New York Times executive editor Bill Keller has written a long piece talking about how his paper came into possession of the WikiLeaks cables and battlefield dispatches, and its relationship with WikiLeaks's quirky, genius founder, Julian Assange. The story is here.
*Update: I should have noted that Keller's article is an introduction to a 2000-page e-book the NYT will publish Monday on the WikiLeaks affair. The first two chapters are profiles of Assange and the alleged source of the WikiLeaks material, Pfc. Bradley Manning. The rest appears to be a compilation of past stories, along with links to the cables that served as the basis for reporting. The book will sell for $5.99.
Showing posts with label Bill Keller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Keller. Show all posts
Oct 19, 2009
NYT trims newsroom
The New York Times today announced that it will cut 100 jobs from the newsroom, about 8 percent of the total, through buyouts if possible and layoffs if necessary. This is the second time in as many years that the Times has cut staff. In 2008, the paper eliminated roughly 100 positions, most of them outside of the newsroom.
Said Executive Editor Bill Keller, as quoted in the Times:
(via LA Observed)
Said Executive Editor Bill Keller, as quoted in the Times:
As before, if we do not reach 100 positions through buyouts, we will be forced to go to layoffs. I hope that won’t happen, but it might ... I won’t pretend that these staff cuts will not add to the burdens of journalists whose responsibilities have grown faster than their compensation. Like you, I yearn for the day when we can do our jobs without looking over our shoulders for economic thunderstorms.Read Keller's complete memo here.
(via LA Observed)
Jun 17, 2009
Four in the morning
1. For its spring issue, the Pomona College Magazine asked a few alumni to reflect on the turmoil in the newspaper industry. Essays from New York Times media reporter Richard Perez-Pena ('84) and NYT Editor Bill Keller ('70) are included, as well as a story about the changing times at the campus newspaper, The Student Life. PCM (h/t LA Observed)
2. The High Court in Great Britain has rejected an anonymous blogger's request that it block the London Times from publishing his true identity. The blogger, Detective Richard Horton (aka Night Jack), had criticized government and police bureaucracy. After being exposed, he received a written warning. BBC
3. "The National Security Agency is facing renewed scrutiny over the extent of its domestic surveillance program, with critics in Congress saying its recent intercepts of the private telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans are broader than previously acknowledged[.]" NYT
4. Huffington Post is still not turning a profit and says it's "time to invest" - but I don't think that means paying writers. NYO
2. The High Court in Great Britain has rejected an anonymous blogger's request that it block the London Times from publishing his true identity. The blogger, Detective Richard Horton (aka Night Jack), had criticized government and police bureaucracy. After being exposed, he received a written warning. BBC
3. "The National Security Agency is facing renewed scrutiny over the extent of its domestic surveillance program, with critics in Congress saying its recent intercepts of the private telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans are broader than previously acknowledged[.]" NYT
4. Huffington Post is still not turning a profit and says it's "time to invest" - but I don't think that means paying writers. NYO
Feb 2, 2009
Monday links
A California GOP official wants to censure any Republican legislator who agrees to balance the budget through tax increases.
Alan Mutter explains why newspapers can't quit print yet (even the online juggernaut Politico relies on a printed paper to bolster revenue). Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, agrees about print, and has more to say about newspapers here.
The managing editor of the Desert Sun of Palm Springs winds up shirtless along the highway.
Less is more colorful at the San Francisco Chronicle.
Alan Mutter explains why newspapers can't quit print yet (even the online juggernaut Politico relies on a printed paper to bolster revenue). Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, agrees about print, and has more to say about newspapers here.
The managing editor of the Desert Sun of Palm Springs winds up shirtless along the highway.
Less is more colorful at the San Francisco Chronicle.
Feb 21, 2008
The best of Times, the worst of Times
Everyone seems to have an opinion about the New York Times expose of John McCain. From what I've read, most of them seem completely backwards (Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post has a good summary of the aftermath).
From my point of view, the story isn't the problem. It's the presentation.
Clearly, even these old allegations of questionable dealings with lobbyists and power brokers are worth rehashing. Unless you're a political junkie, you probably don't know about them. But the story goes further, leading with allegations of a close relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. According to the story, McCain's own people felt something inappropriate was going on and intervened to push Iseman out of his life.
That's newsworthy. And being newsworthy, it is incumbent upon the Times to ask why. Why did McCain have such a close relationship with this particular lobbyist? Why did his aides become so uncomfortable? Why did they take the extraordinary step of running her off?
The problem, it seems, is that many readers don't like the answers. The Times was left in the unenviable position of publishing these answers, knowing they are bound to offend and open the paper to attack, or hide them out of some rationale of good taste and fairness.
The Times had to publish the information. It's the business they're in. As HST was fond of saying, Buy the ticket, take the ride.
So what went wrong?
The story is full of jerky transitions, it lacks an authoritative voice, and the lede reads more like gawky innuendo than tough-minded reporting. As Gabriel Sherman reports, there was an internal battle over how best to release the beast.
The result is a classic example of journalism by committee - too many cooks and all that.
In the end, I'd guess the more cautious (and senior) editor Bill Keller stripped out much of the reporters' context and background surrounding the allegations of an affair to expose the "facts," thereby leaving the reader to weigh them and decide for him or herself whether they rung true.
The "context and caveats" just aren't there.
Unfortunately, that kind of editing often has the opposite effect of its intent. It leaves the narrative full of holes. Readers - and interested parties - are left to fill those holes in with whatever opinions, theories, conspiracies they have at hand:
Are these gaps a result of shoddy or incomplete reporting? What aren't they telling us? Why did they lead with this allegation of an affair but not make explicit the connection to other parts of the story? Is the Times biased? Why do they hate John McCain? Hate Republicans? Did the paper slip in the bit about the affair just to embarrass McCain? What does Iseman have to do with the Keating Five?
Caution was misinterpreted as coyness. Coyness appears subjective. And subjectivity is an irresponsible motive when these kinds of charges are made.
Uncomfortable facts are like angry badgers. When you catch one, you need to deal with the damn thing yourself, not throw it to the reader and hope for the best.
(Note: David Brooks has an interesting analysis of the men behind McCain - and possibly behind the story.)
Everyone seems to have an opinion about the New York Times expose of John McCain. From what I've read, most of them seem completely backwards (Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post has a good summary of the aftermath).
From my point of view, the story isn't the problem. It's the presentation.
Clearly, even these old allegations of questionable dealings with lobbyists and power brokers are worth rehashing. Unless you're a political junkie, you probably don't know about them. But the story goes further, leading with allegations of a close relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. According to the story, McCain's own people felt something inappropriate was going on and intervened to push Iseman out of his life.
That's newsworthy. And being newsworthy, it is incumbent upon the Times to ask why. Why did McCain have such a close relationship with this particular lobbyist? Why did his aides become so uncomfortable? Why did they take the extraordinary step of running her off?
The problem, it seems, is that many readers don't like the answers. The Times was left in the unenviable position of publishing these answers, knowing they are bound to offend and open the paper to attack, or hide them out of some rationale of good taste and fairness.
The Times had to publish the information. It's the business they're in. As HST was fond of saying, Buy the ticket, take the ride.
So what went wrong?
The story is full of jerky transitions, it lacks an authoritative voice, and the lede reads more like gawky innuendo than tough-minded reporting. As Gabriel Sherman reports, there was an internal battle over how best to release the beast.
The result is a classic example of journalism by committee - too many cooks and all that.
In the end, I'd guess the more cautious (and senior) editor Bill Keller stripped out much of the reporters' context and background surrounding the allegations of an affair to expose the "facts," thereby leaving the reader to weigh them and decide for him or herself whether they rung true.
The "context and caveats" just aren't there.
Unfortunately, that kind of editing often has the opposite effect of its intent. It leaves the narrative full of holes. Readers - and interested parties - are left to fill those holes in with whatever opinions, theories, conspiracies they have at hand:
Are these gaps a result of shoddy or incomplete reporting? What aren't they telling us? Why did they lead with this allegation of an affair but not make explicit the connection to other parts of the story? Is the Times biased? Why do they hate John McCain? Hate Republicans? Did the paper slip in the bit about the affair just to embarrass McCain? What does Iseman have to do with the Keating Five?
Caution was misinterpreted as coyness. Coyness appears subjective. And subjectivity is an irresponsible motive when these kinds of charges are made.
Uncomfortable facts are like angry badgers. When you catch one, you need to deal with the damn thing yourself, not throw it to the reader and hope for the best.
(Note: David Brooks has an interesting analysis of the men behind McCain - and possibly behind the story.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
