NY Times Libels Houston — In Paris

Austin Bay Blog ^ | 9/7/2005

[anymouse]

Yesterday a friend of mine who lives in Houston dropped me an angry email, asking me if I'd read the September 6 NY Times story on Houston's role in Katrina relief. Yes, I did read it. I thought it was a reasonable story. But the emailer said another "version" existed that "libeled" Houston in an international version.

I couldn't find the second version, but this morning KTRK-TV, Houston's ABC affiliate, has links to two NY Times stories except they are the same story, though different, the same but different with a twist.

The "domestic" NY Times story examines Houston's business community, and what it's doing in the wake of Katrina. It mentions Houston benefited from the Great 1900 Hurricane which destroyed Galveston. It says one company is like an ambulance chaser. The "international" Times story well, you read it, and note the sharpened rhetorical daggers.

Follow this link to the domestic NY Times.

It begins with: Perhaps no city in the United States is in a better spot than Houston to turn Katrina's tragedy into opportunity. And businesses here are already scrambling to profit in the hurricane's aftermath.

Follow this link to the "international" version.

It begins with: No one would accuse this city of being timid in the scramble to profit from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

KTRK points out that this line is not in the domestic Times version.

This quote appears in the domestic version but is missing from the International Herald Tribune:

All this, of course, is capitalism at work, moving quickly to get resources to where they are needed most. And those who move fastest are likely to do best.

I will guarantee that the NY Times defense will be editing for space. A nasty, anti-Houston slant is magnified in the The International Herald Tribune version. A Times spokesperson later told KTRK that the stories are based on the same thesis, ie, Houston is benefiting from the hurricane.

Tempest in a teapot? Or another example of "mainstream" press bias with a slash and a dram of dishonest (ie, :hard spin:) editing? It's both. Call it small potatoes, but indicative small potatoes and if dishonest is too strong a word, sub adulterated. This story (Houston's business sector post-Katrina) deserved coverage, but not with the rhetorical editorialization. The truth is, an entire swath of the southeastern and southwestern US will eventually "benefit" in the same manner as evacuees arrive and businesses adjust the first story acknowledges that. Why the editorialization? Here's a theory: It's also the NY-DC-LA media axis trying to take Houston down a notch or two. Houston opened its doors and hearts to evacuees. That's too sweet of a story, especially from a Republican state and a swaggering Texas city. The NY-DC-LA axis responds with: So let's suggest that they are really being greedy, eh? Unfair? Then offer another theory.

Here is the gut of KTRK's report:

You've likely heard the saying that there are two sides to every story. But there's an interesting twist to that adage. A world-renowned newspaper apparently found two stories are better than one when it comes to Houston's efforts in the wake of Katrina.

Katrina full coverage
Read the New York Times article
Read the International Herald Tribune article

Houston is home to the largest relief shelter in American history. From donating shelter, clothes, and food to making room in its schools, the city and its people have given of themselves.

So who could find anything bad to say about Houston? Apparently the New York Times could, which on Tuesday printed an article about Houston's response to Katrina in two different newspapers. In one, the article seems relatively even handed. But in the other, some say it is overly critical, ill-timed, and in poor taste.

In the Times, there's an above-the-fold article by Houston-based reporter Simon Romero. And apparently what's in the Times is not all the news that's fit to print.

In The International Herald Tribune published by the Times in Paris, Romero's article is on page 15 and it begins with a line not in the Times, which reads "No one would accuse this city of being timid in the scramble to profit from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

It later contends, "A surge of business activity in Houston might lift the fortune of a city that is still struggling to recover from the collapse of Enron and two decades of job cuts in the energy industry."

Both papers compared a Houston real estate company to ambulance chasers for offering special financing to hurricane victims. ..

Another graf:

The reporter who wrote the article referred me to New York and as of mid-afternoon, the times offered no explanation as to why the same article had two very different takes.

UPDATE: Comment 1 offers another thesis: "It’s not just a swipe against Houston, it’s a classic example of the essential Euro-left criticism of capitalism. Houston is just a stand-in for big-bad USA. To the Parisian readership, it’s a given that anything that makes a profit is bad."

UPDATE 2: Good catch by a commenter. I read the original version then scanned it this morning after reading the IHT version and missed the Enron quote; so my bad, Enron is in the domestic version. I've made the correction. (My original post said the Enron quote showed up in the IHT version and not the domestic but it's in both.)

THe commenter: The Enron quote is in both on-line versions, so the differences are in the IHT’s snide lede and the NYT’s pro-capitalist aside. Local paper (Austin American-Statesman) ran an intermediate version yesterday, omitting both the lede and the aside. This would make a good J-school assignment, showing how editors’ choices, ostensibly for neutral reasons of space, subtly shift the tone of an article. As for the IHT, as a 1999-2004 subscriber I can definitely vouch for a leftward shift (and a general decline in quality) after the NYT forced The Washington Post out of the venture in 2003. This of course parallels the decline at the NYT. Wikipedia says IHT circulation fell ~10% between 2002 and 2004. I disagree with Hutchison above, in that a rational commercial response to losing readers because of left bias is not to increase the bias.

ED– That was a mistake on my part. When I read the domestic version I missed the Enron quote. The Enron quote seemed much more significant in the IHT version. I wonder if placement affected that. Which is another reason your suggestion that this article is a good J-school case study.

UPDATE 3: Interesting link, provided by another commenter.

UPDATE 4: Here's the link to the BBC report a couple of commenters have mentioned.

[anymouse]

Are we not surprised?

[DallasMike]

Fellow Freepers:

At the suggestion of writer Michelle Malkin last Friday, I have cobbled together a blogsite called Texas Clearinghouse for Katrina Aid to serve as a clearinghouse for refugee efforts in Texas.

Texas is getting more refugees than any other state -- that's fine, we'll take them all -- but we need help providing them with food, clothing, and shelter.

If you are a refugee, you can information that will help you find relief. If you want to donate or volunteer, you can find someone who needs you.

Right now the site mostly covers Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio but I will add various churches, schools, and other charities in Ft. Worth and Lubbock tonight. My wife spent yesterday at Reunion Arena in Dallas handing out care packages and otherwise ministering to the refugees as a representative of her employer.

There are a lot of churches and other organizations in Texas that need help in dealing with the problem and I would greatly appreciate it if you would get the word out.

Many thanks,

Michael McCullough

Stingray blogsite

[texianyankee]

Houston = Bush hometown

[anymouse]

Another good blog for Houston and Galveston hurricane relief information - Houston-Galveston Area Emergency Blogger Network

[the OlLine Rebel]

No, but yes, this will be exploited. Not that that's a bad thing.

Baltimore is also already pouncing trying to get displaced conventions, etc.

They're all doing it. And it's no big surprise. After all, all the displaced business (of whatever kind) has to carry on somehow, right?

[jeffers]

I want to see the media pay for what they're trying to do here.

For a supposedly responsible news outlet to politicize a natural disaster during rescue operations is beyond negligence. This is criminal.

They can't even claim they are just reporting what others say. Two polls now show that the general public isn't focusing blame, AP and CNN.

If you have ideas of how we can put a shot across the bow of these cretins, legally, or better yet, directly into the bridge, FReepmail me, I want to hear them.

This must not go unanswered.

[DallasMike]

Thanks for the tip -- it's a good one!