A Double Standard on Reporters Who Express Opinions?

The New York Times recently published an editor's note about a February 4 front-page article regarding an Afghan detainee who died in U.S. custody at Guantanamo. The note said that Andy Worthington, the article's co-author, should not have gotten a byline because he has expressed an opinion on Guantanamo: Worthington had written a book that endorsed the mainstream legal position that it's illegal to imprison people without either a trial or the rights accorded to prisoners of war.

On February 12, FAIR wrote to the Times' public editor to ask why the paper appears to have such a different standard when it comes to the paper's military correspondent, Michael Gordon, who continues to write about the Bush administration's "surge" strategy in Iraq even after voicing strong support for it on national TV.

Gordon explicitly endorsed "surge" on the Charlie Rose show , saying that "I think it's worth...one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win." The Times' Washington bureau chief downplayed the incident, saying Gordon's remarks were merely "a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and un-opinionated way."

Indeed, Gordon's expression of support for the troop surge does seem to be just another way of delivering the message that his news articles on the surge repeatedly convey through the uncritical reliance on official sources and avoidance of dissenting opinion. The headline of Gordon's February 13 article, "Making a Case for a Pause in Troop Cutbacks in Iraq," is illustrative of the convergence of official opinion and reporting that characterizes Gordon's work.

I am still waiting to hear back from New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt -- who, by the way, can be reached at [e-mail].

Dear Clark Hoyt,

The New York Times recently published an unusual editor's note about the February 4 front-page article, "Time Runs Out for an Afghan Held by the U.S."

The note concerned Andy Worthington, one of the two journalists identified in the article's byline: The note concerned Andy Worthington, one of the two journalists identified in the article's byline:

Mr. Worthington has written a book, The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison, in which he takes the position that Guantánamo is part of what he describes as a cruel and misguided response by the Bush administration to the September 11 attacks. He has also expressed strong criticism of Guantánamo in articles published elsewhere.

The editors were not aware of Mr. Worthington's outspoken position on Guantánamo. They should have described his contribution to the reporting instead of listing him as co-author, and noted that he had a point of view.

There is no indication that Worthington's reporting was flawed in any way. What the paper is saying is that Worthington's critical view of Guantánamo disqualifies him from having a byline on a Times article on the subject, and must be noted whenever he contributes to such a story.

Is this rule applied to all Times reporters covering any subject? It would seem not. The Times' response to its chief military correspondent Michael Gordon expressing a point of view on national TV on the very topic he covers as a reporter provides an instructive comparison.

On the Charlie Rose show (1/8/07), the host asked Gordon if he believed "victory is within our grasp." Gordon responded by endorsing the White House's call for a "troop surge":

"So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it's worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

The Times' public editor at the time, Byron Calame, wrote (1/28/07) that he "raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon's voicing of personal opinions with top editors." The Washington bureau chief assured Calame that Gordon's remarks were merely "a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and un-opinionated way. Gordon continued to write about the "surge" for the Times, with no mention made of the fact that he had publicly voiced support for the military strategy.

Of course, Gordon is a Times staffer, while Worthington is a freelancer. But it's unclear why you would want more stringent rules for opinions expressed by occasional freelancers as opposed to staffers who write regularly for your publication.

Another perhaps more relevant difference between the two cases is that Gordon's opinion was strongly supportive of the White House, while Worthington had been critical. Was this a factor in the Times decision-making? Was the editor's note prompted by Bush administration complaints?

The Times' response regarding the Guantánamo article stands in sharp contrast to its inaction regarding a complaint brought by FAIR about another recent Times article, a front-page piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (1/28/08) that claimed that George W. Bush "has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents." This assertion has no basis in fact (see FAIR's Action Alert, 1/28/08), yet the Times had no response to FAIR's request for a correction. When the paper moves swiftly to distance itself from an article with no apparent factual problems, one can't help but wonder about the paper's journalistic priorities.

We look forward to your response.

Isabel Macdonald
Communications Director
FAIR

Comments

[huffyanika]

It sounds as if this guy should not be 'the' writer on the surge WITHOUT expressing his opinion openly.

Journalists who claim they don't have opinions are lying (hopefully; a person without an opinion is not educated, or human). Within journalists' reporting there are opinions; this is expressed by their choices of interviewees, quotees, sources, etc. When reporters or talk show hosts or other media types claim they do not have or do not share their opinions this should always be suspect. I agree with my old friend, an anthropology professor, who always told her classes her political perspectives and values at the start of the course -- since it would be reflected in her choice of assignments and in her lectures; and told them that other professors were doing them a disservice when they didn't divulge their own personal perspectives, as students would be affected anyway and not know where it was coming from; much like effective advertising, when the message is hidden in a clever and diversionary story, but you find yourself buying the product and don't know where the hypnosis came from. In psychotherapy, when therapists deny that they have an opinion or a judgement on a client's subject this is crazy-making for the client. On some level the client knows you do.

Opinions always seep through. To deny this is crazy-making for the reader, listener, watcher, client, whomever. The NY Times really should have known that the reporter held these opinions (pro-surge, pro-war) and that he was getting his information from the administration. Has the NY Times never learned from their getting scammed by Judith Miller? Is there no historical memory in that organization? Are NY Times editors going to continue to make us crazy and give us wrong information? Or what?

[Merlin7]

So what else is new? The Times, CNN and other MSM at times seem to be echo chambers for the White House, especially regarding the so-called War on Terror (which, oddly enough, was focused on a place where Al Queda was not present). And when you ask for explanations you are met with silence or some very entertaining tap-dancing. Owning a large media outlet means never having to say you're sorry -- and mean it.

[rwoodsathome]

Reporters with opinions are called editorialists. If they want to write editorials get an editorial job.

A reporter should report both sides of the facts in such a way as to allow the reader (listener) to make an informed judgment.

[hopeless277]

I think you'll find all the answers you desire in the upcoming book 'Wiretapping The Press for Fun and Profit' by George W. Bush. It explains it all.