Friday Mailbag: Taunts, Hoaxes, Anonymity and Stealth
We hope you got some rest over the holidays, but it’s clear from our mailbox that you remained sharp and attentive readers. We will address a few of those complaints first, before turning to this week’s topics.
A holiday-themed Social Q’s column, which administers lighthearted advice about awkward social situations, addressed what an adult should do when one child taunts another at a holiday party. The specific taunt in question, which was directed toward a Latina girl, was this: “Pack your bags. Trump is going to send you back to Mexico.” The headline on the column? “Should I Stay Silent During One Child’s Populist Taunt of Another?” Readers took issue with the description of the taunt.
The headline is completely inappropriate for the advice question to which it refers. The child seems to harass his guest based solely on his misguided stereotype of a certain heritage. This is plain bigoted, not “populist” as the headline suggests. Populism is a broad term that is used to refer to vastly disparate political beliefs and styles, including those of Bernie Sanders and President Obama as well as President-elect Trump. It is synonymous neither with antipathy towards particular ethnicities, nor specific immigration policies. To call the child’s taunt “populism” at once minimizes the seriousness of his actions and strains the definition of populism beyond recognition.Sarah Bayer, Boston, Mass.
The author of the column, Philip Galanes, took the time to reply to a reader who wrote to him directly.
Thank you for your note. I am the author of the column — but not the headline. And I agree with you. We should have found a better hed, particularly since the answer called on all of us to be extra-vigilant to racism and misogyny in these times. It also asked us to moderate the pitch of our speech, especially in complaint, to communicate better. I thank you for doing both.
Shortly before the new year, an ad ran on a Times story that left some readers befuddled.
My NY Times digital copy keeps displaying a pop-up that advertises a fabulous Obama tax rebate (supposedly he signed a bill Dec. 18). It would return millions of dollars to anyone who paid sales taxes in 2015. I called my accountant, who said it was a hoax. The pop-up has returned day after day as part of your news for the last two weeks. Could you please tell me if this has been approved by the NY Times? Is my accountant wrong?Rita Cleary
The ad was indeed a hoax, and readers who realized this have asked The Times to address the issue.
The below ad is now part of the norm at The Times, alas. I don’t frankly understand the mechanism by which such ads appear but assume, perhaps erroneously, that sites exercise some control in that regard.John Seager, Washington D.C.
Indeed, such ads do seem to find their way onto the Times website occassionally, as a public editor column explained in November, but we asked Sebastian Tomich, senior vice president for advertising and innovation, to comment once more. Here’s his response:
They’re nearly impossible to catch in advance as they come through advertising technology platforms such as Facebook and Google at random. When fake news ads are reported we block the advertiser, and we’ve also been lifting price floors, which has made an impact since implementation.
An hour into the new year, tragedy struck in Turkey when a gunman attacked an Istanbul nightclub. The lead byline on The Times’s story was anonymous — “an Employee of The New York Times” — and readers had theories as to why.
The byline caught my attention for a couple reasons. I spent a year as a freelancer in Istanbul and understand the myriad challenges and dangers Turkish reporters (and foreign journos in Turkey) face. It seems every week brings fresh reports of journalists detained by the dozens for their work. While it saddens me that reporters in Turkey may elect to shield their identities in the same way those working in active war zones do, I see that in the current climate it could be necessary.However, in the context of the crisis of confidence in news here in the U.S., the byline seemed odd. The NYT (and many other publications) have made strides to increase transparency in the journalistic process recently. The approach of reporters investigating the Ghost Ship fire comes to mind. So my question is this: when is it appropriate to shield the identity of a reporter? Where lies the balance between accountability and the safety of journalists?Elizabeth Hewitt, Montpelier, Vt.
The public editor’s take: We’ve received several letters asking about the unusual byline. The international editor, Michael Slackman, said he’s not in position to comment but I suspect you are hinting at the right issues in your letter. From my experience, it is not uncommon to use a generic byline when the security of journalists may be at risk, or when a widespread team of editors and reporters is assembling a deadline story. But I’m only speaking for myself, not the paper. Just last week, a Wall Street Journal reporter was detained by Turkish officials for three days and held in isolation.
The same story caught readers’ attentions for other reasons, too. Initially, the story reported that the single gunman may have been as many as three gunmen, and they were wearing Santa Claus suits, an image which stayed with readers. The Times, however, never appended a correction to the story nor added a note explaining the change.
As of my writing, the Times’s current version of its online article makes no reference to Santa-disguised terrorists, only to a single (apparently normally-dressed) assailant. And there is no correction about “earlier reports of multiple terrorists dressed in Santa costumes were in error.” Especially in a case like this, the Times should go beyond just correcting its reporting to acknowledge that it had hastily printed an inaccurate rumor (and perhaps identify the rumor’s original source).Richard D. Smith, Rocky Hill, N.J.
We asked Slackman about this. Here’s his response:
It was a fast-breaking story and The Times, and many other sites, used information we thought was credible. Would it have been advisable to adjust the language so that it was clear we were now skeptical of the earlier reports? Probably so. But these were challenging circumstances.
The public editor’s take: Time for me to make my plug again for attaching notes to stories that undergo a notable change from a previous edition. This wasn’t just a routine change in a rapidly unfolding story. It was a rather dramatic visual — a team of men in Santa Claus suits firing into the crowd. If that turned into one man dressed like the crowd, as later stories suggest, isn’t it more transparent just to flag that?
Another reader raised an issue that will hopefully be addressed in the new year.
I am a deaf reader, and I have recently been frustrated that Times Video under The New York Times does not provide captions for its videos. It looks like I am not the first to complain about this. There is a piece in the Public Editor’s Journal from March 2015 that said captioned videos will be forthcoming in the next few months. It is now January 2017, and there is no evidence of any accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing readers. The New York Times needs to take initiative on this matter to avoid discriminating against these readers.Erik Nordlof, Arlington, Va.
We asked Alexandra MacCullum, who oversees Times video, for an answer. She told us that while some videos have text overlay, which editors add manually, an automated closed caption system is in the works this year.
Different leadership ran the video department in March of 2015; I was unaware of that statement. When I took over in January of 2016, no work had started on the project, which is a large technical heave as well as a change to our newsroom workflow.Closed captions and transcriptions are a priority for the beginning of this year (2017). We spent much of last year fixing some technical infrastructure, and we’re looking have a solution in the coming months. We understand that it’s problematic for our readers and recognize the importance to make sure our readers have a seamless watching experience when they are on our site.
As trust in the media falters, a reader has taken a stand, one friend at a time. He wrote us to ask for our aid in his mission.
Where might I find the New York Times’s statements on journalistic integrity, quality of journalism, and news standards? I am preparing for a debate with a friend who has called The Times biased.David E. Johnson, San Antonio, Tx.
We, of course, pointed him to their location on the web, and if you have any upcoming debates, too, you can find The Times’s standards and ethics here.
Good luck, and see you next week.
P.C: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/public-editor/friday-mailbag-taunts-hoaxes-anonymity-and-stealth.html
Post a Comment