SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (18845)12/6/2003 2:26:32 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793759
 
Good opening column from a man with a very tough job.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 7, 2003
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
An Advocate for Times Readers Introduces Himself
By DANIEL OKRENT

WHEN The New York Times invites you to be the first person charged with publicly evaluating, criticizing and otherwise commenting on the paper's integrity, it's hard to say no: this is a pretty invigorating challenge. It's also hard to say yes: there are easier ways to make friends.

Reporters and editors (the thickness of their skin measurable in microns, the length of their memories in elephant years) will resent the public second-guessing. The people who run the newspaper may find themselves wondering how they might get away with firing me before my 18-month term is up. Too many combatants in the culture wars, loath to tolerate interpretations other than their own, will dismiss what I say except when it serves their ideological interests.

But those are their problems, not mine. My only concern in this adventure is dispassionate evaluation; my only colleagues are readers who turn to The Times for their news, expect it to be fair, honest and complete, and are willing to trust another such reader — me — as their surrogate.

So who am I?

By training and experience, I'm a journalist: for 25 years a magazine writer and editor, for the last couple of years (and during various other between-gigs intervals) a writer of books; earlier in my career, I spent nearly a decade as a book editor. When I was in school in the 1960's, I was a not-very-good campus correspondent for The Times, a little on the lazy side, rarely willing to make the third or fourth phone call to confirm the accuracy of what I'd been told on the first one. Instead I expended my energies in that hyperventilated era as a shamelessly partisan and embarrassingly inaccurate reporter for my college newspaper. Early in my magazine career, I at times participated in a form of attack journalism that today fills me with remorse — picking a target and sending out a reporter to bring back the scalp. I got fairer, and better, as I got older.

By upbringing and habit, I'm a registered Democrat, but notably to the right of my fellow Democrats on Manhattan's Upper West Side. When you turn to the paper's designated opinion pages tomorrow, draw a line from The Times's editorials on the left side to William Safire's column over on the right: you could place me just about at the halfway point. But on some issues I veer from the noncommittal middle. I'm an absolutist on free trade and free speech, and a supporter of gay rights and abortion rights who thinks that the late Cardinal John O'Connor was a great man. I believe it's unbecoming for the well off to whine about high taxes, and inconsistent for those who advocate human rights to oppose all American military action. I'd rather spend my weekends exterminating rats in the tunnels below Penn Station than read a book by either Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore. I go to a lot of concerts. I hardly ever go to the movies. I've hated the Yankees since I was 6.

To the degree that I've been the subject of Times reporting or commentary, I've generally been treated fairly. In 1985, though, a book of mine was clobbered in the Book Review (". . . [it] has difficulties with detail, pace and even words. . . . When Mr. Okrent is not forcing phrases, he collapses into cliché. . . .") by someone whose own book I had reviewed negatively — for The Times! — not three years earlier. My wife tells me I should get over it, but a grudge like this is much too nourishing to give up after only 18 years. It's also a reminder that real people can get hurt by a newspaper's missteps, and maybe I was made to suffer that review so I could empathize with similarly aggrieved parties two decades later.

Since my appointment was announced, I've heard complaints about the paper so intense they could peel paint. A former colleague told me she canceled her subscription because of The Times's "virulent anti-Catholicism." An acquaintance's parents consider the paper "prima facie anti-Semitic." One of my oldest friends is boycotting The Times because of what he considers its conscious hostility to conservatives and its "institutional inaccuracy." Another friend, inflamed by what he deems the absence of coverage of post-Taliban Afghanistan, asks, "Isn't The N.Y. Times as complicit as the Bush administration in ignoring this poor country?"

Let me acknowledge a theological principle of my own: I believe The Times is a great newspaper, but a profoundly fallible one. Deadline pressure, the competition for scoops, the effort at impartiality that can sometimes make you lean over so far backward that you lose your balance altogether — these are inescapably part of the journalism business. So is the boiling resentment toward men and women in power that can arise in a trade that requires, as Russell Baker once wrote, "sitting in marble corridors waiting for important people to lie" to you.

Journalistic misfeasance that results from what one might broadly consider working conditions may be explainable, but it isn't excusable. And misfeasance becomes felony when the presentation of news is corrupted by bias, willful manipulation of evidence, unacknowledged conflict of interest — or by a self-protective unwillingness to admit error. That's where you and I come in. As public editor, I plan on doing what I've done for 37 years, reading the paper every day as if I, like you, were asking it to be my primary source of news and commentary (and ruefully expecting it to enrage me every so often as only a loved one can). But to enable me to represent you effectively when you have a complaint about The Times's integrity, the top editors are granting me open access to the entire staff, and space right here, every other week (more often if I think it's necessary), to comment on its work.

My copy will not be edited, except for grammar, spelling, and the like. Staff members are not required to answer my questions about coverage, presentation or other aspects of journalistic practice, but if they choose not to, I'll say so. In the interest of open communication with my fellow readers, I will try very hard not to speak to anyone at The Times off the record, on background, not for attribution, or under the cover of any of the other obfuscating cloud formations that befog modern journalism. I want to be able to let you know what I know — to remain a reader, even if a reader with an all-access backstage pass. I never want to be in the position of saying, "I know they did this right, but I'm not allowed to tell you why." The paper's operations may not always be transparent, but I hope my own arguments, assertions and, as necessary, indictments will be.

If I were running for re-election, you'd have every reason to doubt my independence; consequently, on May 29, 2005, by mutual agreement with executive editor Bill Keller, my name will disappear from the head of this column and from The Times's payroll ledger. Until then, I'll let my fellow readers decide if I'm doing my job honestly. Here's wishing good luck, and good will, to us all. See you in two weeks.

The public editor, who serves as the readers' representative, may be reached by e-mail: public@nytimes.com. Telephone messages: (212) 556-7652. His column will appear at least twice monthly in this section.

nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (18845)12/6/2003 3:24:35 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793759
 
Chomsky answers your questions. From a published interview in "Independent" today. I was going to fisk them. But I thought it would be more fun to let the people who read this do so.


Noam Chomsky: You Ask The Questions
(Such as: is human survival really under serious threat? And how easy is it for you, as a linguist, to understand teenage slang?)
04 December 2003

Professor Noam Chomsky, 74, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, into the only Jewish family in a lower-middle-class neighbourhood. He took a degree and then a PhD in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. At the age of 29, he published Syntactic Structures, which revolutionised the study of language. In 1964, he began openly resisting the Vietnam War, and published his first collection of political writings five years later. He has remained a major authority on both linguistics and political theory ever since. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with his wife, Carol, and has three children.

If you had only one question to ask the Presidentof the United States, what would it be?
Michael Kulas, by e-mail

Why doesn't he abdicate, thus doing the world a great favour?

What has been your biggest mistake, and would you make it again if you could relive your life?
Steve Womble, Sunderland

The failure to do anywhere near enough to try to put an end to suffering and crimes for which I share responsibility as a citizen of a free country, enjoying unusual privilege and opportunity. But that is a mistake I make every day.

Is anti-Semitism on the increase?
Ricardo Parreira, London

In the West, fortunately, it scarcely exists now, though it did in the past. There is, of course, what the Anti-Defamation League calls "the real anti-Semitism", more dangerous than the old-fashioned kind: criticism of policies of the state of Israel and US support for them, opposition to a vast US military budget, etc. In contrast, anti-Arab racism is rampant. The manifestations are shocking, in elite intellectual circles as well, but arouse little concern because they are considered legitimate: the most extreme form of racism.

Where is the "silent genocide" you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?
Mike Dudley, Ipswich

That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First, the facts: I predicted nothing. Rather, I reported the grim warnings from virtually every knowledgeable source that the attack might lead to an awesome humanitarian catastrophe, and the bland announcements in the press that Washington had ordered Pakistan to eliminate "truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population".

All of this is precisely accurate and entirely appropriate. The warnings remain accurate as well, a truism that should be unnecessary to explain. Unfortunately, it is apparently necessary to add a moral truism: actions are evaluated in terms of the range of anticipated consequences.

Will there be a state of Israel in 50 years' time? What form will it take?
Jo Honer, Portsmouth

There is still a bare prospect for the kind of two-state settlement that has been supported by a broad international consensus since the mid-1970s, including the majority of Americans, but has been unilaterally barred by the US. But that prospect is fading fast. Israel is in no danger as a state, but for the Palestinians, the future is not pleasant to contemplate.

Do you think the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power?
Clive Norton, Godalming

Certainly not. That is why I have opposed US-UK policies since they began their strong support for the murderous thug 25 years ago, continuing long after his worst atrocities were well-known. They returned to support for Saddam in 1991 when he crushed a rebellion that might have overthrown him, because they held the "strikingly unanimous view [that] whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression" (New York Times).

To counter all the depressing news reports about seemingly omnipotent corporations, corrupt politicians and ignorant or disenfranchised subjects, are there any recent "points of light", that would encourage hope?
Michael Pilkington, by e-mail

I can only repeat what I've often written. The US, and the West generally, has become far more civilised in the past 40 years, thanks to the activism of mostly young people in the 1960s and since. It is easy to give examples, including opposition to aggression and massacre, but also in many other domains as well. Of course, every effort is made to induce hopelessness and despair, but there is no reason to succumb. The future is in our hands, and the opportunities today are far greater than they have been in the past.

What has been the biggest mistake of Tony Blair's premiership?
Sarah Paulsen, London

From my perspective, his virtually reflexive support for atrocious policies carried out in Washington.

As a linguist, do you understand 21st-century teenage slang?
Jackie Dean, Birmingham

I cannot understand the words of the music my grandchildren listen to, or sometimes them either, but that has nothing to do with being a linguist: rather, becoming an old codger. I had the same problem 40 years ago, though.

You have mentioned on several occasions that human survival may be at stake, in reference to the quest for world domination stated explicitly by the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States. How serious is this threat? And how can we reduce it?
Kelly Patrick Gerling, Kansas, USA

The threat is serious. The declaration was followed by actions to demonstrate that these are not empty words. One was the virtual announcement that Iraq would be invaded, without international authorisation or credible pretext. The administration also moved at once to block international efforts to enforce bio-weapons treaties, to ban militarisation of space and to reaffirm protocols banning bacteriological weapons. It also announced that it would move from "control" to "ownership" of space, proceeding with plans to use space for offensive weapons and surveillance systems that place the world at the mercy of a devastating attack without warning.

Of course, others react. As predicted, the weak react by resorting to terror and WMD; the strong by building up their own offensive capacities. Russia has rapidly expanded its offensive weapons, adopted the Bush first-strike doctrine and moved to automated delivery systems, an extreme hazard. China is doing much the same, with a ripple effect spreading to India, Pakistan and beyond.

Reducing the threats is easily within our means. We are fortunate to enjoy an unusual legacy of freedom and privilege and can act to change government policy in ways not available to others who, nevertheless, continue to struggle courageously in ways that should put us to shame.

Do you listen to music while you write your books about the world's problems? If so, what kind of music?
Barbara Mallett, Hove

I'm afraid I'm an old-fashioned conservative. I listen to classical music, but little from after the 1930s and mostly from long before. I don't listen to music while I'm working.

What do you do for fun? And do you have a favourite joke?
Liz Sturt, Petworth

I am constitutionally incapable of remembering jokes for more than 10 minutes. For fun? Grandchildren - something I highly recommend.
news.independent.co.uk



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (18845)12/7/2003 1:54:06 AM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793759
 
If she doesn't, then it will be interesting to see what Dean does with McAllife.

Of course, the entire party could use some charm school lessons...maybe he will be the first to go. <g>