Opinion Counts And Discounts (updated)

Michael Hedges June 8, 2020 Follow on Twitter

Journalistic conventions typically dictate major event coverage. Most of this is tough and blunt; just the facts. Observation is a skill, honed by experience. Opinions expressed must be clearly labeled, community standards respected. News organizations build credibility on these principles. Editors oversee all this.

Philadelphia Inquirer executive editor Stan Wischnowski abruptly “stepped down” at the end of last week. The departure, effective June 12th, related to a headline for an opinion column by architecture critic Inga Saffron, published June 2nd, reported CNN (June 7). Most of the minority Inquirer editorial staff members staged a virtual walk-out two days later.

The opinion column offered that Philadelphia’s many historical sites could face damage or destruction with protective services detailed elsewhere if demonstrations turned to riots. Largely peaceful demonstrations in Philadelphia were fuelled by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota at the hands - knee, actually - of police officers. There have been demonstrations throughout the US and, indeed, across much of the world. Some have been riotous and violent.

But it was the column’s headline that caused distress at the newspaper: Buildings Matter, Too. Mr. Wischnowski and two other editorial executives issued an apology: "The headline offensively riffed on the Black Lives Matter movement, and suggested an equivalence between the loss of buildings and the lives of black Americans. That is unacceptable.” Philadelphia has many buildings. There was only one George Floyd.

"We will use this moment to evaluate the organizational structure and processes of the newsroom, assess what we need, and look both internally and externally for a seasoned leader who embodies our values, embraces our shared strategy, and understands the diversity of the communities we serve,” wrote publisher Lisa Hughes in a memo to staff.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has been published for nearly 200 years, under such illustrious American newspaper families as Annenberg, Knight and McClatchy. But the 1990’s were a struggle for it as well as most US newspapers. A financial rescue in 2014 by philanthropist Gerry Lenfest put the Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News and associated online portals in the hands of an endowed foundation. It’s the new business model of choice.

In the US, the separation between news and opinion is almost always explicit with publishers, broadcasters not so much. In other parts of the world, this is often reversed with newspapers mixing editorial positions with news coverage and broadcasters, by regulation, held to impartiality standards. It is one of the many philosophical and legal divides within definitions of free speech.

Through this period of unrest in the US a wide variety of opinions have been shared through media outlets, as expected. Some have been thoughtful, others reckless. The New York Times (NYT), which employs some of the most highly compensated opinion columnists, solicited and published the opinion of far-right Arkansas senator Tom Cotton under the headline: Send In The Troops (June 3). He called for military force against protestors. It was not well received by civil libertarians. Even among press freedom advocates the reaction was mixed.

At first the NYT defended publishing the column with that freedom of expression argument. “Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy,” wrote editorial page editor James Bennet, quoted by Deadline (June 4). “We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton’s argument painful, even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate.”

That view shifted abruptly after 800 NYT staff members worded a letter to executives about potential safety issues created. “We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication,” said a NYT company spokesperson Eileen Murphy in a statement. “This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short-term and long-term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.”

More shoes dropped, or flew through the air. NYT opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg (June 5) excoriated senator Cotton as a “proto-fascist,” which would easily pass any fact-checking. Senator Cotton came right back, on the expedient Twitter platform (June 6), complaining that the opinion piece of Ms Goldberg “violates your new policy against publishing editorials that are contemptuous in tone.”

UPDATE - NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger issued a statement Sunday (June 7) that Mr. Bennet’s employment had ended “with immediate effect.” It followed Mr. Bennet admitting he had not read the inflammatory op-ed written by Senator Cotton. Mr. Sulzberger referred to “a significant breakdown in our editing processes,” reported Reuters (June 7). Deputy editorial page editor Jim Dao has been reassigned to the newsroom.

See also in ftm Hot Topics

• Hot Topics - News Media