Michelle Malkin appropriately calls this another textbook case of journalistic malpractice by the New York Slimes.
Message 23145903
****
No Correction Necessary
Power Line
The cover story in the New York Times Magazine of April 9, 2006, was an article on the horrors of life in El Salvador, where abortion is illegal. The article was written by freelancer Jack Hitt, whose far-left perspective is obvious if you google his name.
Hitt alleged that in El Salvador, women convicted of abortion can serve long jail terms; the story's opening paragraph said that "a few" women had been sentenced to 30 year jail terms for obtaining abortions. Hitt featured one such woman, Carmen Climaco.
The Times' Public Edidor, Byron Calame, tells the story in the Times today. Hitt wrote that Climaco was sentenced to 30 years in prison for having an abortion after 18 weeks of pregnancy. In describing her case, he noted that she had been convicted of "aggravated homicide," but Hitt wrote that the "truth" was different.
It turns out that Hitt made no effort to check the court's records on the case. In fact, the claim that Ms. Climaco had "only" had an abortion was her defense. That defense was rejected by a three-judge panel which found her guilty of infanticide. The court relied on medical evidence, including evidence of the baby's autopsy, to find that the infant had been born and then murdered by Ms. Climaco. It was for murder, not abortion, that she was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment.
These facts, Calame writes, were easily available, but Mr. Hitt made no effort to discover them, but instead blithely misrepresented the case in the New York Times Magazine. Calame's account of the incident is troubling; what is even more troubling, though, is the Times's response when Hitt's error was brought to its attention.
Did the Times issue a correction? No:
<<< After being queried by the office of the publisher about a possible error, Craig Whitney, who is also the paper's standards editor, drafted a response that was approved by Gerald Marzorati, who is also the editor of the magazine. It was forwarded on Dec. 1 to the office of the publisher, which began sending it to complaining readers.
The response said that while the "fair and dispassionate" story noted Ms. Climaco's conviction of aggravated homicide, the article "concluded that it was more likely that she had had an illegal abortion." The response ended by stating, "We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts as reported in our article, which was not part of any campaign to promote abortion." >>>
The Times disseminated this response before the court documents had even been translated. Once they were translated, and Hitt's account was shown to be false, did the paper change its tune? No:
<<< After the English translation of the court ruling became available on Dec. 8, I asked Mr. Marzorati if he continued to have "no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts" in the article. His e-mail response seemed to ignore the ready availability of the court document containing the findings from the trial before the three-judge panel and its sentencing decision. He referred to it as the "third ruling," since the trial is the third step in the judicial process.
The article was "as accurate as it could have been at the time it was written," Mr. Marzorati wrote to me. "I also think that if the author and we editors knew of the contents of that third ruling, we would have qualified what we said about Ms. Climaco. Which is NOT to say that I simply accept the third ruling as `true'; El Salvador's judicial system is terribly politicized." >>>
Note three things. First, Mr. Marzorati's statement that Hitt's article was as accurate as it could have been at the time is absurd. The article post-dated the court's ruling. Second, the issue is not whether one accepts the court's findings as "true." While there is no reason to doubt that the court correctly interpreted the facts of the case, the relevant point is that Ms. Climaco was found guilty of murder, not abortion. And finally, anyone reading this account is likely to conclude that it is the New York Times, not El Salvador, that takes a "terribly politicized" view of abortion.
One final point: a Times official wrote that Hitt's story "was not part of any campaign to promote abortion." But Calame reveals that Hitt used for his interviews with Ms. Climaco and others "an unpaid translator who has done consulting work for Ipas, an abortion rights advocacy group...." Ipas then turned around and used Hitt's article as the basis for a fundraising appeal:
<<< Ipas used The Times's account of Ms. Climaco's sentence to seek donations on its Web site for "identifying lawyers who could appeal her case" and to help the organization "continue critical advocacy work" across Central America. "A gift from you toward our goal of $30,000 will help Carmen and other Central American women who are suffering under extreme abortion laws," states the Web appeal.... >>>
This incestuous relationship between the newspaper and a pro-abortion advocacy group bothers Calame, but it apparently doesn't bother the editors of the Times.
The fundamental point, however, is more basic: the Times misreported a critical fact in a cover story in its magazine, and refuses to make a correction even after the error has been called to its attention. When it comes to abortion, it is more important--for the Times, anyway--to be on the "right" side than it is to be right.
To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com
powerlineblog.com
nytimes.com |
