nytimes.com
Here's an example of the New York Times' Public Editor desk put to good use: A reader writes in with an astute question about the reliability of Iraqi translators used in conducting interviews in the field, and receives a thorough response under the PE's watchful eye. Specifically, observant New Yorker Mark Schroeder inquired about Richard Oppel's February 23, 2007 piece,"Old Problems Undermine New Security Plan for Baghdad," asking:
[H]ow can someone who does not speak the language of the people involved quote them and determine an accurate set of facts for an article?...The whole premise of the Oppel argument is that the new effort is going to fail because all Iraqis lie and have agendas (except for those who are Oppel's sources). Yet how can he have independently verified this from other sources?
Knowing a good egg when he sees it, possibly-soon-to-be-eliminated Public Editor Byron Calame picked out the query and passed it on to Foreign Desk Editor Andrea Kannapell who composed a detailed response based on consultations with Times correspondents, explaining how the paper offers language training, cultivates relationships with trustworthy local staff and double-checks the accuracy of translations. At the end of the day, everyone is (presumably, anyway) happy - a reader has seen his question taken seriously, while the Paper of Record has maximized an opportunity to describe on the record how its correspondents monitor translator accuracy in the field - an issue that, if left unaddressed, could potentially be used to attack the credibility of its war reporting. Not to throttle a dead horse or anything, but it's moments like this that illustrate just how valuable a role the Public Editor desk plays in preserving accountability at the nation's top paper. We're just sayin.
