In between comments I made at Washington Monthly yesterday about “la Mésalliance McCain,” somebody commented about Mitt Romney being upset about the New York Times endorsing McCain instead of him; that person also wondered a bit about the process involved.
I touched a bit on the process here, but thought I could do a bit more public service by detailing the editorial endorsement process, from my experience at (much smaller) daily newspapers.
The NYT editorial board would likely have publisher Pinch Sulzberger, Executive Editor Bill Keller, Managing Editor Jill Abramson, Opinion Editor Gail Collins, possibly the top editorial writer (editorial writers and bylined op-ed columnists are different critters at major dailies), possibly/probably the deputy managing editor for politics, or similar position, and perhaps a couple of others.
You’d also have some ad hoc members. For example, for New York City mayoral endorsements, the city editor might sit in. For gubernatorial endorsements, the Albany editor. For presidential endorsements, Dean Baquet, the Washington editor.
First, outside of campaign endorsements, here’s a bit of how an editorial board operates in general. It will meet once, maybe twice a week, plus special meetings on hot button issues. At the NYT, for example, the board would develop a consensus on what issues the paper needs to officially opine about in the next week. It then, after discussion and some sort of vote, especially in a division of house on tough issues, decides the official stance to take, talking points to be mentioned, etc. (If the division on an issue is fierce, an op-ed column might be devoted to the leading representative of the minority view.) Collins would then, after the meeting, assign different editorials to her various writers, copy edit them, etc.
When it comes time for endorsements, the board would first schedule interviews, whenever possible, with the candidates involved, in elections big enough to warrant. (The full editorial board is not going to interview NYC municipal judge candidates, or even get involved in the process.) Before the interviews, board members will discuss questions they want to raise, angles they want to pursue, issues they see of importance, etc. For endorsements in primaries, rather than general elections, these issues will also be connected to some degree with party stances, etc. Interviews may be in person, speakerphone, video, e-mail or whatever.
The board then discusses the candidates after the interview and makes their call.
How this relates to Keller sitting on the story?
As I noted before, I’m sure Keller played his cards close to the vest. If Baquet was in on the McCain vs. Romney endorsement, of course he knew. Abramson was in on the loop, too. Pinch may have been. Collins, likely not.
So, this was something that could have been discussed in the endorsement process. If necessary, you could boot most the people out of the room and have discussed the McCain story and its relation to an endorsement just between Pinch, Keller, Baquet if there, Abramson and Collins, bringing her in the loop.
Was it discussed? Ahh, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Given that the endorsement didn’t mention McCain being ethically challenged on lobbyist issues, let alone personal issues, I’d say no. Pinch is neoconish enough, I think his mind would already have been made up for McCain. For different reasons, ditto on Keller. Baquet would have pushed to talk more about the story, I think, and not been in McCain’s endorsement corner, but I’m guessing Keller had him on an officially very short leash if he was there. Abramson? Guessing she had an open mind on the endorsement, and at this point at least, figured the story didn’t have enough new, or wasn’t moved enough by the story, for whatever reasons.
And, the dirty little secret?
It’s well-known inside the biz, and discussed, but editorial endorsements from major daily newspapers provide little “bump” in the polls to candidates. In fact, some newspapers, whether to save time or to save face, are moving away from doing them.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Follow-up thoughts on the McCain scandal story and the New York Times
One: Why did the New York Times endorse John McCain over Mitt Romney if it was working on “la Mésalliance McCain”?
I'm guessing that the NYT op-ed structure has Executive Editor Bill Keller on the editorial board for endorsement interviews, endorsements, etc. (I'm a newspaper editor, but never at a paper of nearly that size; so this is my semi-insider guesstimate.)
I would guess that Keller kept his cards close enough to the vest that nobody else on the editorial board knew what was up. Prolly nobody had read the WaPost story in December or seen any blog linkage to the Drudge piece at that time. And, as we see most often and most spectacularly at the WSJ, major dailies can sometimes have huge disconnects between newshole staff and op-ed writers.
Other points:
First, the importance of Schmuck Talk hiring Bob Bennett. You just don't do that unless some real shit is up. So, right-wingers who claim this is all smoke, if they know inside Washington, know there's plenty of fire. And, they know they’re lying about this being a tempest in a teapot.
Second, is the sex side unimportant, or a matter of “private lives”?
No. McCain is pandering to the Religious Right again, and has been from the start of this campaign, after years of mutual antagonism. Given that the RR often focuses on sexual issues, it’s perfectly legitimate to focus on this.
And, given McCain has a “track record” in this area, it’s even more legitimate.
Of course, that’s not to deny the importance of the impropriety of McCain’s attempted interference with the Federal Communications Commission.
In short, looking at McCain’s life, it looks like we have a mash-up of Keating Five redux and wife-cheating round two.
Third, just how castrated, or self-castrated, can Bill Keller be? Without some combination of the staff defections over the pace of the story, D.C. editor Dean Baquet pushing back to run the piece, the earlier Drudge leak, and TNR’s sniffing around the Times news staff this week, it’s quite likely this story would be continuing to molder in a bottom-drawer file, if not actually getting an official File 13.
Keller has, and not for the first time, damaged the Times’ news-gathering credibility.
I'm guessing that the NYT op-ed structure has Executive Editor Bill Keller on the editorial board for endorsement interviews, endorsements, etc. (I'm a newspaper editor, but never at a paper of nearly that size; so this is my semi-insider guesstimate.)
I would guess that Keller kept his cards close enough to the vest that nobody else on the editorial board knew what was up. Prolly nobody had read the WaPost story in December or seen any blog linkage to the Drudge piece at that time. And, as we see most often and most spectacularly at the WSJ, major dailies can sometimes have huge disconnects between newshole staff and op-ed writers.
Other points:
First, the importance of Schmuck Talk hiring Bob Bennett. You just don't do that unless some real shit is up. So, right-wingers who claim this is all smoke, if they know inside Washington, know there's plenty of fire. And, they know they’re lying about this being a tempest in a teapot.
Second, is the sex side unimportant, or a matter of “private lives”?
No. McCain is pandering to the Religious Right again, and has been from the start of this campaign, after years of mutual antagonism. Given that the RR often focuses on sexual issues, it’s perfectly legitimate to focus on this.
And, given McCain has a “track record” in this area, it’s even more legitimate.
Of course, that’s not to deny the importance of the impropriety of McCain’s attempted interference with the Federal Communications Commission.
In short, looking at McCain’s life, it looks like we have a mash-up of Keating Five redux and wife-cheating round two.
Third, just how castrated, or self-castrated, can Bill Keller be? Without some combination of the staff defections over the pace of the story, D.C. editor Dean Baquet pushing back to run the piece, the earlier Drudge leak, and TNR’s sniffing around the Times news staff this week, it’s quite likely this story would be continuing to molder in a bottom-drawer file, if not actually getting an official File 13.
Keller has, and not for the first time, damaged the Times’ news-gathering credibility.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Contempt, fines for journo failing to cooperate in lawsuit: where do we draw the line?
Judge Reggie Walton may hold former USA Today reporter Toni Locy in civil contempt for refusing to cooperate with former Army scientist Steven J. Hatfill in his suit against the government.
Hatfill, as some may recall, was named a “person of interest” by the government in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks that hit the U.S. Capitol and other sites shortly after 9/11.
Walton ordered Locy, James Stewart and three other reporters to reveal their sources to Hatfill. Stewart claims his sources have had their info corroborated by other persons identified to the public. Locy is not wanting to cooperate at all. The other three, Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek and Allan Lengel of The Washington Post, have revealed at least part of their source information.
There is precedent on this, on the civil side, from Wen Ho Lee’s suit against the AP and other media sources. After Lee reached a settlement in his suits, reporters who had been found in contempt had their appeals turned away.
I’m inclined to cut reporters some more slack in civil cases. That said, civil contempt in a suit like this may be the slap on the wrist needed to get reporters to treat government sources more critically.
Hatfill, as some may recall, was named a “person of interest” by the government in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks that hit the U.S. Capitol and other sites shortly after 9/11.
Hatfill, who worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory from 1997 to 1999, was publicly identified as a “person of interest” in the 2001 anthrax attacks. He is suing the Justice Department, accusing the agency of violating the federal Privacy Act by giving reporters information about the FBI’s investigation of him.
Five people were killed and 17 sickened by anthrax that was mailed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and members of the news media in New York and Florida just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. After initially being identified as a "person of interest" in the investigation by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, the case remains unsolved.
Walton ordered Locy, James Stewart and three other reporters to reveal their sources to Hatfill. Stewart claims his sources have had their info corroborated by other persons identified to the public. Locy is not wanting to cooperate at all. The other three, Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek and Allan Lengel of The Washington Post, have revealed at least part of their source information.
There is precedent on this, on the civil side, from Wen Ho Lee’s suit against the AP and other media sources. After Lee reached a settlement in his suits, reporters who had been found in contempt had their appeals turned away.
I’m inclined to cut reporters some more slack in civil cases. That said, civil contempt in a suit like this may be the slap on the wrist needed to get reporters to treat government sources more critically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)