In Which The New York Times Issues An Apology to The Mayoress. Not Joking.

This article on the Wesleyan shooting is fascinating for content, but before I was done reading the first page I was writing my first letter to the NYT news desk.

Journalism 101: objective reporting, right? And yes, we all know that humans are inherently subjective, etc etc, but in reporting, the effort should be made to present the facts simply and coherently.

Exercise! Can you find the proper "journalistic" way to report the following event?
A. The Red Sox announced today that their franchise would close in 2011.
B. The stupid Red Sox went bankrupt because they suck.
C. All Boston was abuzz with the stunning news that their beloved team sucked.

Not hard, is it?

So my brow kept furrowing as I tried to glide past phrases like "According to chilling new details" (unnecessary adjective), "his hair was unkempt" (by what standards?), "The lives of Ms. Justin-Jinich and Mr. Morgan had intersected briefly — and ominously — two years earlier" (take out the "ominous" part - that's for the reader to judge), and "There was no way to foresee the sudden, nightmarish sequel" (what is this, a review for High School Musical 2?).

Something had to be done.

At 01:29 PM 5/8/2009, you wrote:
Hi,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/nyregion/09wesleyan.html?_r=1&hp
This article is the most subjective Ive ever read in the Times, including editorial. Nearly every paragraph includes narration fit for a novel, not a piece of objective reporting. More than anything, its just baffling that it was published by the NYT, not at all in line with the tone or type of articles normally in the paper/online. Strange and disappointing.
CP

From: G--- B---- [ mailto:senioreditor@nytimes.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Journalism?
Dear [Stupid Reader Who Is Wasting My Time Surfing Facebook]:
I am sorry you found our article so unfit and out of line with The Times's normal coverage.
As you now, what to cover and how to cover it is subjective. There is no formula or rules for what is right or wrong. However, this coverage of a human tragedy is not at all unusual for The Times. I have worked here only since 1995. But we have covered many tragic events like this through the years.
Thank you for reading The Times. I am sorry we have so disappointed you this time.
Best regards,
GB
Senior Editor

At 03:05 PM 5/8/2009, you wrote:
Hi [Don't F-ing Condescend to Me Just Because My Blog Steals All Its Content From You],
It was really kind (and unnecessary!) of you to write me back. Thanks so much. I was mainly trying to point out that it's a very different tone than the articles I've ever seen in a reporting section of the Times, at least in the initial 10 paragraphs. As a writer myself, I agree that even the way facts are organized can seem subjective in a typical story, but in a story where the suspect isn't even formally convicted yet it seemed more SVU than NYT to include so many adjectives, qualifiers, and speculative descriptions.
Thanks much and have a great weekend.
Ciara


From: Condescending but Now Repentant Editor Guy [mailto:senioreditor@nytimes.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:17 PM
Very interesting. I will go back and look at it again. You are correct that it was a different approach. But that is not a license for us to sidestep the basic issues of fairness and not convicting someone prematurely.
best,
G


Mwah ha ha I am drunk with the power! What's next, CNN? Al Jazeera? Watch out Nancy Grace!

Okay that's it I'm going on vacation. Obvs much needed.