The Times They Are a-Changin'

Happy Groundhog's Day.

It struck me yesterday that it was a good time to make predictions, about the weather in the next few months and the Super Bowl to be played today. But the prediction I make will be on a different subject: The New York Times will be in the sunlight but continue to drop the ball.

Around the world, the Times is viewed as the standard for journalistic excellence. Certainly that's the way its staff and publisher view themselves. And they're sure that their opinions are similarly enlightened, only rarely printing dissenting views – and even then apparently with the aim of eliciting reactions which will set the errant commentator or correspondent right by familiarizing him with “truth.” That truth will be provided by readers who will set the confused writer straight. Those who argue are, after all, disputing the “newspaper of record.”

And, indeed, the paper may be the holder of a significant journalistic record, though it isn't surprising if it's not a record that others in the media will fight to take away. Even if they are more “worthy” of it, none is likely to challenge “the gray lady” for bragging rights in the field of making mistakes. I looked, last night and this morning, at the paper's record over the last full month – January, 2014 – to get a sense of how often it erred, since I have long questioned the accuracy of the purveyor of “all the news that's fit to print.” What I found were two hundred ninety corrections of articles and pictures. (Some of the articles had more than one correction, so the number is really higher.) It's hardly a rigorous scientific survey, but on an annualized basis (290 times twelve months), and assuming that January was a typical month, that's nearly three thousand five hundred errors in a year. If I'm off by a few hundred in either direction, though, it doesn't change the meaning of the findings. I don't mean to suggest that they were all significant mistakes (they weren't), but that there is a problem in the paper to which people turn for accuracy – a paper that people trust. The trust may be misplaced. The automatic assumption that what it says is true is invalid.

Adding to the problem are some other concerns. The corrections are merely the errors to which they admit. They can't deny them. There are others of which they are notified that they dispute or disclaim. (I once had a letter published in the Times in which there was a misquotation of my words, and I had a long fight with them before it was corrected.) They “stand by” their positions even though serious questions may be raised about what they have reported. And I suspect there are additional misstatements that are not brought to their attention by readers, and others which they prefer not to advertise if they have discovered them on their own. It's not likely that the paper's ombudsman would turn them in, or that they would admit to what they could finesse. Even if a correction were to be made, a small print statement, after the fact, and on an inside page is less likely to be read or taken seriously than the original statement. That initial statement will have a far greater impact than the clarification.

The problem as stated, however, only refers to the facts. It's harder to deny errors of fact than admit to illogical or misleading opinions. Such opinions, reflecting the positions (biases) of the staff of the paper, remain as testaments to their point of view irrespective of the strength of their arguments (or its lack) and the reasoning of those who disagree. They're less likely than facts to be disputed because they are labeled as opinion, and because the opinions coincide with those of most of the readership. After all, that's why they buy the paper. They already favor that point of view. But their opinions, though just as inclined (or more so) to be questionable as are many of their “facts,” are likely to get a free pass. And they will play a large part in creating the views of those readers who have not yet formed their own opinions and are ready to accept the judgment of what they see as the source of wisdom. Even when it is not Groundhog's Day, the gray lady operates largely in the shadows.

And that's the way it will probably remain. The Times's reputation will not suffer from it's sloppiness, lack of fact-checking and biases, but rather it will receive praise for its willingness to correct the errors it has made. And that willingness will raise the reputation of the paper rather than triggering a reevaluation based on the errors themselves. A party that is favored always gets the benefit of the doubt.

And there will be six more weeks of winter.