| | New York Times Executives Resign
With Geneva Overholser
Professor, Missouri School of Journalism
Friday, June 06, 2003; 11:00 a.m. ET Geneva Overholser served as ombudsman for The Washington Post, dealing with reader comments and complaints, and wrote a column for the paper that was syndicated with The Washington Post Writers Group. She was online to talk about ethics in journalism on Friday, June 6. The transcript follows. Overholser was a member of the New York Times editorial board and served as both an editorial writer and the editor of the Des Moines Register. She joined the joined the Missouri School of Journalism in September 2000. She has been a regular media commentator, CJR columnist, former congressional fellow, Nieman fellow, chair of Pulitzer Prize Board and an officer of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. She is currently a trustee of Stanley Foundation, Knight fellowships at Stanford, National Press Foundation and the Alfred Friendly Press Fellowship. Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
| Washington, D.C.: Ms. Overholser, I'm a journalist, and I wonder, based on your experience, do many newsrooms have the luxury of researchers and interns and stringers to help the reporters get their stories? I've worked for several newspapers, in organizations large and small, and I've never seen that happen. If the paper was lucky enough to have interns, they did their own stories, in consultation with the editors. The idea that the Times and other large papers like it would use stringers and interns to such an extent, and without credit, is a foreign concept to me. Thanks. Geneva Overholser: Certainly the Times has more than most -- the bigger the newsroom, the more this kind of support is available, of course. But I think it became clear that the degree to which Rick Bragg relied on interns for substantial reporting was not typical -- even at the Times. I assume many papers are examining the role of researchers and interns -- and the question of who gets bylines. ________________________________________________ Columbus, Ohio: What effect do you think the newest addition to public discourse -- Internet "chatter," including the Romenesko journalism Web site -- had on the Times' editors departures? Even Timesmen were contributing to that link, deepening the paper's internal strife. washingtonpost.com: Jim Romanesko's Media News Geneva Overholser: I think the Net had a HUGE effect. Hard to say this wouldn't have happened without it. But surely the fact that this institution, so accustomed to keeping things very close to the chest, became public fodder for all of us in the journalism world -- and that "Timesmen" were uncharacteristically pointing fingers of blame at one another in the open -- surely all this made it all the more impossible to imagine Howell Raines staying. I'm willing to bet that if he's led in, say, the Abe Rosenthal era, he'd still be in the executive editor's chair. I think trying to figure out how to do journalism in this new world of near-total transparency is one of the challenges we face. ________________________________________________ New Rochelle, N.Y.: Ms. O: Have been reading the New York Times since I was 13 and I am sad/mad at what the fatheads have done to it. That said, I am amazed at the level of criticism hurled at The Times by people who are masters of yellow journalism. I now limit my news to New York Newsday, C-SPAN, PBS, the BBC, blogs and various papers via the Internet. Am I off base when I state the American news has shifted into tabloid, soundbite mode? The worst are the cable news channels. I can't watch them without needing to take a shower. Thanks. Geneva Overholser: I don't disagree, though of course there are wide variations in what's on the tube, as well as among newspapers. What I worry about most is that it seems fewer and fewer people are doing any real reporting -- even as more and more are delivering something they call journalism. ________________________________________________ Columbus, Ohio: Hello Geneva. I'm just a hayseed, but it suddenly appeared to me -- after the "revelation" (winkedy wink) of Sammy Sosa's corked bat -- that the purported "Marketplace of Ideas" in America that The New York Times and other great members of The Fourth Estate participate in has been rigged somehow, and is now falling apart like the house of cards Enron was. Do you see any parallels between the New York Times' ex-managing staff and managers from now-disgraced/defunct U.S. corporate entities? (Sorry question is so complicated.) Geneva Overholser: I like hayseeds. My favorite moment as Washpost ombud was when someone in the City Paper called me -- fresh out of Iowa -- a "prairie marm."
I get your point and think it's a good one, but I'd say this: We didn't see the folks at Enron doing a two-double-truck expose (albeit an imperfect one) on themselves, and they sure didn't offer up the resignations of two of their top leaders within five weeks of their troubles' going public. I hope that this quick and conclusive action reassures at least some in the public that journalists do aim to do the right thing -- and even the thing they're always recommending others do! ________________________________________________ Washington, D.C.: Do you think Mr. Raines will now write a book about his experiences, and will he try to get it published _before_ Jayson Blair gets a book deal? Geneva Overholser: I sort of doubt it. I think Howell Raines will write -- he is a wonderful writer and, I think, loves writing. But I bet his book will be on something else. What I think he WILL do, though, is begin to speak about this. After a period of time considering it. I hope he'll think of teaching. He's certainly learned some difficult lessons that we could all benefit from. ________________________________________________ Undisclosed Location: I have twice seen my name in the newspaper quoted for saying something I never said. I have been told by by a journalist that if the journalist believes I would have said it if I had been interviewed, they are permitted to go ahead and essentially make up quotes. When I sent letters to the editorial page disclaiming the quotes (indeed, they were both inaccurate), the newspaper declined to print my letters. The editor of the newspaper that twice made up my quotes was once on an editor's panel, and I asked whether this type of behavior would be acceptable. Two of the editors replied it was unthinkable while the editor in question remained quiet. At least I know this is not a generally accepted practice. How does one get a message across that there are still newspapers out there that feel it is perfectly fine to make up the news, other than in forums such as this? (Also, if I were to name which newspaper it is, what do I do if they subsequently begin to retaliate by making up further quotes?) Geneva Overholser: You say you "have been told by by a journalist that if the journalist believes I would have said it if I had been interviewed, they are permitted to go ahead and essentially make up quotes."
A journalist told you that? That's preposterous. I'd go back at this again with the newspaper. I can't imagine any newspaper doing more of this absurd practice "to get back at you." ________________________________________________ Arlington, Va.: Is it possible that we are overreacting here? So far one Times reporter and one features writer have been caught. I can't believe that the culture of the New York Times encourages this thing and I continue to trust it on 99 percent of what I read. It's the same with The Washington Post after Janet Cooke. Stuff happens, safeguards are built, and we move on. Geneva Overholser: Seems to me the problem was the Times wasn't going to be able to do that -- move on -- unless Raines left. Looks now as if Blair/Bragg were really more the triggers than the fundamental problem. That (the fund.problem) was an underlining disaffection with Raines' management style, anxiety over departure of veteran staffers, disgruntlement about star system and "old boy" stuff etc. But I agree: The Times will remain strong, and we'll all move on now. I hope! ________________________________________________ Springfield, Va.: Journalism ethics? Isn't that any oxymoron? Anyway, am I the only one who believed that nearly all newspaper articles were NOT 100 percent factual? I thought the newspaper reading public understood that they couldn't believe everything they read in the paper. Why are people so shocked? Geneva Overholser: Journalism ethics as oxymoron is a good joke to make during ponderous speeches, but we can't settle on it as the prevailing reality. There's a long way between 100 percent factual and no effort to do the right thing. We've got to try the best we can to be fair and accurate and comprehensive, to remember it's the reader (viewer, listener) we are supposed to serve, and to hold ourselves accountable. We also should help people understand that we do make mistakes, explain why we do, when we do, and show our commitment to doing better. I like to believe that's part of what's going to come out of this huge wake-up call: More newsrooms reaffirming their commitment to, well -- journalism ethics. ________________________________________________ Washington, D.C.: Given your prior experiences, do you think having an ombudsman at the New York Times could have helped avoid the Blair fiasco, or would it have made little to no difference? Geneva Overholser: absolutely. I think having an ombud would have guaranteed a quicker discovery of Blair's misconduct. It took a newspaper editor's call to reach the ears that needed to be reached, for crying out loud. I know for a fact that some significant corrections would not have been made unless sources/readers had been able to reach me as ombudsman -- people who'd already been told (by eds and reporters) that corrections weren't necessary. It is an altogether different thing to have someone whose JOB it is to believe the reader has something legit to say -- as opposed to defending the newspaper or justifying a decision. ________________________________________________ Arlington, Va.: What are we to make of the affirmative action issue? Do you believe that Blair was given "fast track" treatment -- and his sins were more apt to be forgiven or overlooked -- in the Times' pursuit of diversity? After all, it is hard to ignore the damning memo in which the metro (I think) editor wrote, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the the TImes. Right now." Geneva Overholser: I think if one of the fallouts from this is a discrediting of the effort to diversify newsroom then we'll have learned absolutely the wrong lesson. It's ironic, really, that this should come to have been such a focus. In some ways, Blair seems to me to have been a perfect example of one of the weaknesses most of us who have ever led a newsroom stumble into: You look at the newsroom and are drawn to folks who remind you of yourself as a young person. Blair might well have been that for Raines: a bright young ambitious Southern male, not worried about whom he irritates, knowing exactly whom to cultivate. That he was black is gravy. That newsroom is ANYTHING but an easy place to be a woman or a person of color, and if anything, it appears Raines made that even more true -- for all his own (I think sincerely felt) dedication to diversity. ________________________________________________ Washington, D.C.: Raines’ departure pleases me less because of Blair and more because Raines’ agenda will leave with him. I’m glad that next spring we won’t rehash his brave fight against Augusta National. The larger question is how do we get rid of these transparent, journalistic agendas? The answer may be in Howard Kurtz’s column from June 2 about the Los Angeles Times editor’s instructing his staff to purge ideology from their reporting. Clone that guy and make him editor of the Times, and every other newspaper in the country. washingtonpost.com: Bylines, Datelines and Fault Lines at The N.Y. Times (Post, June 2, 2003). L.A. Times reference under subhead: Too Liberal in L.A.? Geneva Overholser: If we could clone John Carroll, journalism would be better off. I'll agree to that. Still, sometimes a resistance to PC becomes it's own kind of blind dogma. After all, sometimes people claiming to support something through science really are charlatans. I couldn't help wondering about that as I read the Carroll memo. Still, I'm mostly with you on this. ________________________________________________ Journalism Ethics: Is it maybe time that journalism accept that it is not a craft but a profession and create an industry wide ethical standard, like those used in law, medicine, etc. When I was at Mizzou's j-school, this was one of those odd debates that I never understood. I am a lawyer and a journalist, yet I am treated like an unskilled laborer by the labor laws because journalism insists on being a craft and not a job done by professionals. It's mindboggling. Geneva Overholser: I think this is surely a tough one. At the very least, each newsroom ought to have clear and public ethical guidelines, and they ought to refresh them regularly and make sure everyone is familiar with them. I don't think requiring that each media outlet have the SAME guidelines is going to fly -- and I'm not sure it should. What I wish we'd do, though, is acknowledge that, if we're a craft, we ought to be effectively organized. I wish the guild were stronger. I think one of the great tragedies of journalism today is that journalists are not speaking out effectively about the harm being done to journalism by thoughtless emphasis on short-term profitability. If we were organized, we could be far more effective on the public's behalf in that regard, because we could speak with one voice and not fear our corporate leaders so. ________________________________________________ Washington, D.C.: Geneva: Do you think it was necessary for Raines and Boyd to "resign" (or, if one reads between the lines in Howie's piece today, leave as gracefully as possible while being shoved out the door)? It seems sad that two people who have spent their whole lives working in journalism would have to derail their goals and dreams as a result of one obviously sick reporter. Not that R/B are/were completely blameless here, but, after all, Bradlee didn't leave after the Cooke Pulitzer giveback. Thanks. Geneva Overholser: It seems to me that Howell had to resign in order to let the Times move on -- fair or not. It had become too big a mess, too publicly consuming a spectacle. I'm less sure about the Boyd resignation. Maybe he did it out of alliance with his exec ed. We'll learn more about that, I assume, in coming weeks. But I don't think they resigned simply over Blair/Bragg. I think those were mere triggers. The real problems were broader, and had more to do directly with Raines. A very talented guy, but a high-risk management choice. Within his short 20-year-"reign," we saw both the up and the down side. Both pretty extreme. ________________________________________________ Stanton Park: Could the Washington Post have a similar Bragg or Blair problem? For example, could a reporter at The Post get away with relying on stringers like Rick Bragg did? Geneva Overholser: I don't know enough specifically about the status of stringers at the Post right now to make an intelligent comment. But I think any newsroom that thinks ANY of this couldn't happen to them is courting danger. ________________________________________________ Manhasset, N.Y.: Do you think the Blair saga will impact the slow but steady addition of minority journalists to the newsroom? And on a second note, did you find it strange that the Times did not depute one of its own journalists to break the news yesterday, but rather resorted to the AP? Geneva Overholser: Boy, I hope it doesn't impede our achingly slow progress on diversity.
As for breaking the news, I assume they wanted to have the meeting in the newsroom as early as possible -- some folks weren't at work yet, even as it happened. But do you mean they could have had one of their own reporters break it on their Web site? ________________________________________________ Arlington, Va.: Do you see the ombudsman's role as identifying and rectifying reader complaints about factual accuracy, or about alleged bias and spin? I know I've written to the current Post ombudsman several times about what I see as the paper's pro-immigration slant, not only on the editorial pages but in the news reporting too. Yet I've seen no real efforts to resolve this issue. Am I barking up the wrong tree? Geneva Overholser: Two things: On hotly disputed issues (such as immigration) there can be no agreement on what is perfect objectivity, impartiality, fairness. Sometimes distortion is in the eye of the observer -- though, of course, sometimes not.
Second, having an ombudsman here you, even having an ombud agree with you, often does not translate into action in the newsroom. Ombudsmen can listen, they can write memos, they can go talk directly to staffers -- they can even embarrass the newspaper on its own Sunday edit page. But they can't make policy. ________________________________________________ Washington, D.C.: To the guy who called journalism ethics an oxymoron, as a journalist I take offense to that. Just like any other industry, 99 percent of workers are ethical. Just like lawyers, high-powered corporate executives, and HMOs, journalism has its bad eggs, its people who take advantage and have no qualms about lying and cheating their way to the top. Most of us are hard working and take pride in what we do. Geneva Overholser: I agree ________________________________________________ Austin, Tex.: As a minority, I am disturbed by the way that the issue of Blair's race has been handled in the aftermath. Newsweek (or Time I can't remember which right now) ran a cover of Jayson Blair that raised the hackles on the back of my neck. He was pictured as "your worst nightmare black man" in that picture -- grainy with cigarette and all. Make no mistake, the editors of that paper knew what they were doing when they ran that cover. Why have many in the media focused on feeding our fears about affirmative action and race rather than just seeing that there have been con men since the beginning of time and Jayson Blair is just one more? Neva Fernandez Geneva Overholser: seems our society can't shake seeing everything through race lens. nor, however, is blair escaping that. he seems to talk about it as much as anybody ________________________________________________ Bethesda, Md.: Can you explain the Ombudsman position to me? Is it a limited term appointment? Is it paid? Through the hiring newspaper? Can the former ombudsman go to work for the hiring paper as an editor/reporter if they leave that position? Geneva Overholser: The Post ombudsmanship is a two-year contract, can be extended a third year by mutual agreement. Generally comes from outside the paper, though not always. Generally doesn't continue to work at the paper, though there has been an exception to that. I was sort of a funny exception in a way because the wash post writers group -- their syndicate, syndicated my column. It is a genuinely independent position. I admire the Post for having, and for maintaining it. Wish more papers would do it. I didn't really "believe" in it when I was editor of the Des Moines Register. I figured it was my responsibility to hear the complaints, buck stops here, etc. You listen differently when you're ombud. ________________________________________________ Boston, Mass: So, I can't let this discussion go by without voicing my continuing worries about all sorts of newspapers, good and bad, quoting unnamed sources, often for the most critical kernels in a story. I'd like to know your view on that habit, although I'm not sure it had direct bearing on what has happened at the Times. Geneva Overholser: It's one of the worst abuses in journalism. Few things we do are more harmful to our credibility and even destructive to our democracy. We allow people to speak without any accountability for what they say. We rob readers of an ability to judge the speaker or the words. It's appalling, and my fondest hope is that this scandal -- in which anonymous sources did indeed play an important role, particularly in Blair coverage of sniper case -- will make us FINALLY take these problems of anonymity seriously. ________________________________________________ Arlington, Va.: I am not a journalist, but I have had the misfortune of working for bosses whose domineering, hostile management style destroyed both the office and its program by refusing to hear from dissenters about management's bad decisions; when subordinates can't speak out, disaster ensues (think of NASA ask a stark analogy). Thus I was particularly troubled by the stories describing the New York Times's initial refusal to publish their sports columnists' articles contradicting the paper's clear position regarding the Augusta membership flap. Given that this happened in the context of journalism, isn't the only conclusion that the Times has in fact had an "agenda" in its reporting? Geneva Overholser: sure looked that way. I couldn't believe they thought of killing those columns. ________________________________________________ Miami, Fla.: The New York Times mea culpa article indicated that they were not looking to place blame on anyone for the rather difficult situation they find themselves in. What do think of this? Do you think that newspapers should hold themselves accountable, the same way they would with a scandal in business or government? Thank you. Geneva Overholser: Yes. Accountability is exactly what we need more of. I think one of the worst things for the Times was the initial response indicating there was no need to look for any problem beyond Blair. Raines said on PBS NewsHour that, essentially, if someone wants to do this stuff to you, there's nothing you can do. And the mega Mother's Day opus ended with Arthur Sulzberger saying we shouldn't seek management scapegoats. I'll bet they both came, sadly, to regret those responses. Good lessons for all of us in tough times, no? ________________________________________________ Kansas City, Mo.: I noticed you worked for the Post as Ombudsman and the editorial board of the Times. I've read Gene Lyons and Joe Conason's work criticizing the Post and Times for their coverage of Whitewater. As a former newspaper reporter (and J-school grad -- KU) I found a lot to be concerned about their depiction of the Post and Times coverage. Were there any concerns voiced or reviewed at either paper on their points? Geneva Overholser: Probably not enough concerns raised, but some. I felt that the Clinton scandal coverage at the Post went overboard, and said so -- and relayed various readers' opinions to that effect. To no overwhelming result. ________________________________________________ Orlando, Fla.: In the '80s a friend gave me a book "Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis" by Howell Raines. I thought the book would be about fishing. Silly me. It was clear that Raines hated President Reagan and all Republicans. His style was clearly "don't bother me with the facts, because I know the truth." Is this the best type of person to run a major newspaper? Geneva Overholser: didn't turn out to be, apparently. and strong feeling that he knew what he knew and didn't want to hear differently from others was surely a big piece of the problem. ________________________________________________ Ithaca, N.Y.: I still feel like the Times lacks contrition in this whole thing. Reading their articles on Raines' and Boyd's departure, particularly everything about the "sobbing in the newsroom" I feel this strange reverence -- as if a respected world leader died or something. Don't they get it? These are leaders who led an organization that allowed the promotion and retention of people who -violated the public trust-. If this was the management of public company, who allowed (and promoted) fraudulent behavior on the part of their subordinates, the Times would be at the top of the heap screaming for heads to roll. Am I missing something here? Geneva Overholser: Maybe just the huge degree of pain. I bet I'd have sobbed, too. Pretty awful five weeks at the Times, no? ________________________________________________ Los Angeles, Calif.: It seems that many media and large news organizations -- whether newspaper, Web or TV -- are dominated by white males with autocratic management styles. Is this really the question here? Why are there still glass ceilings for women and minorities in this industry? Geneva Overholser: Newsroom cultures change VERY slowly. I also think many women (and some men) don't want to have as much imbalance in their work/family life as hard-charging reporting/editing jobs may require. ESPECIALLY with cuts in resources these days. All this is regrettable, in my view. ________________________________________________ Somewhere, USA: Wait a second, John Carroll gets all concerned about bias based on a story that questions legislation that requires physicians to give questionable medical advice and it shows the reporter is biased? Yet in 2000 the Post's Ceci Connolly altered quotes (Love Canal) and basically ran anti-Gore RNC press releases. But apparently this bias is off limit to discussion as in Post chats as no one will address it. Where's the real bias? Geneva Overholser: I am an admirer and (I hope) a friend of Ceci, but I was unsettled by that reporting on Gore and hope the Post doesn't quash discussion of it. Nobody seems to be quashing it here. ________________________________________________ Washington, D.C.: Journalism today is intellectually lazy, which I mean as a challenge and not as a cheap shot. I find that major stories are refracted through the lens of the same three or four big themes, whether it’s class struggle, corporate dominance, victim culture (e.g., immigrants), or racism. That’s a pretty narrow range! What’s worse, if the facts don’t fit the big theme, the story gets a procrustean pruning by the journalist. Martha Stewart’s indictment, we are told, is concealed class struggle (Nightline this week). Whence this ideology? Geneva Overholser: I think you said it: Laziness. We get in ruts. We report on the same story. Take the same stance. ________________________________________________ Brooklyn, N.Y.: Any word on whether the Times will ever hire an ombudsman? And shouldn't you have been called an ombudswoman, womanbudsman or ombudschick? Geneva Overholser: Ombudschick! I love it. Wish I'd thot of that during my stint. I'm guessing that the Siegal committee now pondering matters at the Times may well make this recommendation. Joann Byrd, a former post ombud, is on that commission BTW. ________________________________________________ Rochester, Mich.: Everyone keeps pointing to all the Pulitzers that Raines had a hand in winning, and saying that that was proof that his type of managerial style did have payoffs. But it seems to me that to some extent, the Pulitzers were easier (though not easy!) to get -- after all, 9/11, the biggest story of the decade, happened almost literally on the New York Times doorstep. Also, "flooding the zone" only works so long before everyone is burned out -- Pulitzers that might have happened later, never happened, because people quit instead. What do you think? Thanks. Geneva Overholser: I take your points, but I wouldn't say "easy" to get -- and more important, I like recognizing it when huge resources are placed at the service of great journalism. ah, so rare a thing these days. ________________________________________________ San Francisco, Calif.: Why doesn't the Washington Post look at themselves for the disgraceful presentation of a Pentagon propaganda piece on "la affaire Pvt. Lynch?" The unexamined coverage of this blatant piece of pentagon propaganda by the Post, and their subsequent failure to examine the matter even after the international press has exposed the fantasy story is really of much greater consequence to this country than the New York Times problem with a poor reporter. washingtonpost.com: The Post's Ombudsman is Mike Getler. His e-mail is ombudsman@washpost.com. Geneva Overholser: I'd like to see more about that Lynch story. I believe I recall correctly that the current ombudsman, Michael Getler, has said that, as well. ________________________________________________ Alexandria, Va.: You've been in journalism a long time. How well do you personally know the key players here -- Sulzberger, Raines, Boyd? Geneva Overholser: I know Sulzberger from when I worked at the Times, Raines mostly through joint work on Poynter Institute advisory board and the like, Boyd partly because he's a Mizzou grad. They're all talented people, passionate about journalism. I feel for all of them. But I'm relieved this step is behind them. ________________________________________________ Washington, D.C.: Ms. Overholser, I thought you did a generally fine job as ombudsman at The Post, except when the issue pertained to a race-related question, and your comments generally embraced the "white-guilt-political-correctness" viewpoint. At least one Post columnist took you to task for this, do you have any regrets or "corrections" you wished you could have made? Geneva Overholser: Interesting question. I'd have to see the columns to know if I'd change in that specific way. I doubt it, though whatever I said would strike someone wrong on that issue. One thing I wish I could have done is reach the staff more effectively on anonymous sources. ________________________________________________ Geneva Overholser: SO many good questions. I wish I could stay and answer them all. Please accept my apologies for the many terrific Qs I didn't get to. Thanks to all who joined the chat. I feel hopeful, really, in the wake of this trying time, and think some good self-examination is going on throughout America's newsrooms. I'll end with this commercial: I'm doing a weblog these days on the Poynter site, and I wish you'd join me: www.poynter.org/geneva
Bye
Geneva ________________________________________________ washingtonpost.com: That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
