How to sniff out Liberal Bias.
The Gray Lady's 1st ombudsman
By Bob Kohn
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Earlier this week, after an embarrassingly long 90-day search, the New York Times announced the appointment of the paper's first ombudsman or "public editor." Daniel Okrent, a longtime magazine editor and author who served as managing editor of Life magazine, will serve an 18-month term as the paper's "reader representative." Charged with holding the newspaper accountable for inaccuracies (and, presumably, biased reporting), Okrent will write a commentary in the Times on Sundays, though not necessarily every week, beginning in early December.
The appointment of a public editor has been part of the paper's effort to regain the trust of its readers in the aftermath of the Jayson Blair scandal earlier this year. The much-publicized scandal lead to the firing of the paper's executive editor and forever tainted the newspaper's vaunted reputation as a reliable source of news. The questions raised by critics of the Times, in this column and elsewhere, about the kind of person the paper would appoint as its first ombudsman – either someone having the independence necessary to do the job "without fear or favor," or a journalistic insider likely to pay only lip service to enforcing accuracy and impartiality – appears to have had some effect on the paper's ultimate choice.
Not truly an outsider to journalism, but not a scion of the newsroom either, Okrent appears to be somewhere in the middle. Okrent worked as a "stringer" for the New York Times in the late 1960s, but spent most of his career in editor positions for several book publishers, including Alfred A. Knopf and Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. He has been a columnist for Esquire magazine and served as a visiting fellow at the Columbia University School of Journalism.
From these credentials, it is far from clear whether Okrent would recognize clear examples of liberal bias, or even feel the responsibility to look for it in the Times, but there is good reason to give Okrent a chance to prove himself.
If you can believe Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, Okrent is "smart, curious, rigorous, fair-minded and independent." Surprisingly, there are early signs Keller might be right. In an interview earlier this week, Okrent expressed his displeasure with the Times under former executive editor Howell Raines. Specifically, he called the Times' crusade against the all-male Augusta National Golf Club a "humiliation for the newspaper."
The big question, however, is "Why?" Why does Okrent believe the crusade against Augusta National was a humiliation? If he believes, as many of us do, that the crusade was a blatant misuse of the paper's news pages to influence public opinion, then there's reason to hope that Okrent will begin identifying other instances where the Times is slanting the news rather than reporting it impartially.
The evidence suggests, however, that the new public editor faces an uphill battle. Reporting the news impartially doesn't seem to be a concern at all at the Times.
Upon his appointment as executive editor of the Times in June, Keller said charges that his newsroom was liberally biased were "unfounded." When the Times issued its 56-page Siegal Committee report, the result of its investigation of the Jayson Blair scandal, the panel did not once use the words "fairness," "objectivity" or "impartiality." It was the Seigal Committee report that proposed the establishment of the public editor position, but enforcing fairness, objectivity and impartiality were not standards that were included in the public editor's job description.
If the Times does not even acknowledge the existence of bias in its news reporting, how can it be expected to fix it? One lone ombudsman is not likely to make much progress with people who are in such denial. Still, let's give Daniel Okrent a chance. Bill Keller has assured the public that the newspaper waived its right to review Okrent's commentaries before they are published. If that's the case, it's all up to Okrent now (and up to us if he fails).
Note yesterday's headline in the Times' lead story: "BUSH IN A HURRY TO TRAIN IRAQIS IN SECURITY DUTY." Neither the lead sentence of the article nor anyone quoted in the article state that Bush is acting in "a hurry," a phrase which, according to the dictionary, suggests the president may be acting "too rapidly." An unbiased headline (that would have fit within the space constraints of the "A-head") could have been, "BUSH STEPS UP IRAQI TRAINING IN SECURITY DUTY." Get to work, Mr. Okrent!
Bob Kohn is the author of "Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted." Available from ShopNetDaily.
worldnetdaily.com |
