Correspondence re Erroneous Editorial
The first couple of messages are included because they involve the general topic of errors in opinion pieces. The subsequent messages specifically involve the erroneous editorial.
From: Uriel Wittenberg To the Editor: Re: "The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of Fact," by Daniel Okrent, March 28: Public Editor Daniel Okrent quotes an e-mail message from William Safire, apparently in connection with Safire's assertion in his column that there is a "smoking gun" linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, declaring that "[a] belief or a conviction, no matter how illogical, crackbrained or infuriating, ... is not an assertion subject to editorial or legal correction." But a reader naturally understands Safire's "smoking gun" statement to be an assertion about what is on the established public record (as opposed to, say, an internal vision). This surely is "subject to editorial or legal correction." Mr. Uriel Wittenberg
From: Daniel Okrent Dear Mr. Wittenberg, I appreciate your comments on "The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of Fact." I will keep your message on file for possible use in my readers' response column. Thanks for writing.
Yours Sincerely, N.B.: Any opinions expressed here, unless otherwise indicated, are solely my own
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Okrent, I am forwarding the submission to the letters page below to you because it details how an NYT editorial unreasonably insults a Supreme Court justice, in defiance of accepted legal opinion. Sincerely, UW
------------------------------- To the Editor: Although your editorial ridicules Justice Antonin Scalia for failing to understand the First Amendment ("Justice Scalia's Apology, " April 13, 2004), he is perfectly within his rights to offer speeches only on condition that they are not recorded. This is the opinion of legal experts, reported in your own pages four days earlier ("Legal Experts Express Concern About Erasure of Scalia Tapes," April 9, 2004). As to your editorial's impertinent imputation that Justice Scalia is "camera shy," there are more reasonable explanations for his aversion to broadcast media: Perhaps he feels the American people should learn to evaluate the words of public figures, rather than relying on vocal pitch and facial expressions for their insights. Mr. Uriel Wittenberg
From: Daniel Okrent Dear Mr. Wittenberg, The positions taken by the editorial board of The Times are not within my purview, nor should they be; the editorial board is entitled to its views, and readers are free to agree or disagree with them. However, as I know that the editors are concerned with reader response, I have forwarded your comments to editorial page editor Gail Collins.
Yours Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Okrent, Opinion based on fact distortion or misinterpretation should be subject to your censure. Of course, your own column has raised this issue. I think the general outlook reflected in the readers' letters I've selected below, which appeared in your April 4 column ("Other Voices: Readers Debate Columnists and Corrections"), is correct. Naturally such a view would apply with as much force to editorials as to columns. The editorial I referred to you tells readers that Justice Scalia's apology letter demonstrates a failure to understand the Constitution. This contradicts a news report citing legal experts. The editorial opinion is wrong, it misleads readers, and it invites unfounded cynicism about a Supreme Court justice's competence or integrity. Sincerely, Uriel Wittenberg -------- I particularly like this first letter, whose sentiment is identical to mine:
"Opinion is inherently unfair."
From: Uriel Wittenberg 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. 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. And yet, as I have sought to bring a series of Times failures to your attention (see http://urielw.com/nytimes.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
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, You have received three responses from this office from March through April, one on 3/29, and two on 4/14. I'm not sure I remember where Mr. Okrent addressed wood theft at any time in his columns. The article you refer to included the reference to wood theft in the context of pressing issues which the council still faces. I'm sorry that you do not feel we are addressing your messages; what was your concern regarding this article?
Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg >You have received three responses >The article you refer to included the reference to wood theft in the context of pressing issues which the council still faces. Dear Mr. Bovino, I have sent your office 4 specific criticisms (prior to my "Forests Losing Wood" message) in the past 30 days. None has been dealt with substantively. In one case, I was offered a reason: "The positions taken by the editorial board of The Times are not within my purview, nor should they be; the editorial board is entitled to its views, and readers are free to agree or disagree with them." (April 14 email from Mr. Okrent.) Gail Collins's Memo on Columnists (reproduced in Mr. Okrent's web journal) says: "the columnists are obviously required to be factually accurate. If one of them makes an error, he or she is expected to promptly correct it in the column." Clearly it would be untenable to exempt the editorial board from the same standard. I responded to Mr. Okrent the same day (April 14): "Opinion based on fact distortion or misinterpretation should be subject to your censure.... "The editorial I referred to you tells readers that Justice Scalia's apology letter demonstrates a failure to understand the Constitution. This contradicts a news report citing legal experts. The editorial opinion is wrong, it misleads readers, and it invites unfounded cynicism about a Supreme Court justice's competence or integrity." There was no further word from your office. Incidentally, Mr. Okrent asked, in his March 28 column ("The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of Fact"): "It sounds like a simple question: Should opinion columnists be subject to the same corrections policy that governs the work of every other writer at The Times?" It is most curious that the column fails to address the more obvious question (considering who is raising it): Are opinion columnists (and editorialists) within the public editor's purview, as is every other writer at The Times? The column suggests the implicit answer is "yes." If the answer is actually "no," then not saying so is a significant omission. Sincerely, Uriel Wittenberg The above produced no response. About 6 weeks later, I returned to this issue when Arthur Bovino forwarded me a response from another department at the Times regarding hyperlinks at the Times website:
From: Uriel Wittenberg Hi Arthur, OK, I believe I've got it. Again, I appreciate your following up on this. I must remark however that I merely c.c.'ed your office when I raised this relatively trivial issue of confusing links. Of the series of serious and specific issues I've addressed your office on, NONE has been substantively addressed. Not one. A few times there's been some slight followup from you or Mr. Okrent -- but not one issue has been resolved or even explored in any adequate measure. So I'm afraid I'm unable to feel that the readers' representative is representing my concerns. If there's something more I should be doing to have my serious issues addressed, please let me know. Sincerely, Uriel
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, What are the issues which you have raised which you do not believe have been given adequate response? Sincerely, Arthur
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Bovino, My message below is one that didn't get any response. The issue is quite stark: a clearly wrong editorial (contradicted by legal experts cited in a news story in the Times itself); and a public editor who somehow says he can't touch it despite his advertised independence. Sincerely, UW
----- Original Message ----- [Earlier message reproduced here, saying "I have sent your office 4 specific criticisms (prior to my 'Forests Losing Wood' message) in the past 30 days. None has been dealt with substantively."]
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, Send me a message without our back and forth correspondence which cites the relevant editorial and article as well as your concern and I will send it to Gail Collins and ask for a response.
Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Thanks! Coming right up ....
----- Original Message ----- [message shown above reproduced here]
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, I'm keeping the message you sent me on file for the next step but can you humor me and explain how there's something incorrect in the editorial? It sounds like you just disagree with it.
Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Bovino, OK, here's the argument: - the editorial says Scalia's wrong on the 1st Amendment - the "legal experts" says Scalia's OK on the 1st Amendment So the editorial is wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. The only way out of that box would be to argue that the editorialists want to strike out on an interpretation of the law that diverges from the uniform view of "legal experts" cited in the Times itself. But of course that would be rather bizarre and could hardly be done in the offhand manner of the editorial, without even acknowledging the experts' different views. Regards, Uriel
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Bovino, I should add another point. Six days after the Scalia editorial, the Times published a letter to the editor buttressing the unwarranted views urged by the editorial. I reproduce it below for your reference. Regards, UW --------------------------------------------------------
Scalia and the Press To the Editor: Re "Justice Scalia's Apology" (editorial, April 13): Although Justice Antonin Scalia has apologized for the forced erasure of a recent speech on two reporters' recorders, he still contends that he has a "First Amendment right" to bar audio-visual coverage of his public speeches by the electronic media. Is he so insecure about his remarks that he fears being quoted accurately? Is he making extreme assertions that he wishes to hide or disavow after the fact? Justice Scalia's grudging apology sends the chilling message that those in power are above the scrutiny of a free press.
MICHAEL BLAINE
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Bovino, It's been a week so I'm just writing to ask -- is this still pending with Gail Collins? Regards, UW
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, I sent a message to Ms. Collins on June 17th. We usually give editors and reporters two weeks before we follow up. Let's give it another week.
Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Bovino, Well, it's been more than 2 weeks now. To reiterate, if this matter is resolved, it'll be the first of the many I have brought to your office's attention. Regards, UW
From: Daniel Okrent
Dear Uriel Wittenberg,
Yours sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg The editorial in question said: "There is no such right, as any person charged with safeguarding America's cherished free speech rights should easily see." The "legal experts" in the news story said there IS such a right. There is no contradiction? The categorical statement, "There is no such right," should be understood by readers as equivocal? If neither of these two seemingly conflicting articles is wrong, could it be said that Mr. Bovino was wrong to forward the matter to Gail Collins 3 weeks ago?
From: Uriel Wittenberg Why have I received no acknowledgement of my message below?
----- Original Message ----- [earlier message reproduced]
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, I relayed your message to Mr. Okrent. He is currently working on his column and will be catching up next week.
Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Why have I received no acknowledgement of my message below?
----- Original Message ----- [earlier message reproduced]
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, You have received prior acknowledgement of your message. I am sorry you have not received an answer. Mr. Okrent is currently on vacation and will be returning after Labor Day. You are welcome to raise your concerns with him then.
Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg >You are welcome to raise your concerns with him then. Mr. Bovino, YOU told me you would pass my concern on to Ms. Collins (after making me re-explain it to you). Then, when I inquired after getting no followup, YOU told me to wait a bit longer. So what prevents YOU now from letting me know: Did Ms. Collins never even acknowledge the concern you passed along to her?
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, As I previously noted, this issue is something you can take up with Mr. Okrent upon his return.
Sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Bovino, I've been bringing issues to your office's attention for five months. As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, NOT ONE has been adequately addressed. You ask that I submit further petitions, but the evidence is by now overwhelming that it's a waste of time. Instead, I've written *about* you and Mr. Okrent. Below is the short summary for your convenience. If either of you feels that anything I've written is unfair, you may respond. I promise to post your response unedited together with my article. Regards, UW ------------------------------------------ NEW YORK TIMES OMBUDSMAN -- A DUNCE The news organ at the peak of America's fourth estate chooses as ombudsman a witless bumbler who doesn't understand his office's freedom to criticize. Full article at http://urielw.com/nyt/dunce.htm.
From: Arthur Bovino Dear Mr. Wittenberg, As I have indicated several times, Mr. Okrent is on vacation and I will note your concern and your site to him when he returns.
Sincerely,
From: Daniel Okrent Dear Mr. Wittenberg, You are of course entitled to your opinion of me and my work. But I'll accept your kind invitation to explain myself by listing a few of the principles I try to operate by, and how they apply to your objections: 1. Editorial opinion is protected opinion -- certainly protected from am ombudsman. I disagree with many Times editorials, but strongly believe that disagreement is not grounds for intervention or engagement in my professional capacity. 2. The invocation of unnamed "experts," either explicitly or implicitly, does not nail down a fact. Surely the difference on a thousand issues between, say, Justice Scalia and Justice Souter, would demonstrate that legal interpretation is not subject to the scientific method. 3. I receive nearly 1,000 e-mails a week. I have to employ a ranking system to address this enormous volume, and have chosen this one: People who have been mentioned in the paper, and who feel they've been misrepresented, move to the head of the line. Ordinary readers are next. Journalists and bloggers are last, but I confess I address those in descending order of readership size. I'll answer a query from the Wall Street Journal before one from the Ypsilanti News, one from the Ypsilanti News before one from you, one from you before a blogger I've never heard of before. 4. I don't have the time, or the inclination, to engage in debate; there's no reason why I should ever have the last word. Once I explained my position to you on the Scalia editorial, I felt you were more than free to comment on it any way you wished -- as you have.
Yours sincerely,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Okrent, Thanks for the response, which I've noted at http://urielw.com/whatsnew.htm. I will email a response later (in case you have time for it). Sincerely, UW
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Okrent, Thank you for writing. My counter-response is at http://urielw.com/nyt/dunce.htm#counter. Sincerely, Uriel Wittenberg
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Okrent, I forgot to mention it, but again you're welcome to respond and I'll display it on my site. I've noted this promise there. Sincerely, UW
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Okrent, My counter response requests: "Please confess, Mr. Okrent -- you still have not looked carefully at this issue. You can't have, because your argument defies the plain English meaning of the editorial." --and goes on to explain how. Could you do me the courtesy of pausing to think about the issue I've brought before you so many times now, and responding? Sincerely, Uriel Wittenberg
From: Daniel Okrent Dear Mr. Wittenberg, Several million people read The Times, and several thousand of them write to me each week. I've given your particular concern all the attention I can afford to, and if that relegates me to more excoriation, name-calling, and public insult, I guess it's the price I'll have to pay.
Best wishes,
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Mr. Okrent, Please believe me, I was completely sincere in saying I didn't believe you'd really reflected on my position before writing your response. That's why I wrote yet again. It'd be pointless for me to harass a man who can't agree with me. But I'm convinced that if you'd just focus for a few instants, you could not help but concede that it's crazy to insist that any legal theory is OK -- or that the editorial was just tossing out a legal theory, rather than purporting to pronounce a categorical truth about the First Amendment's meaning which any judge should know. Also, please don't call me a blogger. A lot of those people are just dunces. As you can see from http://urielw.com/nytimes.htm, I've been criticizing the Times's journalistic shortcomings since before anyone heard of "blogging." Yes, I've used "dunce" and a few other epithets in connection with yourself. But as you see, in my thinking that's not a reflection on your intelligence, but on the terribly misconceived depth/breadth tradeoff you've made in managing your huge mail volume. My advice, which I'm sure you'll cherish, is: Don't deal with things superficially! Put in an honest day's work -- deal with what you can deal with -- and screw the rest. It's not your fault the Times only hired one ombudsman rather than several hundred. I'd have resigned myself to it if I'd only gotten an autoreply saying you're overwhelmed and can only respond to a fraction of your mail. But getting responses that are thoughtless and absurd -- that can get a fellow a bit irked. And such responses are liable to get a lot of reasonable people convinced that the Times is not serious about addressing its faults. Which, considering those millions of readers, and the times we live in, is no laughing matter. Sincerely, Uriel Wittenberg
Home > List of New York Times-related items at urielw.com > New York Times Ombudsman -- A Dunce |