PressEthic

What in heck is Arthur Sulzberger doing? Can’t he see the damage that Judy Miller did to his newspaper? Can’t he see the damage he continues to do by defending her on national television? If he’s got a personal relationship with her, he should just say that, and that he can’t talk about her professional screw-ups, because she’s his friend. But then I’m sure there are people who would say that he can’t say that, because it would damage the paper’s reputation. You know what? I think we’re already at that point.

Sulzberger’s idiotic statements of non-acknowledgement of responsibility, his dancing around the issues at hand by saying that the Times has learned from its mistakes – it’s all worthless talk. What should he say? I don’t know. I’m not the publisher of one of the world’s most respected newspapers. I’m not in on all the negotiations that went on. If there’s a legal reason that Sulzberger can’t discuss the issue, he should just say so.

Now as far as the Times learning from its mistakes – I hope they do, I really do. But they don’t seem to. Now I know there has to be something that can be done to protect the paper against journalists that are willing to put themselves ahead of the readers. As has been pointed out to me many times, hiring an army of fact-checkers is not realistic. Fine. I even concede that I’m naïve and idealistic when it comes to issues like this. But I’d still like to think that eventually someone will figure something out.

And as for Arthur Sulzberger, his continued defense of Judy Miller just makes him sound like an idiot. And I know Slate has a vested interest in this issue, as they’re owned by the Washington Post Company, but at least they’re honest about it. Maybe Arthur needs to add a new word to his vocabulary – transparency.