7 April 2005 >>
In exchange for an early look at Columbia University’s report absolving itself of charges of bias in the classroom, The New York Times agreed not to speak with any of the students who lodged the complaints: With a highly sensitive report coming out about allegations of misconduct by anti-Israel professors, Columbia University officials turned to the news organization they trusted most to handle the delicate subject: the New York Times. Representatives of the two institutions then struck a deal: Columbia would grant the Times exclusive early access to the report if the Times agreed that its reporter wouldn’t seek comment on the report from interested parties, or do additional reporting until the next day when the report was made public. As it happened, the newspaper, with Columbia’s permission, did seek comment from a faculty member whose conduct was criticized in the report, Joseph Massad, but it kept its promise not to solicit comment from the Jewish students who had come forward with the complaints against the professors.
This deal, first reported by The New York Sun’s Jacob Gershman late last week, allowed Columbia to present its spin in The New York Times unchallenged by the students until the following day, when the Times produced a follow-up report that included quotes from the students. Today, the Times finally acknowledged this egregious oversight in journalistic ethics: The article did not disclose The Times’s source for the document, but Columbia officials have since confirmed publicly that they provided it, a day before its formal release, on the condition that the writer not seek reaction from other interested parties.
Aside from the Times and the school’s own Columbia Spectator, no other media outlets were given a sneak peek at the report. In fact, when a reporter from the Sun went to Columbia seeking a copy of the report (it has since been made public), she was threatened with arrest. It’s no wonder the school favors the Times; in all the reporting of the recent controversies at Columbia, the Times has consistently provided the most favorable coverage to the university. But what does the Times get out of the deal? A one-day scoop on a report that makes no news? (”Stop the presses! Huge organization investigates self, finds self innocent!”) Or it is another example of the Times using its news pages to push its political views? (”There’s no bias in the classroom. Seriously! The people who run the classrooms told us themselves.”) For several days earlier this week, I called Karen Arenson—the Times reporter who filed the story—requesting more information on this deal. None of my calls were ever returned. I guess now I know why.
7 April 2005 @ 12:42PM >>
RNN, a regional cable news network covering New York City, Connecticut, New Jersey, the Hudson Valley and upstate New York, will be airing an hour-long special on campus political environments and academic freedom. I participated in a panel discussion taped for the show yesterday at Columbia University. Clips from Brainwashing 101 may also be shown. The program runs from 8PM to 9PM (ET) tonight on RNN. If your cable provider does not carry RNN, you can watch the program on the web as it airs. (Unfortunately, the show is only streamed and not archived; if you miss it, you will not be able to view it on their site in the future.) Throughout the show, the network solicits viewer feedback on the topics presented. If you wish to call in or have your e-mail presented on the show, you may contact RNN at:
Don’t be shy about calling in or writing! The producers asked me to publicize this information to help ensure a balanced response from the audience. Update: Unfortunately, it looks like RNN cut out the most interesting portions of the discussion, such as when Donna Lieberman from the NYCLU compared conservatives with holocaust deniers to explain why conservative views are so vastly underrepresented in higher education. I called her on that, and it got quite heated.
7 April 2005 @ 8:55AM >>
Turns out the mystery Schiavo memo came from a staffer of Republican Senator Mel Martinez. The staffer has resigned, as he should have, not only for his putrid politicization of the issue, but also because, according to some of the drafts I’ve seen online, he is an atrocious speller. Still, as PowerLine points out, the news of the memo’s source does not absolve the media of charges that it reported the story erroneously. For example, Washington Post referred to the memo being “distributed to Republican senators by party leaders.” A staffer of a man who has not even been Senator for a quarter year does not a “party leader” make. Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg quotes Senator Martinez denying knowledge of the memo prior to it being made public: [Chris Wallace, Fox News]: Senator, how do you explain, then, these talking points, which have been circulated among Republican senators? And let’s put them up on the screen, so our viewers can see them. [...] Martinez: And I reject those. I’ve never seen them before today. And I’ll tell you, they’re not a part of what I think this case is about.
It may be possible that Senator Martinez’s staffer passed around a memo that he himself never saw. But is it likely? Looks like Mel’s got some splainin’ to do. As with the much else in the Schiavo case, nobody seems to come out of this looking good.
|
