The rhyme and reason of the New York Times, or lack thereof

If I read something in the New York Times or any other news entity that I believe misleads the reader, I usually contact that organization and request an official response. Sometimes, like the Associated Press, they choose not to respond. Other times, these organizations do respond, although some respond and then in their response claim they haven't responded while responding.

The NYT Public Editor, its ombudsman, does respond. I've directed several communiques to the ombudsman for the NYT, which it calls its Public Editor. I've complained about

• the advertisement placed on its online pages by SpikeTV that pokes fun at large people,
• the failure by its reporters to include complete background information on PBS journalist and Lyndon Johnson protege Bill Moyers in an article I deemed heavily biased against Corporation for Public Broadcasting chairman Kenneth Tomlinson,
  
• and I've also questioned what the editorial criteria is for determining whether a written work published in the newspaper was classified a news report, a news analysis, or an opinion piece.
  

The NYT has a style guide for grammar and spelling to ensure uniformity in its grammar and spelling. And there are various employee handbooks at the NYT as might be found in any business. But apparently there are no written, codified, clarifying criteria at the NYT that editors can follow or to which they may refer in determining whether a written work is a report, an analysis or an opinion. This may come as a shock, but it's apparently a very subjective judgement made off-the-cuff by each and every particular section editor who follows his or her individual instinct but no newspaper-wide guidelines. What is a news report to one editor may be a news analysis to another and an opinion piece for the Op-Ed pages with still another editor. I'd go so far as to say experienced-based whimsey and happenstance are the core of some of these editorial decisions.

You might already have guessed this. But what may be really surprising to you is that the NYT's own ombudsman follows the same train of thought in this particular matter.

The particular examples I questioned the NYT's Public Editor about were two articles appearing in the April 1, 2005 issue of the NYT. My e-mail to the Public Editor follows:

Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:14:31 -0500
To: pubXX@nytXXes.com
From: Mark McBride (by way of Public)
Subject: 4/1 Schiavo's Case May Reshape American Law
Dear Public Editor:

hyperlink to story

"Schiavo's Case May Reshape American Law, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg," published today 4/1/2005, is not a news report, but a "news analysis" at best that should have been labelled as such or commentary that should have been placed in the appropriate pages as an opinion piece.

I submit, sir, that it should have been labelled "News Analysis" by the editor, just as "A Final Verdict on Prewar Intelligence Is Still Elusive," by Todd S. Purdum was in the same issue.

Can you please ask the editor of the Washington section to explain why Mr. Purdum's article was "news analysis" while Ms. Stolberg's article was not? What is the defined editorial criteria by the editor for determining whether a reporter's submission qualifies as a news report, news analysis or opinion? Is this criteria/policy one that is standardized and in writing or is it left to the editor's discretion and state of mind on the date of publication?

Last night I received a reply from Daniel Okrent, Public Editor for the NYT:

Dear Mr. McBride,

The best I've been able to determine (i)s that there was no formal reason, just oversight. It may well should have carried the "news analysis" bug, but the criteria for slapping one on an article are vague, the practices irregular, and the results unpredictable.

I'm speaking only for myself, of course, and not for The Times's management.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
N.B.: Any opinions expressed here, unless otherwise indicated, are solely my own

(For those unfamilier with newspaper slang, a "bug" is another term for a subhead, in this case the words "News Analysis." The bold-facing in Mr. Okrent's e-mail is my emphasis.)

I asked Mr. Okrent for a reply in his official capacity as Public Editor and he explained: "From the moment I took this job (as Public Editor, the ombudsman for the New York Times), I have only spoken for myself, and not for the paper or its owners. This is made clear in the italic box that runs with my column, and in all my written and spoken communications."

I'm guessing this is a legal requirement to cover the corporation. But Mr. Okrent's the Public Editor, the official ombudsman for the NYT, hired by the newspaper management to represent the readers to the editors and management of the NYT, and this is his opinion.

I would think the readers might place more faith in the decision-making process at the NYT than is warranted given this information and that it might stun them to find that such decisions are off-the-cuff by each individual editor "winging it" on no guidelines.

There is a public perception that the news matter contained within the NYT is biased, and biased to the left. The lack of guidelines, I would think, would tend to lend credence to this perception.

If the criteria for determining whether an article is a news report, an opinion piece or a new analysis are vague, unwritten and determined by each individual editor, wouldn't that result in the potential for individual bias by editors who have no guidelines?

You, as the news consumer, are left to fill in the blanks yourself on that answer. I'll bet you can guess what my opinion on the subject is.

[Update 5/9/2005: Daniel Okrent, the NYT's Public Editor/ombudsman, participated in a live call-in program, "Talk of the Nation," today on NPR. This daily talk show, hosted by Neal Conan, isn't broadcast by all NPR stations, but it is broadcast in Baton Rouge. I was on the road but pulled over to the side of the highway, called in and was able to speak very briefly with Mr. Okrent about his comments. Listen to what Mr. Okrent had to say on the show by selecting this link and you will become a better informed consumer of news. The entire program was very good, given the limited time of radio, but if you're in a hurry, if you head about 25 minutes, 55 seconds into the 30 minute, 15 second show, you'll catch my comments and Mr. Ohkrent's reply. A committee looking at the problems that faced the New York Times -- from bias to the "creative writing" by former reporter Jayson Blair -- today issued a report suggesting changes. It was a busy day for me today and I'll post on this when I have more time. (If you don't like the sound of my cellphone, talk to Cingular -- five bars and it's still a Nokia P.O.S. That's what happens when cellphone makers make cellphones to satisfy the needs of cellular telephone companies instead of satisfying the needs of consumers. But that's another rant for another day.)]

---

Porn spam Easter egg of the day:

Sentimental irony is a dog that bays at the moon while pissing on graves.