The Anchoress

In his column Truth, Justice, Abortion and the Times Magazine the Times’ “public editor” (used to be known as an “ombudsman” a fine word sadly underused) has written a rather strong indictment against a controversial cover story in the Magazine, the story’s writer and editors, and the “top editors” (he wrote that phrase twice) who rather pooh-poohed those who wrote with concerns as to the story’s veracity.

Ombudsman Byron Calame (of whom I wrote disparagingly, here) takes some strong lines, this time.

THE cover story on abortion in El Salvador in The New York Times Magazine on April 9 contained prominent references to an attention-grabbing fact. “A few” women, the first paragraph indicated, were serving 30-year jail terms for having had abortions. That reference included a young woman named Carmen Climaco. The article concluded with a dramatic account of how Ms. Climaco received the sentence after her pregnancy had been aborted after 18 weeks.

It turns out, however, that trial testimony convinced a court in 2002 that Ms. Climaco’s pregnancy had resulted in a full-term live birth, and that she had strangled the “recently born.” A three-judge panel found her guilty of “aggravated homicide,” a fact the article noted. But without bothering to check the court document containing the panel’s findings and ruling, the article’s author, Jack Hitt, a freelancer, suggested that the “truth” was different.

You’ll want to read all of it. Calame examines how the freelance reporter made assumptions that indicate either laziness or staggering naviete (or simply believing what he wanted to believe), and the editor seemed careless as to the legwork (possibly because the story was “too good to check” - rather like Rathergate, as Thomas Lifson notes). Calame also observes that the court documentation telling the whole story was easy to come by.

Calame saves his strongest disapproval for the response by Times’ editors to public queries as to the story’s accuracy: The magazine’s failure to check the court ruling was then compounded for me by the handling of reader complaints about the issue. The initial complaints triggered a public defense of the article by two assistant managing editors before the court ruling had even been translated into English or Mr. Hitt had finished checking various sources in El Salvador. 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.

One thing is clear to me, at this point, about the key example of Carmen Climaco. Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.

Good for Calame for doing his job and taking his publication to task. The Times’ “stood by” the story and seemingly is determined to continue to do so, even in the face of contrary evidence. Kind of reminds me of the AP standing by” the story of four torched mosques and 6 human beings “burned alive” even in the face of dubious evidence and ummm…an often used and “known source” that no one can seem to verify.

Will the AP ever correct itself? One hopes so. As demonstrated by Calame, media outlets (or individual press people) can correct themselves - admitting that maybe the readers who dare question them might be right, once in a while - without much fallout beyond what appears to be a mild sense of humiliation.

DO read Lifson’s piece, which is a good analysis, with lots of background information on the “freelance reporter” and the rest of the players in the NY Times Magazine apparently fake story. And Powerline has more.

Sometimes I observe how audaciously some in the media press their perspectives, even if it requires some distortion, and I get angry because the disrespect for public intelligence is so insulting. I feel a little like Hamlet facing his betraying friend, Guildenstern:

Hamlet: Will you play upon this pipe?
Guildenstern: My lord, I cannot.
Hamlet: I pray you.
Guildenstern: Believe me, I cannot.
Hamlet: I do beseech you.
Guildenstern: I know no touch of it my lord.
Hamlet: It is as easy as lying. [...]
Guildenstern:[...] I have not the skill.
Hamlet Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of
me! You would play upon me [...]‘Sblood, do you think I am
easier to be played on than a pipe? [...]
- Hamlet, Act III

Ahem…there is some evidence that yes, the press thinks we are more easily played than a pipe.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy says The Times Lies About Enemy Combatant Law. He explains how and why. Disingenuous. Disrespectful of readership, too. Here comes the new year, just like the old year. And Newsbusters is starting the new year off with one obnoxious media moment after another. Don’t miss this one. It blew my mind.

UPDATE II: No! Journalists are lockstepping hacks? It can’t be! I’m shocked, shocked! Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit has an answer to them.

UPDATE III: Curt at Flopping Aces is writing on the AP and its methods.

UPDATE IV: Seems the NY Times does not like its ombudsman to do his job, and they may not replace Calame when his contract expires. All that truth-telling makes them feel ooghy. La Malkin also talks about this in her column