Fiasco at the New York Times

Sandy Levinson

"It was a puzzling and disconcerting experience, and I worked hard in the ensuing days to figure it out. Finally, it came to me. Thinking back to my college days in those troubled and tumultuous late 1960’s, there were many things that divided my generation. For the men in particular, of course, it was what stance to take toward the draft—acquiescence, artful avoidance, or active resistance. For many of us, it was over how actively we should commit ourselves to the great causes of civil rights and the antiwar movement. (The women’s movement was barely on the horizon at that point.) I remember that in the spring of 1968, the editors of the Harvard Crimson almost came to blows over whether the paper should support Eugene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Yet despite all these controversies, we were absolutely united in one conviction: the belief that in future decades, if the world lasted that long, when our turn came to run the country, we wouldn’t make the same mistakes. Our generation would do a better job. I cried that night in the Simon and Garfunkel concert out of the realization that my faith had been misplaced. We were not doing a better job. We had not learned from the old mistakes. Our generation had not proved to be the solution. We were the problem.

And of course my little crying jag occurred before we knew the worst of it, before it was clear the extent to which our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world. And let’s not forget the sustained assault on women’s reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism. To say that these last years have been dispiriting is an understatement. I hope that today’s undergraduates are taking the same vow that we did then, and I hope for all our sakes that they get closer to fulfilling it than we did."

The speech addressed as well the many ways that things are indeed better since the 1960s, including the new opportunities available to women. Linda (who is a friend of mine) spoke of arguing with her mother that things are not so bad as she (her mother) thinks they are:

"I suppose that if I had to boil down my side of the argument with my mother to one thought, it would be that in my lifetime, I have seen. . . fences . . . lowered, with a corresponding increase in the opportunities to make and maintain connections across barriers that not so long ago were nearly impermeable. As I look toward the next chapter in my life, I feel a growing sense of obligation to reach across the absurd literal fence that some of our policy makers want to build on the Mexican border and to do what I can to help those whose only offense is to want to improve their lives."

The speech formed the basis of last Sunday's "public editor" column in the Times, headlined "Hazarding Personal Opinions in PUblic Can Be Hazardous for Journalists," taking Linda to task for these comments. He wrote as follows:

"The Times’s ethical guideline states that news staffers appearing on radio or television “should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say in the paper.” It is obvious, I think, that the guideline also applies to other venues. And Bill Keller, the executive editor, made clear in an e-mail message to me that the standard applies to all Times journalists “when they speak in public.”

"It seems clear to me that Ms. Greenhouse stepped across that line during her speech. Times news articles are not supposed to contain opinion. A news article containing the phrase “the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism” would get into the paper only as a direct quote from a source. The same would go for any news article reference to “the ridiculous actual barrier” on the Mexican border."

He noted that "Ms. Greenhouse told me she considers her remarks at Harvard to be “statements of fact” — not opinion — that would be allowed to appear in a Times news article."
************************************

There are many things that could be said. One is that this controversy links with other recent postings about how we should be speaking these days with regard to describing what is happening in our country. My own view is that the Greenhouse comments easily fall within "statements of fact." But even if there's a modicum of opinion in the word "absurd,"--though even there I think it meets the "fact" criterion if by "absurd" one simply means a policy that cannot possibly succeed in its professed objectives and, therefore, must be understood in other terms, such as, say, "relentless pandering to an increasing xenophobia that has also become part of contemporary American life"-- it strikes me as ridiculous that the Times--or at least the public editor--would believe that she has crossed some line that made her deserving of the rebuke in the column.

My tagline "Fiasco at the New York Times" is intended to have a double meaning. I think the column, and the failure of Bill Keller to tell the public editor that he's way out of line in his views--is a fiasco. But I also mean to allude to the book "Fiasco," written by one of the star reporters at the Washington Post. And one might also think of Bob Woodward's "State of Denial." I'm curious if the public editor would view the titles of both of these important books as violating the Times's guidelines because surely the White House is unhappy with the use of "fiasco" to describe its Iraq policy and its implementation and "State of Denial" to capture the disconnect with reality endemic in the Bush White House. Is it really the case that anyone not officially labeled a "columnist" must be completely neutered and left unable to offer, in a public speech, such obvious "statements of fact" as that "our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world." Will the Times next start demanding that its reporters cease opining that a Holocaust occurred in Europe during the 1940s because, after all, there are those who deny it? (I presume this last sentence is hyperbolic, of course.)

Linda Greenhouse is not only a personal friend, but also, and far more importantly, a national treasure in her capacity as the Times Supreme Court reporter. I know of literally no one who is more knowledgeable about the contemporary Court, its personalities, and the complexities of the issues that come before it. She reads all of the briefs and does a remarkable job of educating not only the public, but many, many law professors about the often arcane matters that come before the Court. I know that her articles are literally the first things I turn to (besides Marty Lederman's analyses) when cases come down. Within the areas that I profess to know something about, I have never found her less than reliable. If anything, I have occasionally thought she erred on the side of caution in her portrayal of an opinion, since I tend sometimes to get hot under the color. I don't think, for example, that she would feel comfortable describing Clarence Thomas as having written a "Schmittian opinion" in Hamdi, though I believe that is a simple statement of fact. (I wish I felt light-hearted about this to add a :) at this point, but I see nothing amusing in Thomas's embrace of presidential authoritarianism (another statement of fact).)

I have no doubt that the Times feels itself under relentless attack from what is in fact a vast right-wing conspiracy that is intent on enforcing its own version of political correctness, which, of course, includes a duty always to speak courteously of everyone in power and refrain from any suggestions that they are traducing a variety of traditional American values. And I admire the Times for much of its recent reportage on Iraq and what Jack and I have taken to calling the National Surveillance State. But it is an awful testament to the fear and trembling that must be running through the Times that its editors seem unwilling to speak up and defend the propriety of the June speech. If they are willing in effect to accept the humiliation of one of their Pulitzer-prize winning stars, one can only wonder about the "chilling effect" on more junior reporters when asked to offer their candid opinions about what they see around them.