| Page 2 of 2 < |
Time's Man of the Hour
Time, which shifts to Friday publication next month, is shrinking in another way. The magazine is cutting its rate base -- the weekly circulation guaranteed to advertisers -- from 4 million to 3.25 million, and raising the newsstand price by a buck, to $4.95. Newsweek, published by The Washington Post Co., sells 3.1 million copies, and U.S. News & World Report, 2 million.
Anxiety is running high at Time, with insiders saying that numerous staffers could be laid off as early as next month. Some worry that Time could become too much of an opinion magazine rather than one that breaks important stories. But Stengel is promising "our usual mix of reported pieces, reported analysis and opinion."
Same-Sex Sniping
  Managing Editor Rick Stengel thinks a leaner, more opinionated magazine spells the future of Time. (By Andrew Eccles -- Time Via Associated Press) |
James Dobson, who heads Focus on the Family, cited the work of two veteran researchers this month in a Time column arguing that Mary Cheney's pregnancy is wrong. Now the researchers are crying foul.
The conservative religious leader argued that Cheney and her lesbian partner will fall short as parents because children need a father.
"I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work," New York University professor Carol Gilligan wrote Dobson. She said he had taken her research out of context "to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with."
Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School wrote that he was "startled and disappointed" that Dobson had "cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes."
A Focus on the Family statement says that Pruett is trying "to distance himself politically from the use of his scientific conclusions" and that Dobson did not represent Gilligan as opposing same-sex parenting. "The question is not, 'Did Dr. Dobson apply their research only to political stands they agree with?' but rather, 'Is the essay true to what these individuals have written?' We believe that it is."
Time spokeswoman Ali Zelenko says the magazine's role is "to moderate the debates on today's most controversial subjects and present a wide spectrum of views we believe are worth listening to whether we agree with them or not."
Faith-Based Journalism
When New York Times reporter Diana Henriques launched a series on government regulation of religious programs, the paper's Web site posted a bio that described her professional qualifications.
There was also this: "Throughout her life, she has been an active member of various Protestant congregations, serving for several years as an elder at a suburban Presbyterian church and currently serving as the senior warden at an urban Episcopal church in New Jersey."
Henriques says that "it seemed appropriate to be candid about that. I have no reason to hide my religious faith," especially when tackling "a topic that people don't instantly think the New York Times has any expertise in." She says the passage was not offered "with the purpose of inoculating me from criticism from religious groups."
When she was writing about problems with military insurance in 2004, Henriques says, "the tone changed" when she told interview subjects, after being asked, that her father, mother and husband have served in the Army. On the latest series, she says, many people asked whether she had religious experience.
This small exercise in transparency raises some intriguing questions. Would it be useful for readers to know, depending on the subject matter, that a reporter is black, or gay, or married, or Jewish, or a registered Democrat? And where would editors draw the line?
"Maybe we should do it more often," says Times Assistant Managing Editor Glenn Kramon, noting that readers might benefit from knowing Adam Liptak is a lawyer and C.J. Chivers, now in Iraq, is a former Marine. Lawrence Altman, he adds, is identified as an M.D. in his "Doctor's World" column. In Henriques's case, says Kramon, "we thought some readers might ask, 'What does she know about religion?' "
Snow Sorry
As mentioned in this space last week, White House spokesman Tony Snow delivered a pretty hard shot to NBC's David Gregory during a contentious briefing on the Iraq Study Group.
After paraphrasing the group's report and chairmen, Gregory asked: "Can this report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this president's handling of the war?" Snow promptly accused him of "trying to frame it in a partisan way."
Snow told Gregory at a briefing Thursday that he had concluded he was "wrong . . . so I want to apologize and tell you I'm sorry for it." The spokesman told Washington Post Radio he decided it was "unfair" to suggest Gregory is "deliberately doing work on behalf of Democrats."
Gregory is taking the high road: "I appreciated his apology."
