Forth Estate in the Dock
The New York Times, like many big corporations, has not had a good year. Advertising revenue is down, the paper has been hammered for one-sided editorial policies, and several large urban papers are looking like candidates for bankruptcy. So the NYT is due for improved circumstances in 2009, right? Wrong.
The new year promises to be interesting, but nopt less problematic. Viki Iseman has announced a 27 million dollar suit against the paper for damage to her reputation and sufering from unjust and unwarranted public humiliation. Ms. Iseman is a lobbyist, so her public reputation is valuable to her. During the recently concluded campaign, leading up to the Republican nomination, the NYT ran a story which implied ‘improper relations’ between Ms. Iseman and Senator John McCain. The wording is what most of us ordinary folks would call weasel-words. Technically, it simply says there are allegations of something that isn’t quite honorable, but it implies that there was a romantic affair in evderyday terminology.
Nothing turned up, and even liberal bloggers and commentators admitted the story really was not worth running. But, run it did. The NYT never really apologized when it became ovbious the whole thing was not a real story. It had been embarassing for the candidate, and certainly as much if not more so for Ms. Iseman, who makes a living representing clients to various public figures. Lobbying may not be entirely respectable, but it is 110% accepted by everyone in politicial life, excepting a very few absolutists. So while the suggestion that the candidate was playing around was seedy, and possibly damaging to him; the suggestion of either sexual impropriety or non-professional berhavior by a lobbyist is, if anything, more damaging to Ms. Iseman.
Ms. Iseman is now going to take the NYT to court. Collecting from the media is difficult, because the courts tend to be very protective of the rights of the media. But, while it may be arguable that Ms. Iseman is a public fiigure because she lobbys Congress, it is equally arguable that she was NOT a public figure until the New York Times made her one. She would seem to have a reasonable case, because she could argue that the NYT made her a public figure by implying that she was dishonest, a sexual tramp, or both.
I don’t know how the trial will come out. However, I think it is heartening to see someone fight back at the Press. A suggestion to all you journalist wanna-bes: Don’t watch All The President’s Men. Instead, watch Absence of Malice. Unlike the hagiography of the Forth Estate in ATPM, Absence of Malice is a cautionary tale, of how reckless pursuit of a story at all costs can injure innocent ordinary people. It is a message the members of the media need to have drummmed into their heads. Maybe, if Ms. Iseman prevails, the media will become more concerned with factual accuracy, and less with sensationalism. That would be a good thing for everyone.
I did the news gig for seven years during high school and college. It was sometimes tough to get both sides of the story, but try I did.
There are journalists out there who take pains to do so. At least at the local level. Worked with one during my internship.
Michael, Re-reading my post, I can appreciate why it seems like I’m beating up the Media. And to be fair, I also did high school journalism, way back in the dark ages. I have a great deal of respect for a lot of journalists, who, like yourself, do try to look at all the facts and get the full story. Often, that is not easy.
Having said that, I am still concerned that there seems to be such an overwhelming degree of group-think in so much of the mainstream media, and how it manifested itself in the recent election. The New York Times has been THE NATION for the carriage trade for the past 20 years – any pretense of being an impartial paper of record is long in the past. There’s nothing wrong with The Nation, or the National Review, for that matter. I peruse both, and they sometimes make valid points. But both make no secret that they are opinion journals, not primarily news organizations. That, I think, is important.
But when news organizations ignore differing standards of treatment for differing candidates, and it seems to always divide along ideological lines, i.e. the treatment of John Edwards’ affair vs. the vapor-ware regarding McCain and Iseman, or the utter lack of interest on the part of the media regarding the cases of credit card misuse by some Obama fund raisers – well, then there is a problem. And then there were the debates. Gwen Ifill was writing a book on the 2008 election, slated for publication on January 20, 2009. A book about the Obama campaign. Which means she certainly should not have been moderating any of the debates, and probably should have been moved away from reporting on the campaign. Ms. Ifill’s actions are what we used to call, back when I took Journalism, a conflict of interest.
I’m not trying to develop a long laundry list of where I think the press has failed. But I think they really HAVE failed us. Democracy depends on honest government. And when the press decides that only one party is guilty of anything worthy of investigation; and simply ignores cases of questionable behavior by the party they tend to favor, I think honest people should be concerned. I haven’t even talked about the Duke lacrosse case. Read Until Proven Innocent, and one gets a chilling picture of the progressive elite, including both academics and media people, cheerfully working to railroad politically incorrect white, straight males to prison to support their ideological goals. The NYT was one of the cheer leaders for this smear job in the press. They have not apologized except in the most vague, meaningless ‘mistakes were made’ manner. It is, in a word, Nixonian.