Posted on 05/23/2005 2:53:50 PM PDT by andyk
Freelancer fails to tell paper she participated in campus demonstration against Sen. Bill Frist
The New York Times has admitted it ran an article by a freelance reporter who covered a demonstration in which she participated.
The May 6 story described a protest at Princeton University against the proposal by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist – a Princeton graduate and board member – to bar filibusters on judicial nominees.
The Times, in a correction run Saturday, said the writer, Elizabeth Landau, "did not disclose to The Times that before she was assigned the article, she had participated in the demonstration."
The Times said it "does not ordinarily allow its writers to cover events in which they have taken part, and the paper's staff and contributors are not permitted to join rallies or demonstrations on divisive issues. The writer says she was unaware of these policies."
In her story, Landau, a Princeton student, said, "Since April 26, students have been conducting a round-the-clock filibuster to protest Dr. Frist's proposal to bar filibusters on judicial nominees."
The Times continues to suffer from the Jayson Blair scandal and a national survey showing only 21 percent of readers believe what they read in the paper.
In a Times report published May 9, a panel of editors suggested a variety of steps including limiting the number of unnamed sources used and responding more assertively to critics. The paper also is considering an increase of coverage of religion in America and more reporting from rural areas of the country.
Bill Keller, the executive editor who charged the panel with the study said there was "an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism."
The report pointed out the Times printed 3,200 corrections last year.
That's perfectly understandable, IMO. She's probably read hundreds of Times articles where the reporter injected his bias into the story. Why should her case be any different?
They have gone from making up news to making news.
Bill Keller, the executive editor who charged the panel with the study said there was "an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism."
Ummm, yes, I have an idea? Watch Fox New to get an idea of what fair and balanced means. Immitate.
You'll be fine.
The MSM just keeps getting embarrassed by its own agenda-driven, ethics-be-damned, approach.
Don't suppose they have enough shame to ever change.
Yep. She was just following SOP, no doubt.
she was just doing what she was trained to do in feminist and "critical theory" courses at the university!
This Sunday, in his final column as NY Times ombudsman, Okreant listed the things he was sorry he couldn't do. One of them was to get Paul Krugman to stop skewing his numbers..
3200 errors last year! That's almost 8 1/2 per day! Read that birdcager liner at your own risk!
Right. Did you know that Chris Hedges, the NYT War Correspondent, is a self-proclaimed "anti-war activist"?
And the correction was buried in the Saturday edition.
"The writer says she was unaware of these policies"
Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Or in this case, ignorance of elementary ethics and professionalism. Almost anyone but a NY Times reporter or a Princeton student would know it is COMMON SENSE that it is an unethical conflict of interest to report upon a political demonstration/protest in which one is a participant. Let's put it in terms that these left-wing bozos might understand: should Enron executives be allowed to write the stories covering their own misdeeds? But the left is always so smug, so sanctimonious, so convinced they are a gift to us all that they cannot recognize their own depraved lack of ethics.
Hell, they just can't do news very well and haven't been able to for many years and everyone knows it. Every competitor they have kicks their butt in news reporting. If they just stopped trying to be a newspaper, they would be fine.
Those are just the ones they admit to!!
And of course any retractions they print are half-hearted, inadequate, and buried in a small space on an inner page. A rule of journalistic ethics should be that any correction or retraction must run in a story AT LEAST as prominent as the original.... otherwise, we have what is currently the case, the LSM organs such as the NY Times run their leftist errors in front page stories and their grudging corrections in small items on an inside page. Guess which has more impact?
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.