Who's In Charge Here? - The NY Times McCain Story

The online and offline media are inundated with opinions and stories about whether or not The New York Times should have published the recent front-page story about John McCain's alleged romance and ties to lobbyists. The medium has become the message in this brouhaha.

After two days of reading copious blogs and articles about The Times article, I've come away with the impression that the Gray Lady has grown old, confused, and lost its memory. Since many types of boats are named after women, I'll extend the metaphor and suggest that the Gray Lady is a vessel that has an incompetent captain who is letting the swabbies run the ship.

This notion first came to me when I read Jay Rosen's thoughtful (as always) blog on the Huffington Post in which he wrote, "there's one person who would have known about the paper's struggles with McCain and his lawyers over today's story, and who read and approved the paper's endorsements -- or should have. That is Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher. And so to ask, 'How does the Times endorse McCain with a story like that looming, if it believes in the story?' is to ask, at a minimum, what Arthur thought he was doing.'" The answer, of course, is that Arthur has no idea what he's doing.

Publisher Pinch let executive editor Bill Keller and managing editor Jill Abramson decide whether or not to run the McCain story with the befuddling headline "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk." A headline and story Columbia Journalism School professor and media critic par excellence Todd Gitlin mocks: "With that most vapid of introductions (so bland that my eyes glazed over on first inspection), the editors tried to muffle the dynamite that they'd awkwardly stuffed into the nth reedit of their half-exploding bombshell about -- well, what was it about? (1) Intimations of an Iseman affair, or the 'appearance' of an affair, that his aides tried to scotch? (2) McCain's entanglements with lobbyists who cared a good deal about what he did as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee? Uncertain which way to turn, having not much of a story about (1) and (on the strength of the evidence they published) no smoking gun about (2), they squared the potato and ran with the hodgepodge."

What were Keller and Abramson thinking? Why did they open The Times up to such criticism? I think it's because the reporters, not the editors, run the newsroom after the editors screwed up over the Jason Blair and Judy Miller fiascoes. I suspect the reporters convinced Washington bureau chief, Dean Baquet, that the story was solid and that they would be scooped by the Washington Post and The New Republic if The Times didn't run the story after delaying for several months.

There has always been conflict between the Washington bureau and the New York newsroom, as Gabriel Sherman succinctly pointed out in his brilliant piece in The New Republic online "The Washington-New York divide is an eternal rift at the Paper of Record: Baquet had successfully brought stability and investigative acumen to the Washington bureau; with the McCain piece, he was being sucked into his first major struggle with New York." Yes, sucked in by reporters.

In his blog, Buzz Machine, Jeff Jarvis wrote about "Folio's report from its conference and a speech by Meredith president Jack Griffin. The fuller context: As a result, the company invested in its interactive and integrated marketing businesses -- spending roughly $600 million since 2002 on launches, acquisitions and building out its existing Web sites, Griffin said, as well as redefining its editorial hiring approach. 'We don't hire editors anymore,' he said. 'We hire content strategists.'"

What The Times newsroom needs is a content strategist to sit next to Keller and help him think strategically (something a good publisher could do, but, then The Times publisher is Pinch, the leader of the lucky sperm club, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-warner/the-media-lucky-sperm-clu_b_86560.html and not the leader of The Times). Keller has been beaten over the head so much in recent years from both the right and the left that the pounding has affected his thinking. He is trying to do good journalism, keep his angry reporters happy, stem circulation declines, and please a feckless boss -- too many balls to juggle to try to be strategic.

A content strategist might have advised Keller to think about the implications and timing of running the McCain story: (1) How would running the damaging story look after The Times endorsed McCain on January 25 for the February New York Republican primary? Would it reinforce the concept that editorial and news are independent or make Sulzberger look incompetent, as Jay Rosen implied, especially when on the Opinion page of the paper's website there still appeared pictures of Clinton and McCain, along with headlines trumpeting the paper's endorsements long after the primary was over? (2) How would using anonymous sources make The Times look after assistant managing editor Allan Siegal's 2004 internal report, which asked, "Can we otherwise squeeze more anonymous sources out of our pages? Can we make our attributions (even the anonymous ones) less murky? Are there some stories we can afford to skip if they are not attributable to people with names?" (from Jay Rosen's Press Think blog)? Wouldn't it open The Times to criticism of breaking its own rules, succumbing to tabloiditis, and getting down in the gutter with the NY Post?

A good content strategist would have advised Keller to run the story as part of The Long Run series (as The Times did) but to run it before the NY primary, just as it ran a Long Run piece on Clinton the day of the primary -- it would have been logical. Also, a good content strategist would have advised Keller to run the lobbyist connection part of the story, because that was consistent with the Long Run series the paper had done about other candidates, and to kill the alleged romance, because there wasn't sufficient evidence -- no seamen-stained blue dress.

But there was no strategy. Who's in change here?

Comments

[larry278]

Pooch Sulzberger doesn't have a clue about making the NYT a newspaper of record again. He lets clueless Bill run amok. Nobody controls what the NYT publishes. If the NYT was a ship it would be a leaking & sinking prison barge which was controlled & run by the inmates. One could also compare the NYT to a super-max prison where the gangs ran unchecked by the warden & guards.
One wonders if the family which controls the NYT has the power to oust Pooch, replace Pooch with a most competent & enterprising publisher with the money & power to make the NYT a newspaper of record.
It could be that the family which controls the NYT is too effete & unconcerned to even care about how the NYT is managed & edited. That would mean that it is time to let the NYT die & cease publication asap. The owners could quickly cash out by selling the NYT's property. They could realize a tidy sum even in today's market. While the real estate market is in free fall-the NYT's property could be sold at a more than reasonable profit to people who know how to divide property & sell many chunks of property quickly & at a good profit. The real property of the NYT is worth more than the paper is worth.
Rebuilding the NYT into a newspaper of record again would take a lot of money, time & good luck. Selling off the NYT's property would be a quick fix. Ceasing publication of the NYT would stop the losses quickly. Maybe the paper could be sold to somebody who could make it a profitable enterprise if the buyer could turn it into a smaller circulation 2d tier, regional daily that attracted a smaller number of readers & advertisers if it served a niche market.
The NYT could become a profitable 2d or 3rd tier paper if its publisher found & served a niche market. Leave the big circulation to the tabloids. Forget about competeing with his Rupertship as he turns the WSJ into a general interest, regional newspaper of record.
The UK's FT, American edition is well on the way to becoming America's financial newspaper of record. Maybe a saavy publisher could start a new financial daily as America recovers from the deepening recession we have now & make the new financial daily a 100% American financial newspaper of record to compete with the FT's American edition.

[drewd]

Excellent post, Professor Warner. I was immediately struck by the vagaries and broad speculation thrown around the article, particularly for a front-page story. The alleged affair, which dominated the rebukes heaved at the article, actually played a minor role in the intent of the piece. The overarching leitmotiv of the article concerned McCain's allegedly close ties to the very lobbyists he swore to castigate for their manipulation of the political landscape - but, the sensationalism of an affair trumped the real story. As you mentioned, it would have played well as part of the Long Run series, but they chose to cast a shadow over their credibility with such weak evidence and hearsay. Thanks for the post

[Mediacurmudgeon]

Thanks for the compliment. Stooping to sensationalism doesn't serve the Times well.

[DemandTruth]

What were they thinking? Well, here's something to consider. The paper endorsed McCain. We know that to be a fact. Then, the paper SAT on a story that could be possibly damaging to McCain. We know that also. Then, the paper ran the story, when they were about to be scooped by the Washington Post. But the Washington Post didn't include all the rumorish tabloidish stuff about an alleged possible affair. Maybe the NYT went ahead & ran the story because they were about to be scooped, but made sure to include the bit about the affair, to give the MSM something to latch on to, instead of having to report on the meat of the story - the lobbyist ties. If just the WaPo story had run, there would be nothing to talk about except the lobbyist ties. But thanks to the NYT, the MSM had something to grab onto, and the Right had something unsubstantiated to refute. The NYT did McCain another favor by giving the MSM and the Right something to refute, something to focus on (the alleged affair), and some way to blunt the WaPo story, which was solidly and singularly about McCain's lobbyist lovin' history and hypocrisy.

I think the NYT knew exactly what they were doing. A favor for McCain in every way.

[laocoon]

I agree wholeheartedly. Now the story has become an antiliberal one and -like the Rather story on Bush- any subsequent or other legitimate information on the story will be swept under the rug. Seen this many times now and it smells. When will America wake up?

[Mediacurmudgeon]

You make a very interesting point, that publishing the article was a strategic move to help McCain whom it endorsed. However, I think you give the Times too much credit -- I don't think the editors there are strategically crafty at all.