Times public editor neglects issues, focusses on trivialities

by Uriel Wittenberg (uw@urielw.com)

June 3, 2004

A series of letters I have sent to New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent pointing out serious journalistic flaws have elicited virtually no response. But a letter I sent comparing him to the Saudi Arabian Consultative Council did -- very briefly -- produce signs of life.

My letter, and a report on the outcome, appear below.

(Who/What is the New York Times Public Editor?)

Letter to Public Editor Okrent

From: Uriel Wittenberg
To: New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: Kingdom's Forests Losing Wood

Dear Mr. Okrent,

The opening paragraph of a story in today's issue brought to mind the new Public Editor position the Times has instituted:

Saudis watching the newly introduced broadcasts of their country's Consultative Council a few months back were startled to discover the royal family's handpicked legislators discussing an almost comically minor problem: the theft of wood from the desert kingdom's forests.

("Saudis Uneasily Balance Desires for Change and Stability.")

The article introducing your new position sounded so promising:

As public editor, or ombudsman, Mr. Okrent, 55, will operate outside the management structure of the newspaper's newsroom and its editorial page, Mr. Keller said. He will be given an unfettered opportunity to address readers' comments about The Times's coverage, to raise questions of his own and to write about such matters, in commentaries that will be published in the newspaper as often as he sees fit.

[Executive editor Bill Keller] said he and the newspaper's other senior editors had waived any right to review Mr. Okrent's commentaries before they are published.

("The Times Chooses Veteran of Magazines and Publishing as Its First Public Editor," October 27, 2003)

And yet, as I have sought to bring a series of Times failures to your attention (see http://urielw.com/nyt/uf1.htm), a disquieting pattern has emerged: you never really respond.

This would be understandable if you were engaged with rival issues having equal claim on your attention. But one of your recent columns addresses errors that don't really seem to exist (see my May 2 letter to you), while your latest ("Paper of Record? No Way, No Reason, No Thanks," April 25, 2004) offers a whimsical examination of the phrase, "paper of record," often used to describe the Times, and explains at perhaps undue length why the phrase is not apt.

Unlike Saudi Arabia's Consultative Council, you have been given "unfettered opportunity" to address issues. Why are we reading about wood theft in your columns?

Sincerely,

Mr. Uriel Wittenberg

Outcome

My "wood theft" message succeeded in (at least briefly) capturing Okrent's attention. While my several previous messages to him had been more or less ignored, I was graced this time with two replies -- one from Times public editor Daniel Okrent himself, one from his assistant Arthur Bovino.

Mr. Bovino may not have entirely grasped my analogy, since his reply states: "I'm not sure I remember where Mr. Okrent addressed wood theft at any time in his columns."

But Mr. Okrent got the point, and was roused to respond to my May 2 letter, which had sought to bring the following rather unsatisfactory situation to his attention:

  • Mr. Okrent's column had indicated there was an error in a Times news story;

  • The news editor concerned had responded with a message suggesting (albeit obliquely) that there was no error;

  • Readers like me who bothered to check the news story in question couldn't see any error;

  • Mr. Okrent's weblog presented the editor's response but offered no further comment.

Mr. Okrent's response to my May 2 message offered not resolution, but an explanation of why there would be no resolution:

As for the lack of resolution following [the news editor]'s objections, my policy is not to insist on having the last word. If readers (or Times editors) have objections, they should be allowed to state them without further comment by me. That would be an unfair fight.

I protested:

I see no imminent danger of your "insisting on having the last word" (which sounds terribly unreasonable) or fighting "an unfair fight." My concern is more along the lines of your being accountable for your own views. Otherwise (depending on your actual policy on opinion writers, which was not made clear in your March 28 column, "The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of Fact"), you may be the unique writer at the Times exempt from scrutiny.

But Mr. Okrent's lapse from silence was finished. He has had nothing further to say on the subject.

His very next column after my "wood theft" message appeared Sunday, May 9, 2004. It was the end of the week in which the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal broke, gripping the whole world. At least some aspects of the Times coverage had been deficient. (http://urielw.com/nyt/uf1.htm#Iraqabuse.)

The Times public editor, confessing that he is "one of those Times readers who care about live theater," devoted the entire column to issues involving the Tony Awards for live Broadway shows.

Home > List of New York Times-related items at urielw.com