It has been three weeks since The New York Times published Alessandra Stanley’s now-infamous “appraisal” of Walter Cronkite. The eight factual errors contained in the story have resulted in two corrections, an onslaught of criticism (present company included), and a column by the paper’s public editor.
The articles, columns, and blog posts continue to appear, but it’s notable that the central narrative is no longer just about Alessandra Stanley. That’s a good thing. People have moved on to raise new issues that deserve thought and attention.
James Rainey wrote this week in the Los Angeles Times that Stanley is part of a larger problem:
The Times has a bad habit, revealed by the Stanley critique and in recent years by the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller incidents, of letting a few well-connected journalists run amok. At the same time, the Times has shown the strength to subject itself to a level of self scrutiny that some (in a Web Age when corrections of grievous errors come labeled as “updates”) would not even pretend.
The New York Times, in short, needs to enforce its high standards more uniformly, regardless of whose byline appears at the top of the story…
I come to this mixed verdict, in part, after a conversation with the newspaper’s former public editor, Byron Calame, who told me that “a lot of New York Times editors don’t feel, in their gut, they have the right to challenge veteran and star reporters and columnists the way they need to.”
In fact, several people who work at the Times told me they are troubled that Stanley is a star whose continued accuracy problems seem to provoke no apparent discipline.
Both Calame and public editor number one Daniel Okrent told Rainey that their interactions with Stanley were memorable for all the wrong reasons. (Calame busted her for the nudge that never was; Okrent “criticized the critic for tone,” according to Rainey.) I’ve also heard from people with knowledge of the situation—yes, I’m citing anonymous sources here, so take it with whatever grain of salt you deem necessary—that while some senior people support Stanley, others in the newsroom are extremely upset that she is held to a different standard.
So does the Times have a star system? To steal a line from one of Okrent’s famous columns, of course it does.
There’s no doubt that Stanley is given more leeway than the average reporter when it comes to errors. If someone with less experience at the paper had her record with accuracy, they’d be given training, demoted, or offered some other form of disciplinary action. (The Times says it doesn’t comment publicly about disciplinary measures, but these things have a way of coming out. As of now, no one, including public editor Clark Hoyt, has offered any information about disciplinary action.)
It isn’t shocking to hear that some employees are treated differently than others. It’s also not unique to the Times, or to journalism for that matter. There are stars in every office. If you have the support of senior people in your workplace, you can get away with things that others can’t. I remember working at a company where people christened a colleague “The Golden Boy” because he could do no wrong in the eyes of the most senior leadership.
This is a common scenario, but it can create a cancerous workplace culture when stars escape discipline for very public missteps. This inconsistency further isolates the stars and their patrons from the rank and file. Of course, it also makes people want to become starts. Who wouldn’t want to operate with impunity and total protection?
The core of this issue is inequality and a lack of consistency. In order for something to become a standard, especially in newsrooms, it has to be applied equally. As far as we know, Stanley has escaped discipline and she’s not being offered training. In fact, she’s getting “special editing attention.” That’s anything but equal, and you can bet it’s angering people around her.