Goodwin: The New York Times’ long descent from credibility
NY Post, Nov 30, 2019, Michael Goodwin

The separation of news from opinion was an ingrained part of the culture at The New York Times when I started there in the 1970s.

As a young reporter, I knew the rule without understanding its significance. I only knew I was not permitted to express my opinions in my stories.

Those were the days when copy was edited by hand and if you veered into editorializing, editors simply crossed out the offending words. You learned of your mistake when you read the paper the next day and realized your opinion was on the cutting-room floor.

This was a painful way to learn, but learn we did.

The top editor then was the late Abe Rosenthal. He said he knew reporters tended to lean left politically, so he steered the editing process to the right. That way, he said, the paper would end up in the ­middle.

He often declared that his epitaph would be, “he kept the paper straight.”

I was surprised when his widow informed me that those words ­appear on the footstone of his grave. She sent me a photograph to prove it.

Another key standard involved sources, which are a flashpoint these days. The Times “Manual on Style and Usage,” which has set the paper’s rules for more than a century, says the best source for readers is one who can be identified by name, but also describes when anonymous sources can be used.

The decision must be justified by a reporter and editor who agree that “not only is there no other way to obtain the information, but also that the information is both factual and important.”

In effect, reporters and editors are required to vouch for the ­sources’ claims.

To add another layer of fairness, an anonymous source had to be identified as much as possible. The manual says, “United States diplomat is better than Western diplomat, which is better than diplomat. And better still is a United States diplomat who took part in the meeting.”

Again, the aim was to give the reader sufficient information to make a judgment about the source’s credibility.

In addition, anonymous sources were not permitted to make derogatory statements about someone. Because the target would have no way to respond when the source was shielded, reporters were not permitted to use derogatory quotations from anonymous sources.

Over time, these rules instilled trust among readers. Many New Yorkers grew up believing that, if The New York Times said it, it is probably true.

So what happened? How is that we are witnessing the collapse of the paper’s credibility?


More: https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/goodwin-th...om-credibility/

Fascinating essay.