perhaps before it is thoroughly reported.
I'm of the perhaps old-fashioned belief that competition is generally a good thing. Also, my violin just isn't small enough to play the blues for the "pressure" felt by that most beleagured member of the journalistic sub-species, the "New York Times reporter."]
While I don’t see how Seipp’s NRO column disclosure that Waxman was working on a story served any public good or journalistic value, but I am open to the prospect that the world has changed and I am wrong.
Does the world have to change in order to justify a journalist's written word? I personally believe that the manufacture of elite journalism is still one of the least transparent aspects of modern public life (one of the many reasons why journalism is so frequently misunderstood), and that therefore a glimpse into the actions of a reporter at work can be very illuminating.
But back to your "change the world" standard -- how has your exchange on this comments forum Changed the World or improved journalism? Who knows! I'd like to believe that discussion is good for its own sake, and to therefore not apply these over-burdensome (and perhaps sarcastic) standards on how a journalist behaves.
How does what Seipp did encourage thoroughness and care in reporting? Does it encourage a culture of rushing to print, or online, before a thorough job is done lest someone else break the story?
Why should anything Cathy writes bear the burden of affecting "a culture of rushing to print ... before a thorough job is done"? But to answer your first question, I would hope that what Cathy wrote encouraged *decency* in reportorial comportment, by exposing the lack thereof. That's "public good" enough for me, even if I don't require her to meet that standard in the first place.
does Seipp have a consistent standard about confidentiality?
Does anyone? What's yours?
from DCJ:
"How does what Seipp did encourage thoroughness and care in reporting? Does it encourage a culture of rushing to print, or online, before a thorough job is done lest someone else break the story? Or does an issue I have not considered trump my concerns?"
DCJ, I think you are not looking with the proper perspective. How many stories ever get researched to the very last drop? Isn't every story published at a research point which editors determine is the best and most efficient point at which to publish the story? Isn't the marketplace paying for the NYTs judgment about when a story is ready for print? This is one of the big things the NYT is selling: their professional judgment about when a story is ready for print. In the same fashion, NRO is selling their judgment about when a story/opinion is ready for print. And the marketplace decides to read either or both.
The issue isn't only whether there's a market for information but whether there will be accurate and meaningful information for the market in the future. I know many of you loathe the NYT and the LAT and, well, the mainstream media in general. But a lot -- A LOT -- of good has come from them over the years: corruption exposed, life-saving legislation passed, etc. While I have no problem with Cathy (whose forthrightness and self-assuredness impress me anew each and every time) telling an anecdote on herself (it's her anecdote after all) I do understand that many stories need time to develop and that many important stories will not be done with the thoroughness they deserve in the future under the rules being advocated here. If mainstream newspapers and other media outlets go out of business (the cheering here for the decline of the NYT and others saddens me), would someone please explain where all the bloggers are going to get information to criticize. Are they planning to staff the White House and war zones and. . .you get the idea. None of this, by the way, is to excuse what appears to be Waxman's self-important rudeness and I hope she is reprimanded accordingly.
I think the biggest story here is the alleged use of threats and intimidation by a mainstream journalist in order to extract information.
While Mr Johnston is online, perhaps he could extend to us the benefits of his experience by commenting on how common this type of behaviour may be?
I'm assuming that if such standover tactics have only been revealed because they happened to the friend of a prominent blogger, they've probably been going on for a long time.
I was not planning to comment on this until later, but for now:
1. David Cay Johnston is more out of touch with the modern media world than I realized. I assumed, in my email to him about Sharon's threats, that he had by that point had read this post and knew what I was talking about. Why wouldn't I? He's obviously terribly interested in the subject and the post concerned him. But apparently he is not familiar with the mysterious ways of these things called blogs, and so had not. Thus began a new email accusing me of "fabricating," because he didn't know what I was talking about and so felt justified in calling me a liar. At that point I directed him to the relevent paragraph her and told him to go take his Metamucil already and leave me alone. So now he has discovered the crazy new world of blog comments etc and here he is. Although he doesn't yet know the etiquette, thus his mass emails to commenters here, for which I apologize. On the other hand, maybe he'll click on one of David Eherenstein's horrible giant penis links, have a heart attack, and fall down dead. In which case we'll all stop for a moment of silence and then move on.
2. Apparently his important future-of-journalism point is that, in his mind, when a newspaper is working on a story, somehow that is a secret and should remain so, although it's hard to imagine how that could be when reporters are making numerous phone calls to various organizations and people (and especially to other reporters) trying to track it down. And also when the general subject -- pundit payola -- is something that everyone in the media universe is interested in right now. Plus, he seems to think that competition among journalists to get the story first is a bad thing. Or at least, that when one journalist does another a favor by confirming an incident that happened to HER, she therefore relinquishes all rights to using the story herself. If the New York Times wanted the anecdote for itself, well, then, obviously I should have handed it over on a silver platter and been honored by the very idea.
Having added two weak pieces of snark in this thread, I got an email from him encouraging attention to the thread. Newbie enthusiasm cuts both ways.
Per Matt Welch...competition is a good thing and I got ahead by being a successful competitor. But competition is multi-dimensional, it can improve and it can also do damage.
Not so many years ago there were not all sorts of complaints about stories not being thorough. Readers and viewers used to accept that news develops, that a story today, if it is significant, will probably be developed more in another story tomorrow and so on. Not so true anymore.
Your post about confidentiality standards is flippant. I was not a reporter seeking information when I wrote to Seipp, I was a reader with a complaint. Seipp is protecting someone whom she says solicited unethical conduct, but blasts me.
Per Gcotharn, perhaps my perspective is not right, but I assure you that my concern is shared by many reporters at news organizations large and small. I know because I have talked with many of them about these issues. I see reports every day in many newspapers and on TV work that are less complete than wold have been the minimum a decade ago, before the web started to become popular.
I am worried that Seipp's conduct is one small part of a move toward less crosschecking and less trust, which is another deteiorating value in our country. But she does not even address the substance of this, instead turning to trash talk.
Again, Seipp is a press critic and it seems reasonable to critique her work in the context of her chosen speciality.
Does it encourage a culture of rushing to print, or online, before a thorough job is done lest someone else break the story?
Wasn't that more of a problem or issue back in the era when several newspapers existed and competed with one another in many major American cities? Even though the Internet in this age of one-paper towns may be the new substitute for "Extra, Extra, read all about it!," I don't believe that is the reason for debacles such as Dan Rather's counterfeit letters or the New York Times' Jayson Blair.
Forget about rushing to print or the finer points of revealing or concealing sources. Many in the media aren't even willing to acknowledge their political and cultural biases, and how that affects their judgment and decisionmaking, one way or the other.
I am worried that Seipp's conduct is one small part of a move toward less crosschecking and less trust, which is another deteiorating value in our country.
Shining some outside transparency onto a reporter's behavior means less crosschecking? That makes no sense to me. Also, I'd be interested in the metric used to measure this allegedly deteriorating "trust"; seems to me that given the amount of private information we throw out into the ether & receive back, and the amount of benefit of doubt we're willing to give strangers we've never met (except for online, even in forums like this), one could make a decent argument (at least in lieu of sociological research) for there being more trust.
Your post about confidentiality standards is flippant.
And so is your demand that Seipp produce a confidentiality standard and live by it. Which is why I turned the question back onto you. Not surprised that you didn't take me up on the offer.
I was not a reporter seeking information when I wrote to Seipp, I was a reader with a complaint. Seipp is protecting someone whom she says solicited unethical conduct, but blasts me.
From what I understand (and I could be wrong), she has a relationship with that publicist, and she doesn't with you. Also, you are a public figure associated with the same newspaper that publishes Sharon Waxman. And, you sent her an unsolicited criticism out of the blue.
Personally, I give friends and loved ones a different "confidentiality standard" than I do public figures, and I'm guessing the same is true for most journalists, including you.
competition is multi-dimensional, it can improve and it can also do damage.
Is it the "competition" that does the damage, or is it news organizations and their journalists who use it as a lame excuse for producing inferior work?
Seems to me that in a crowded & noisy marketplace, the thorough, meticulous news organization would have a decided advantage. And Lo! The most successful newspapers in the country are The New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. And the dominant dailies in the rest of the country (who basically print money, compared to other industrial sectors) generally try to ape the New York Times, not the Post. And shoot, 60 Minutes is still pretty popular, ain't it?
The supposed Endagerment of Serious Journalism is one of the biggest myths in modern journalism, stoked on one side by the anti-MSM fanatics, on the other by the crying-in-their-beer types struggling to make do with the resources & traditions that would make any European journalist green with envy.
Not so many years ago there were not all sorts of complaints about stories not being thorough.
Maybe because there weren't as many forums, publications and tools to deliver those complaints?
Readers and viewers used to accept that news develops, that a story today, if it is significant, will probably be developed more in another story tomorrow and so on. Not so true anymore.
I for one am glad that journalism consumers no longer "accept" whatever's spoon-fed to them, and have exponentially more products to choose from in their media diet.
Also, newspapers (to cite one example) used to accept that news happening in their coverage territory was worth actually, you know, covering, instead of being developed in longer thumb-suckers six months from now. Post-war newspaper traditions, while producing many a benefit, also made something of a cult of thoroughgoing, eat-your-spinach meticulousness, at the expense of addressing stuff readers wanted to know (like the murder down the street).
Unsurprisingly, they left themselves vulnerable to competition on all kinds of fronts, and now, thankfully, they're receiving it. It's traumatic, and it comes with much unfriendly and off-putting noise, but I have no doubt that A) this is on balance a great thing, and B) quality news organizations are actually in the best position to *benefit* from this competition, if they can snap themselves out of whining mode.
My complaint was ONLY about Seipp announcing to the world that a reporter was working on a story, which also alerts competitors and puts pressure on the reporter to get the story in, perhaps before it is thoroughly reported.
Matt addressed this but I want to add...Why exactly is this a bad thing?
Truthfully I am not 100% sure I would have had read Waxmans story independently - most likely via a link through a blog say, so I am not sure why post publish heads up is bad...isn't this what the movie industry calls pre-production hype?
Chances are many of Cathy's readers would keep an eye out for it and READ it.
Further, I would just add (and I may be wrong) but it sounds like to me, Ms. Waxman's ONLY hook (to her story) was Cathy's anctedote and that is the crux of Waxmans ire --Cathy scooped her in 2 paragraphs---and sounds like perhaps this tidbit wasn't included as it spread through the halls...context.
Something Mr. Johnston might consider
Maybe I’m out of touch with what passes for proper behavior today, or maybe my standards are too old fashioned. However, if someone sends me unsolicited mail or email, I believe it becomes mine to do with as I wish. One cannot demand that the recipient of the unsolicited communication treat it as confidential. I have requested that people I send unsolicited email to not publish my name or address, but really cannot object if they choose to ignore that request.
I am frankly a bit surprised that I received two emails from Mr. Johnston. At least they were not obscene (I have gotten a couple of those from some comments I have posted). I consider those unsolicited emails to be mine. I have no particular use for them at this time, but if I so choose, I can publish every word of them, including name and email address. Which Mr. Johnston understands, because he has had no trouble posting Ms. Seipp’s emails to him.
Mr. Johnston, the world has changed; the old way of doing things is done. Either you and your fellow journalists learn to cope with the new reality, or you rightfully go the way of the dinosaurs. You need to realize that. There are thousands of people analyzing every word the NYT says every day. Some are partisan, many of us are not. We catch you when you disguise editorial comment as news. We catch you when you cannot properly understand the difference between an artillery shell and a missile. We catch you when you apply a double standard (a leak you are in favor of is done by a concerned whistle-blower, a leak you don’t like is due to a partisan agenda).Your paper is rapidly losing respect and readership because it is so horribly out of touch with the new reality. You and your fellows cannot decide what is and is not the news any longer. You no longer control the gates.
Frankly, I am only a newcomer to actually writing a blog, but I have been reading them (including this one) for quite some time. I understand many of the new realities even though I am new to it. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to learn some of these things as well, Mr. Johnston.
Gaius
You ask, " Is there something about working for the New York Times that now and then makes people there -- besides Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg et al -- think they are both above the rules and can also make them up for other people?"
Well, isn't that the essence of modern liberalism?
I hope that Gaius Arbo will read carefully the facts about my initial email. Of course you can do with any email as you choose. I asked that Miss Seipp treat my criticism of her work as confidential or to disregard it. She is absolutely free to post it, but I am also free to reveal when the way in which she did so was misleading and created false impressions. She is free to pander all she wants, and I am just as free to point that out.
Also, criticism of news reporters is nothing new. It goes back far before the Internet and blogosphere. For at least 33 years I have writing criticism of journalists, as noted above, so the thrust of your email is misdirected.
Per EvilPundit, threats are wrong. I suspect they are rare. In general they would be counter-productive to eliciting trust, which is essential to good reporting.
In my lectures on how to interview I teach how to listen carefully, to ask neutral questions so that answers are not biased and to ask questions that assess whether you and the source heard what each of you thinks you heard. That teaching comes from my reporting experiences and from being a subject of many articles, ranging from superb to gawdawful. And I refer here not to whether I liked the articles, but to their fidelity to my remarks.
It is counter-intuitive to threaten. After all, you are asking the source to do is trust that you will listen carefully to what the source actually says and however much it gets condensed then write a piece that will leave the source feeling their point was made or fairly presented. Fail at that and people stop coming to you.
There are journalists who yell at people and throw tirades and get superb results. These techniques only work on people who work with the news everyday. At times being ferocious in tone may be appropriate, but threats to harm someone’s career to coerce information are wrong.
From what Seipp has since posted after her NRO column it looks to me like she has softened, if not backtracked, on her claim that Waxman used threats.
In her post above Miss Seipp lectures me on etiquette. I invite readers her to examine her own trash talk emails to me in terms of etiquette.
Also, Seipp continues to not read with care and to make what she herself writes above are assumptions. Never making assumptions is about as basic to journalism as spelling names correctly.
Seipp suggests I dislike competition. Nonsense, as my posts here show. I love competition. I have thrived because of it. The issue she ignores is what public good did she achieve – remember, Seipp criticizes journalists for a living – by announcing a story in progress?
Speaking of etiquette, what Seipp did in her NRO column when she revealed a story in progress (as opposed to her own experience) is just not the norm.
In 1973-76 I was at the Detroit Free Press, which I joined because I wanted to be part of what I suspected would be the last all out newspaper war. We were locked in an intense battle with the Detroit News. Yet I never had a source on one of my investigations call up the Detroit News and tell them what I was doing before my story made print. (Or, if someone did, I was never scooped as a result.)
Similarly, when I was digging into the LAPD, United Way and other stories for the LATimes no one I called ever ran off to tell the Herald-Examiner or any other news outlet what I was working on. (And, again, if they did it never resulted in someone stealing my story.)
It was an understood that when a reporter called you for information you did not go off and tell the competition, which is what Seipp did in effect. I never had to negotiate but it was the accepted norm of conduct. Seipp’s conduct, I believe, undermines trust between reporter and source. Like many norms of ethical behavior that seems to be changing. I am not persuaded that this is a good.
Now it may be that Miss Seipp is unaware of this kind of historic journalism etiquette, this unspoken trust between source and reporter while a story is in progress. (This has nothing to do with unnamed sources, which I have along record of opposing; it has to do with trust and timing.)
If so, her lack of historical knowledge raises doubts about her qualifications as a press critic. Similarly I would wonder about a theater critic who had never heard of a dramaturg or a restaurant reviewer who, like the one at the LADaily News some years back, could not tell David Shaw if what he was chewing on was duck, chicken, rabbit or a host of other meats. Critics ought to be experts. That’s an old fashioned value, though, and maybe I am a dinosaur.
There is no licensing to be a journalist, or critic. But there is a marketplace and buyers surely ought to know about the qualifications of the critic and her ability to deal with criticisms of her work. Seipp, rather than address the issues, turned to venom, distraction and foul language.
One thing I do know for certain is that trash talk of the kind Miss Seipp sent me -- instead of addressing the substance of issues -- is not going to divert me from pressing her on the issues. That’s an old flack’s trick.
I raised a legitimate issue with Seipp. We can certainly disagree, though she ought to at least be rounded in her post since that is one of the cardinal rules of journalism.
And I also hope Seipp will explain on what theory, or value or even rule of etiquette she justifies disregarding my request for confidentiality as a complaining reader while protecting the identity of someone whom she says solicited an unethical act of journalism.
I for one am glad that journalism consumers no longer "accept" whatever's spoon-fed to them, and have exponentially more products to choose from in their media diet.
Indeed. Many (if not most) reporters from the mainstream media claim to speak on behalf of the public interest and against "public bads," but don't much care what the people themselves have to say about either.
...went to work at 10, graduated from night high school...I attended college on the GI Bill as the son of a 100% disabled WW2 veteran...sit the granddaughter of a coal miner..."
I'm sorry, but did I wander into a preview of the upcoming documentary by Ken Burns on PBS, the one on the illegitimate child of Woody Guthrie? Methinks the lad doth protest too much, but at least we can thank David for playing!
"to ask neutral questions so that answers are not biased "
Questions always deterime their answers. Godard amde a film about that fact back in 1966, called Masculin/Feminin.
"I am worried that Seipp's conduct is one small part of a move toward less crosschecking and less trust, which is another deteiorating value in our country." If these are concerns" and "I think what Seipp did was bad because quality journalism often takes time." Can we assume then that Mr. Johnston himself has contacted Ms. Waxman, as a private citizen and/or journalist with deep concern about our deteriorating values, to question her as to her integrity and her threats to 'burn'? It appears that should most probably be a more troubling aspect for him...as a concerned journalist, that is.
Similarly, when I was digging into the LAPD, United Way and other stories for the LATimes no one I called ever ran off to tell the Herald-Examiner or any other news outlet what I was working on. (And, again, if they did it never resulted in someone stealing my story.)
The misconception here is that a news story "belongs" to someone.
I find the information Cathy revealed about this to be interesting and important, and a reminder to never stop questioning the validity of and methodology behind the stories we read in the paper.
FYI, her name's Cathy Seipp, not The United Way, and if she wants to print something simply for humorous effect (and I did find this entertaining and funny), that's just fine with me.
Furthermore, I found her emailed points to you to be hilarious, and, as the Supreme Court noted in Cohen v. California, 1971 (the "fuck the draft" case), sometimes the "wrong" words are precisely the right words to best communicate a message.
Now it may be that Miss Seipp is unaware of this kind of historic journalism etiquette, this unspoken trust between source and reporter while a story is in progress. (This has nothing to do with unnamed sources, which I have along record of opposing; it has to do with trust and timing.)
Again, as Matt noted, a New York Times journalist should be mindful of who she's talking to. Because you, perhaps, expect confidentiality doesn't mean you're going to get it. It's like telling somebody a bit of gossip. There are people who can be trusted not to pass it on, and then there are those who will have it emailed back to the subject within the hour. Only an idiot would tell the latter person anything more dishy than the time.
Cathy is very, very funny in her two-point response to you posted above. You're simply petty and insulting in this response above. Yes, she fails to bow down to some set of stone tablets of journalism rules stored deep in your head -- and what a good thing that is. She's exposing the nasty parts of media -- the stuff that should really be changed -- for all of us to see. If that isn't excellent media critcism, I don't know what is.
To David Cay Johnston: Don't you have better things to do than be upset at one journalist? All this passion and ire over one story is ridiculous. Someone does not have a life.