The New York Observer published a juicy takedown of the New York Times’ editorial page, eviscerating its editor Andrew Rosenthal and some of its most notable columnists, including Thomas Friedman.
The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple responded with a takedown of his own, identifying 17 (alleged) problems with the Observer piece. But, Wemple’s analysis is itself flawed. In 13 ways:
Problem 1: Wemple Makes a Logical Error
Responding to criticism that Rosenthal is “petty and tyrannical,” Wemple writes, “And? How many great newspaper editors have been guilty of tyranny and pettiness? One person’s pettiness and tyranny are another person’s exacting editorial standards.”
Wemple makes an error in logic here. The fact that some great editors are petty and tyrannical does not mean that all editors must be, nor does it mean that being petty and tyrannical makes one a great editor. Therefore, criticism of an editor who is petty, tyrannical, and not great is valid criticism, regardless of whether everyone agrees with the criticism or not.
Problem 2: Wemple Makes a Rhetorical Error
Criticizing the Observer for using an anonymous source who characterizes Rosenthal as “lazy,” Wemple responds, “To quote the just-released BuzzFeed style guide, ‘Avoid using anonymous sources for negative quotes.’”
Rhetorical error here. What does BuzzFeed have to do with this? Does the Observer use BuzzFeed’s style guide? A better move (again, for rhetorical purposes) would’ve been to refer to the Times’ own style guide, which famously discourages anonymous sourcing, especially for negative comments. Since he is implictly defending the Times, he could have used this as an opportunity to make the Times look more disciplined than its high-handed critic, the Observer, e.g., “Here’s the Observer using anonymous sources to criticize the Times, but even the Times discourages using anonymous sources for such purposes.” (That the Times often fails to heed its own standards is the topic for another column.)
But more to the point, Wemple’s critique of the use of anonymous sources is not particularly valid in this specific case. Are current newsroom staffers going to go on the record trashing some of their paper’s most powerful editors? Unlikely. How many employees anywhere would trash their bosses on the record in a newspaper? Not many, maybe none. That’s why anonymous sources are sometimes necessary: to tell stories that otherwise would not be told. When multiple anonymous sources concur and competing perspectives are offered on the record, readers can determine for themselves whom to believe. What’s the alternative? If the Observer quoted only those sources who went on the record, the entire premise of the piece — that newsroom staffers think the editorial page is mediocre — would’ve been lost.
Problem 3: Wemple Criticizes The Observer for Not Reporting Something It, In Fact, Reported
Responding to the Observer’s quoting a Times’ staff member’s assertion that “the editorials are never on the most emailed list,” Wemple quotes a Times spokeswoman as saying that they do appear on the most-popular lists “on occasion.” She gives the (single) example of the well-known Snowden editorial.
Wemple ignores the full context of this quotation as well as the Observer’s research supporting the staffer’s assertion. The Observer initially quotes the staffer, but then provides an extensive response from a Times spokeswoman (probably the same one Wemple spoke with) who does not refute the staffer’s assertion. The Observer even asked the Times for data showing how popular the editorials are, but the Times responded, “We do not share statistics or traffic numbers at the individual article or section level.” The Observer notes, “In a list of 2013’s most read stories the Times sent over, no editorials or columnists appeared.” When you boil it down, Wemple is quibbling with the staffer’s assertion that editorials “never” appear on the popular lists vs. the spokesperson’s assertion that they do “on occasion,” a fuller context for which the Observer piece already provided.
Problem 4: Wemple Fails to Google the Answer to His Own Question and Ignores Important Scoop
Wemple criticizes the Observer for saying the Times’ endorsements of political candidates didn’t always lead to victories for the candidates, including in the most recent mayoral race. “How many newspapers retain — if indeed they ever possessed — such authority?”
He leaves the question open, but a quick Google search yields several analyses of this issue, many of which can be found right on the Times’ own websites. The Times’ Economix blog quoted a detailed study and headlined its post on the topic, “Yes, Newspaper Endorsements Matter.” FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver’s blog, examined this issue a few times and on one occasion concluded that the Union-Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire, has been a decisive factor in several presidential primaries. So, Erik: Yes, some newspapers’ editorials do influence elections. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the Times’ editorials could as well.
Unfairly, in his criticism this section of the Observer’s piece, he ignores what I think is one of the Observer’s major scoops, namely the assertion that Christine Quinn consented to the Times’ request to make a documentary about her campaign as it was in progress because she thought it would lead to an endorsement from the Times. If true, this would show that Quinn, or at least her campaign managers, felt that the Times’ endorsements are somehow attainable through a tit-for-tat arrangement, specifically an arrangement involving access. Says an Observer source, “It was seen within the Quinn campaign as something they’d better say ‘yes’ to in order to get the endorsement.” I’m surprised this assertion hasn’t gotten more attention yet. (If Quinn had been elected, perhaps it would have.)
Problem 5: Wemple Repeats Himself; His 17 Problems Are Actually 16 Problems
In his own “Problem 5,” Wemple again takes the Observer to task for using anonymous sources. This is the same as his Problem #1, so his 17 problems are really 16 problems (and falling). He also quotes the Washington Post’s style guide’s admonition against using anonymous sources. But, quoting some irrelevant publication’s style guide is the same mistake I identified in my problem #1, so — unlike Wemple — I’m not going to count it again.
Problem 6: Wemple Can’t Decide If Problem is Really a Problem; His 17 Problems are Actually 15 Problems
Responding to the amusing anecdote that Rosenthal polices the use of the word “should” outside of editorial pages by sending emails expressing disapproval and “cc’ing the world,” Wemple argues that this behavior “could well be a function of a petty and tyrannical temperament. It could also be a constructive dynamic for a newspaper.” So he doesn’t know himself. Not really a criticism. Therefore, not really a problem. He’s down to 15 problems now. Besides, the anecdote backs up a secondary theme of the piece (Rosenthal is a petty tyrant), adds color, and is familiar to more than one source. It belongs.
Problem 7: Wemple Admits Problem Not Really a Problem; His 17 Problems are Actually 14 Problems
In response to the Observer’s quoting pretty much everyone at the Times as saying Thomas Friedman’s columns are embarrassing, lazy, and irrelevant, Wemple offers, “Problem No. 8: Eh, no real problem here.” Fine. His original 17 problems are now 14 (and still falling).
Problem 8: Wemple Makes a Confusing Joke Either Repeating Himself or Undercutting His Own Case; His 17 Problems are Actually 13 Problems
The Observer quotes Joe LaPointe, a former Times writer, as offering a positive assessment of the editorial pages. Wemple replies, “Problem No. 9: Hey, can’t we get these positive comments from an anonymous source?” I think this is a joke, as in, “Since you have all these negative comments from anonymous sources, why aren’t the positive comments anonymous, too?” So it’s a joke, not a criticism, and therefore not a problem. He’s down to 13.
Problem 9: Wemple Confuses Correlation With Causation
Reacting to the Observer’s quoting of some Times’ people complaining that the editorials and op-eds are featured in a prominent location on the NYTimes.com home page, Wemple concludes, “Staffers are sniping at the editorial side of the operation because they covet its perch on the portal.” Another logical error. He’s confusing correlation with causation while simultaneously making an ad hominem attack on those quoted. The Times staffers may be complaining about the home page placement afforded the editorial pages, but they are not necessarily complaining because of it. Indeed, there’s much evidence in the story to suggest otherwise. For example, multiples Times sources tell the Observer they want the editorial section to succeed, to be great, to deserve its placement on the home page. (“It’s not that we want their money; we want them to be awesome,” says one.)
Problem 10: Wemple Thinks 24 Sources Not Enough for a Newspaper Story
Wemple complains that the Observer did not get enough sources for the story: “The New York Times has a newsroom staff exceeding 1,000. How many of them did the Observer interview[…]? Answer: ‘more than two-dozen.’” I think Wemple is being facetious here. How many newspaper stories have over two dozen sources — especially stories about what amounts to institutional and management mediocrity? I think most editors and reports would say that two dozen sources is more than adequate to support the premises of the story.
Problem 11: Wemple Doesn’t Distinguish Between “Reporter” and “Source” and Makes Another Logical Error
Wemple challenges the Observer’s assessment that within the Times, there is a view that “the opinion pages have grown tired and irrelevant.” He asserts that “‘Irrelevant’ can describe just about every legacy media operation in the country.” That may or may not be true, but it’s yet another logical error. Just because many other outlets are “irrelevant,” it doesn’t mean the Times isn’t. Furthermore, that section of the article says that the editorials are seen as irrelevant, not that the whole “legacy media operation” of the Times is. He also criticizes the Observer’s use of the word “irrelevant,” saying “it’s the word of choice to slander the work of journalists you don’t like.” But the Observer didn’t choose that word. Its sources did: “I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant.” Indeed, the journalists at the times feel the work of the editorial staff is irrelevant and they don’t like it. That’s the whole point of the story.
Problem 12: Wemple Repeats Himself Again; His 17 Problems are Actually 12 Problems
In his “Problem 15,” Wemple again raises the issue of using anonymous sources for negative criticism. Same problem he mentioned in his Problems 2, 5, and 9. With this repeat, he’s down to 12 problems from 17. Tie ballgame.
Problem 13: Wemple Transforms Himself Into Omniscient Narrator, Lacks Source for Assertion
The Observer quotes a source as saying the Times is in “semi-open revolt” again Rosenthal. Wemple takes it upon himself to characterize this rebellion: “‘Semi-open revolt’ in the context of a newsroom means a lot of snarky e-mailing.” How does he know that? What is his source? He doesn’t have one, it appears. Yet even the piece that he just spent 1100 words criticizing doesn’t offer such characterizations without, at the very least, an anonymous source.
Final Tally
Problems Wemple Claims To Have Found in The Observer Story: 17
Problems Wemple Actually Found in The Observer Story: 12
Problems I Found in Wemple’s Story: 13
