An accounting of fifty years’ worth of Darts is hardly a balm for an industry careening through a wrenching transition. It is a concentrated dose of every journalistic sin imaginable, and some that defy imagination: plagiarism, laziness, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, hypocrisy, photo manipulation, staged news, stupidity, bad taste, collaborating with law enforcement, junkets, caving to advertisers, paying to play, protecting sacred cows, cowardice, lying, cheating, exacting revenge, miserliness, endangering sources, fabrication, perpetrating hoaxes—a rather sorry record.
It also is a distorted record. There are five decades of Laurels, too, celebrating journalism’s more noble inclinations. But Darts & Laurels did not become iconic for its gentle caress; and awareness, as they say in recovery literature, is the first step toward improvement. Here then is a sampling of lowlights, as chronicled in this column since 1961.
Lest anyone think D&L has aimed too many of its 1,370 (and counting) Darts at the weak and the small, a dishonor roll of some marquee recipients: Walter Cronkite (twice, for dubious shilling), President Nixon (for failing to reappoint Kenneth A. Cox to the FCC), Spiro Agnew, Jack Anderson (twice), Don Hewitt, Katie Couric, Tim Russert, Otis Chandler, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Ann Landers, Mike Royko, Herb Caen, Maureen Dowd, Morley Safer, Aaron Brown, Al Neuharth, Rex Reed, Steven Brill, Mike Wallace, Linda Ellerbee, and George Will (twice, including one for helping George W. Bush prep for an interview Will was conducting). Most major news outlets—from The New York Times to 60 Minutes—were hit numerous times.
The most common Darts—a combined 36 percent—were for some type of self-dealing: conflicts of interest or crossing the line between business and editorial. Typical was the San Francisco TV reporter who for years heaped glowing coverage on city supervisor Gavin Newsom, who at the time was laying the groundwork for what would be a successful bid for mayor, without letting viewers know that he was a partner in a company headed by Newsom. Less typical was Fortune’s decision in 1976 to publish a ten-page piece, “The Philippines: A New Role In Southeast Asia,” without disclosing that the Marcos government had paid the magazine $183,000 to print the article, unlabeled as an advertisement.
There also were numerous instances of outlets failing to report honestly on themselves when the information was embarrassing or unflattering. For instance, when The New York Times, in coverage of the 1981 Scarsdale Diet Doctor murder trial, edited out references to its managing editor’s wife (Audrey Topping) and its publisher’s mother (Iphigene Sulzberger) when quoting from a letter, written by the accused, that was entered as evidence.
If the foregoing Darts were routine, others were simply outrageous. Like the 1976 editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News that urged the execution of a convicted murderer—“It’s about time for Leonard Edwards to take the Hot Squat”—and concluded with the directive to “Fry him.” Or this headline on a 2002 story in the Trenton, New Jersey, Trentonian about a fire at a psychiatric hospital: “Roasted Nuts.”
More than one Dart went to coverage that diminished the crime of rape, including one to legendary Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mike Royko for referring in a 1979 column to an attempted gang rape of a seventeen-year-old girl as a “frolic” in the woods. Then there was the editor in Illinois who in 1966 used the word “coons” in a headline to mean African Americans because, he said later, it fit the space.
- 1
- 2
The "hot squat" editorial, by Richard Aregood, is a masterpiece of opinion writing, but it figures that the ninnies at CJR would be outraged.
#1 Posted by Newspaperman, CJR on Wed 2 Nov 2011 at 04:03 PM
Aregood says over at Romenesko that "[t]he odd part of getting that "dart" was that it essentially made my career."
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/151855/most-of-cjrs-darts-have-been-aimed-at-conflicts/#comment-354392761
#2 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 12:57 AM
Disappointing to learn that Richard Aregood's classic editorial, "Yes, the Chair," received a dart from CJR back in the mid-70s. Maybe that set the stage for the pallid, stick-up-the-rectum, holier-than-thou blandness that now passes for "civil discourse" on America's vestigial editorial pages.
Dick's "Fry him" editorial, which was very much in tune with the blue-collar values of the Daily News' primary audience, set the stage for something else -- Aregood's much-deserved Pulitzer Prize about 10 years later.
I'd like to see CJR start issuing "darts" to the prudish, Kumbaya-seeking mediocrity of the modern editorial page, and sending more laurels to the bold wordsmiths who keep the form alive and kicking (sometimes kicking AND screaming).
Bill Reader, former editorial writer
">http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/151855/most-of-cjrs-darts-have-been-aimed-at-conflicts/>
#3 Posted by Bill Reader, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 01:40 AM
I've been a Darts & Laurels reader for decades and well remember when Aregood was on the hot seat, so to speak. Reader (Bill) is spot on about the power of that incendiary editorial, for which Richard really deserved a Laurel! Here's a Dart I was involved in a few years back that was richly and totally deserved, against KIRO7-TV: http://katiabachko.com/clips/m... As the Dart rightly concludes, journalists make mistakes all the time, but it's really disappointing when they fail to own up to them, apologize, run corrections and explain what happened. That erodes credibility and public trust more than anything else.
P.S. -- I'm also a former editorial writer, but never got a Dart. Think I was nominated once when I described animal-rights activists as "Namby-Pamby Bambi Lovers." Is there a statute of limitations? Hope so.
#4 Posted by John Hamer, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 02:33 PM
Mr. Reader:
A laurel to Mssrs. Reader and Hamer. Absolutely right.
#5 Posted by Newspaperman, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 01:14 PM