Additional Letters: Too Little Information

Following up on the reader letters that appeared in my print column for this week, here are some additional letters via e-mail to my two columns, An American in Pakistan and Business News You Didn’t Read Here.

Dear Mr. Brisbane:
Your piece in the 2/27/11 edition raises many more questions than it answers. For example:

1. Why were you, the so-called “readers’ representative,” talking to Mr. Crowley from the State Department about the Davis case, and when did you speak to him?

2. What exactly was the information that the NYT had about Mr. Davis’s CIA connection, and when did they learn of it? Is there any reason to think that the NYT had information that wasn’t already in the possession of the Pakistanis? The Pakistanis needed a “red flag” from the NYT in order to think that maybe Mr. Davis was working for the CIA?

3. What exactly is the basis for the State Department’s claim that mentioning the CIA connection in an article would put Mr. Davis’s life in danger? Did you or anyone else from the paper question this claim before just accepting it at face value?

It seems the paper has learned nothing from its disgraceful conduct over the WMD issue in Iraq in the build up to the Iraq war. Not only does the paper completely accept the word of some State Department flack and immediately do whatever he says, but then you, the “readers’ representative,” publish an article white washing the whole affair after talking to the same person. You should be ashamed of yourself. Either actually do your job with some independence, or step aside and give someone else a try.

Neil Morse
San Francisco

Mr. Brisbane,
Although I have been a committed NYT reader for several decades this is my first letter to the paper. My disappointment with the manner in which the paper handled the Raymond Davis story compels me to write.

The NYT represents that it provides “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Right or wrong, my take on this promise is twofold. First, if a story is regionally, nationally or internationally important it will be covered and reported objectively and without political influence or interference. Second, once the paper runs with a story its readers are entitled to rely upon the NYT to include all material facts it knows of or, after proper fact checking, has good reason to believe are true, as of the time of publication. In my opinion, the paper failed to keep these promises with the Davis stories.

Going forward, how will I know a story contains the whole truth as known to the Times as of the time the article is published? The sad answer is I will not. Do I keep my subscription?

Robert Zeller
Ridgewood, N.J.

Dear Mr. Brisbane,
No need to apologize for obscuring the profession of Raymond Davis. In fact the NY Times did a very good job of letting us know what was going on. As you well know, often what is not said is as important as what is said and the references over the last few weeks to his ambiguous position at the US embassy basically screamed “CIA”.

It may be because I have lived overseas for years (including in Istanbul and Hanoi where I  met people working under diplomatic cover) but it was clear to me what Davis’ job probably was and I am very surprised by the readers who say they were surprised. Whether the NY Times should have gone along with the government’s request is another matter. I happen to agree with your position.

Anya Schiffrin
Manhattan

To the Public Editor:
Like other Times readers it seems, I was outraged to learn about the considerable delay in reporting the facts of the Davis case. It is not acceptable that the paper bobbed and weaved around the facts as they emerged at the behest of the White House. And yes, deceived readers. To those of us alarmed by the administration’s wanton pursuit of whistle blowers, and it’s steadfast adherence to many of the odious principles of the last regime, this arrangement brings back bad memories. Delay and obfuscation were the “only thing [the paper] could do?”

In my opinion, it’s outrageous. The Public Editor’s column of February 27th did nothing to alter my perception. I found this point particularly problematic:

“In military affairs, there is a calculus that balances the loss of life against the gain of an objective. In journalism, though, there is no equivalent. Editors don’t have the standing to make a judgment….”

Truth, context, and ultimately enlightenment, Mr. Brisbane, are worthy objectives for the journalist. And as Times staffers on the ground know, they demand sacrifice – but not always on the part of the journalist. What of those occasions when sources speak out or are photographed? They trade their security to communicate their perspective. These sources presumably understand and consent….so why wouldn’t we consider that a member of the military (or a professional mercenary on the private contractor payroll for that matter) operates under the same understanding?

Here we are not talking about a hostage circumstance but instead an ally holding a combatant in formal confinement.

In this situation, why should journalists feel constrained about reporting? Doesn’t that compromise our search for truth and context? Yes it does. But according to your argument, any such instance might beg a call from the administration to delay or silence a story.

What else don’t we readers know that we should know – and that we need to know? Your defense (judgment?) of the Times rings false.

Mark Elliot
Beverly Hills, Calif.

Mr. Brisbane,
Your column Sunday makes no sense whatsoever to me, as a reader, as a journalist or as a media ethicist.

First, as I read your column, you said that the Times agreed to suppress “charges in the Pakistani press” to avoid inflaming the Pakistanis. In other words, Americans were not told of charges made in the Pakistani press because the Pakistanis might learn of charges that were already running in their own press? I can’t believe you’re making such an illogical point, but I can’t read your column in any other way. Who exactly didn’t know of the charges? Apparently only your American readers.

Second, you quote Bob Woodward as saying that “the Davis affair is just ‘the tip of the iceberg’ of intensive secret warfare the United States is waging in the region.” That appears to suggest that you endorse telling neither the American people nor the Pakistanis of the extent of American warfare on their country, against which there is no declaration of war. Surely we have a right to know which countries we’re at war with and in what ways, and if the Pakistanis don’t already know they’re under internal attack by U.S. agents — and I doubt that — then they have a right to know as well. It’s certainly not the duty of the press to knowingly suppress that information, much less to knowingly “report” statements (on Raymond Davis’s government position) that you know not to be true.

You also state that in journalism there is no “calculus that balances the loss of life against the gain of an objective.” You quote Woodward as apparently concurring when he states that “humanitarian considerations first, journalism second.”

You both seem unaware that the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which I helped to write, contains just the sort of balancing calculus that you say has no equivalent in journalism. The balancing values are “Seek truth and report it” and “Minimize [not eliminate] harm.” When a request from a government to suppress information so contorts your coverage that you are actively distorting the truth of a significant news development, there is indeed a calculus that seems to override a slavish devotion to whatever request the government makes.

Even more troubling, if possible, is that the Times continued to remain silent on the fact that it was taking orders from the government even after a report in the British press that it was doing so. Please explain how suppressing information available in both Pakistan and Briton enhances the transparency and credibility of the Times’ journalism.

If the values of journalism were as simplistic as you portray them, journalists deserve no credibility whatsoever in covering the activities of this country abroad and the reactions there to our policies. I hope you and the Times can restore the trust of your readership.

Peter Sussman
Berkeley, Calif.

Dear Mr. Brisbane:
I appreciated your informative column this morning on the prospect of pay-to-read online.

I am willing to pay fees to read online. It is a necessity for me. I suspect that as a seven-day-per-week subscriber, I will retain a level of access that is differentiated from the fees charged to non-subscribers. I also am very much aware that this sea change looms and I also recognize why it is necessary to impose fees.

So none of the foregoing is of great consequence for me.

What surprised me — and your column unsheathed it superbly — is the fact that the Times has done next to nothing by way of reporting on pay-to-read-online.

I urge you to check on the NY Times coverage of the travails of the Chicago Tribune and its parent Tribune Company. I learned more about the ongoing backstory regarding the Tribune from the Times than any other new source. To be quite specific, when the Tribune’s hostile workplace environment for women was uncovered last year, it was front page news in the Times. Indeed, the Times coverage was the talk of Chicago.

Although pay-to-read online at the Times isn’t comparable to the foregoing matter at the Tribune, it is unquestionably newsworthy. Readers shouldn’t have to learn about it in the Wall Street Journal.

I commend the Public Editor for raising this matter for devoted readers of the New York Times.

Michael H. Ebner
Lake Forest, Ill.

Mr. Brisbane, could you explain why the Times has any responsibility to prematurely release details of internal business decisions related to charging to access its Web Site? While I think it would be to management’s advantage to float information so as to encourage feed back; I see no evidence the public is being deprived by being kept out of the loop. My life does not change an iota by not knowing exactly how a subscription plan will work. I would argue that many more people are significantly affected by the automobile industry’s secrecy about yearly model changes or Apple’s furtiveness regarding the release of new products; yet journalists seem content to allow these, and related subterfuges to exist.

We can wait until the Times has a fully thought out plan and then pile on with criticism of how lame and ill-conceived it is. You should be delighted—the complaints will keep you busy.

Laurence Schiffman
Middleton, Wis.