Daniel Okrent - I'm Swallowing My Whistle!

Daniel Okrent, Public Editor of the NY Times, is back from vacation. He discusses the Times coverage of the Swift Boat controversy, and we hope to post on that soon. However, he drops the ball when he describes his plan to comment on the Times election coverage *after* the election:

...My colleague Arthur Bovino tells me that while I was away, many readers urged me to write about election coverage sooner rather than later, "while it still might make a difference," as several put it. My take is just the opposite: actor friends tell me that knowing the critics are in the audience will bring out their best performances, whereas the review that finally gets published is often just something to disagree with.

As I understand this, his view is that Times reporters and editors will remain on their most fair and balanced behavior before the election in order to avoid a smiting from the Public Editor after the election.

Ridiculous. As is the analogy to a Broadway play. A play is an ongoing production - a bad review at any time can hurt future ticket sales and close the show.

An election, on the other hand, has an endpoint (if there is a merciful God...). If the reporters and editors of the Times commit themselves to dragging Kerry across the line, and succeed (unlikely), will a scolding from the Public Editor really wipe the smiles from their faces? It will be "Mission Accomplished"!

Rather than thinking of himself as a theater critic, Mr. Okrent might like to picture himself as a basketball referee calling a close game (with a definite endpoint, barring a Florida-style overtime). Would he really think it wise to remove his whistle and ostentatiously put it in his pocket with five minutes to go?

Let's be specific - Teresa Heinz has not disclosed her tax return (the Times made a perfunctory request in April, and seems to have forgotten. Her excuse then was that the return was complicated, extensions were being filed, and her return would not be available until October 15. Ok, then, what about her 2002 return?)

Ms. Heinz is a wealthy heiress who is a perfect candidate for estate- and tax-planning investment vehicles. Her husband is likely to propose tax reform, if elected. Possible conflict? Who wants to picture the scandal if we learn about her tax shelters *after* Kerry has proposed a tax reform that leaves her shelters intact? If the Times ducks this now, will Okrent feel that the Times has fulfilled its public trust?

John Kerry, who was operated on for prostate cancer in 2003, has not disclosed his medical history, preferring instead to release summaries from his long-time physician. The Times does not seem to be pressuring Kerry to release his files. If the American public elects a man who later has a cancer relapse while in office, will Okrent feel that the Times fulfilled its public trust when it ignored this in 2004?

John Kerry promised Tim Russert in April 2004 that he would release his military records. In August, the WaPo reported (relevant excerpt) that roughly 100 documents are still available at the Navy Personnel Command, protected by the privacy rights that John Kerry has so far refused to waive. The Kerry campaign insisted to the WaPo (implausibly) that Kerry's promise had been fulfilled.

Based on Okrent's summary of the Swift Boat controversy in this same column, I do not think he is even aware that this controversy exists, nor does he realize that the Times is not pressuring Kerry at all to fulfill his promise. And yes, those records could be decisive in this campaign - an eyewitness account of the first Purple Heart incident, signed by John Kerry and naming then-Lt. Schachte as a member of the three man crew could end the viability of the Kerry campaign, since it would shatter the credibility of the Band of Brothers. (More at the link, for those who think I am exaggerating).

MORE: Basketball metaphors in September? For non-fans, the point is, the players would play with slightly less respect for the rules if the referee announced (as Okrent just did) that he would not be enforcing the rules while the game was underway, but might assess penalties for bad conduct later.

And of course Times reports favor Kerry. That said, the Kerry campaign is so leaky, and so badly managed, that it provides an endless source of insidery gossip that reporters can re-package as "news". Covering the Kerry campaign must be like covering a teen-age girls slumber party.

Add it together, preference offset by ghastly, gossipy coverage, and it may be a wash. But if the Times stays in the tank on these disclosure questions, a sternly worded rebuke from Oklrent in November won't mean a thing.

Daniel Okrent can be reached at : [email protected]

UPDATE: InstaPundit gets results! And many thanks to everyone who sent Mr. Okrent an e-mail. I have been assured by one who should know that Mr. Okrent has every intention of addressing the Times election coverage prior to the election. Evidently, I misread his column. Or something.

Comments

[Tom Bowler]

"If the reporters and editors of the Times commit themselves to dragging Kerry across the line, and succeed (unlikely)..."

When was there ever any doubt about their commitment? The fact that it now appears unlikely is just dumb luck. Let me not under emphasize "dumb". If their chosen candidate was not so utterly pathetic he'd be breezing into the White House. That's how Clinton got elected in 1992.

[Harry Forbes]

Exactly how Clinton got elected. He polled 43% and that was after the media persuaded Perot to stay in the race and pumped him up like mad.

But that was BEFORE the Web and Blogs existed.

[Andy]

According to:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/article/0,,id=117983,00.html

it would seem that CBS News (and probagbly other MSM "news" organizations) should register with the FEC as 527 Organizations.

[DCRob]

Daniel Orkent is more than a public editor, he's a public embarrassment. He cheerfully looks the other way while the Times shamelessly slants its news coverage of the campaign. When the Times chose Orkent for their first public editor, they chose well. He's a cocker spaniel, administering a small nip now and then, but mostly just happy to be in their company, playing at their feet and showing them love.

[Uncle Mikey]

"Is the NYT a partisan rag that's self-destructing?

OF COURSE."

- Okrent

[Jumbo]

Are we still hoping Okrent will become a clear-eyed, clean-hearted reviewer of NYT practices and prejudices? And exactly what leads us to believe he's even capable of seeing the NYT in an unbiased light?

He has never come close to admitting the errors and slant of a huge percentage of Times political stories, concentrating instead on errors in execution and method. It's as if you've asked a member of the Brotherhood of Edwardian Slashers to critique Jack the Ripper, and he faults Jack for an unprofessional choice of blade.

[TM]

Are we still hoping Okrent will become a clear-eyed, clean-hearted reviewer of NYT practices and prejudices?

Hmm, what the heck *is* my point? Because no, I do not expect reform.

And one might argue that if he does write about it before the election, it will be so tepid that reporters will realize that "out of bounds" is even further from the center than they thought.

My hope is that he will mention the issue, and then other MSM will commence to mock them - at least the story of Kerry's non-disclosure of everything will be in the news.

[WAmom]

I am reminded of the Newsweek that arrived the day AFTER 2000 election day. The writer who had spent months on the campaign trail with Al Gore related how he micro-managed, fired people when things went wrong, didn't listen to people who knew better, and other traits you wouldn't want in the head of a small company, let alone a large country. I thought: this would have changed my vote.

[David Nishimura]

What was Okrent thinking with that theatre analogy?
Or is The Times now going to publish a review only after a show has closed?

[Karen]

I have this vision of Kerry as Gulliver, and the media as Lilliputians trying in vain to drag him over the finish line of the election.

Or maybe Kerry as the Frankenstein monster, and the media up on the tower trying to attract lightning bolts to get him going.

[TM]

...the media up on the tower...

Kristof: "It's alive!"

[Uriel]

After months of exasperating contacts with NYT ombudsman Dan Okrent, I wrote ABOUT him rather than to him. Resultant "Dunce" article led to a public exchange with Okrent re his negligence and specific errors, his claims that his "purview" at the Times is limited, the opaque "apparatus that rules the nation" of which "the Times is a significant component," and journalism as democracy's only hope.

Full text at http://urielw.com/nyt/dunce.htm