Difficult Times   

The New York Times explains itself.

IN 1992, WHEN HE WAS WITH the Los Angeles Times, James Risen broke a story about discord in the Bush administration over economic policy. The ensuing silence was deafening.
The next day the New York Times matched the piece. A major furor ensued.
Not long ago, Fox News reported on an anti-Gore ad put out by the Republican National Committee that--very briefly--flashed the word "rats." Nobody paid any attention.
Two weeks later, the New York Times ran a similar story. It rapidly became the political topic du jour.
When it comes to impact, there is nothing quite like a page one story in the New York Times. People take notice. Rival news organizations follow up. Agendas get set.
The New York Times is the gold standard of American journalism. It has clout. And it has credibility.
It is a wonderful position to be in.
It is an awesome burden.
When the Times broke the story about a major Chinese espionage case at Los Alamos in March 1999, CIA reporter Vernon Loeb was asked to chase it for the Washington Post.
His reaction says volumes: "The Times is usually right," he says, "so we couldn't dismiss the story." (See "Rush to Judgment")
The unhappy Wen Ho Lee saga is a vivid reminder of the consequences on those occasions when the Times isn't right. It's not very likely Lee would have spent nine months in solitary confinement, sometimes in shackles, if he hadn't been linked to what was described in a front page Times story as the worst spy case since the Rosenbergs.
Not that Lee emerges as a model citizen. What was he doing with all that classified information? But when former CIA chief John Deutsch was sloppy with secret data, he was hardly hauled off to the slammer.
Once the case against Lee imploded, the Times did an uncharacteristic thing. It answered its critics in print.
The result was a "From the Editors" note that went to great lengths to defend the thrust of the Times coverage and express confidence in the reporters. Yet the august Times made some remarkable admissions about its shortcomings, placing the blame squarely on the paper's editors.
It conceded that some of its coverage had "adopted the sense of alarm" of the spy-chasers. It didn't assign a profile of Lee that might have humanized rather than demonized him. It ignored caution flags buried in its own copy.
In sum, the paper had dropped its skepticism and wholeheartedly adopted the point of view of the investigators. It was so wedded to one scenario that it ignored the possibility of any others. It failed to give Lee the benefit of the doubt.
This, of course, is an occupational hazard of investigative reporters. In this case, Times reporters Risen (he left the Left Coast Times in 1998) and Jeff Gerth were basically being told that the sky was falling. When you've got a hot story, your first instinct isn't to knock it down. The Times is right: That's where editors come in.
When train wrecks like this occur, it's more constructive to look for lessons rather than villains. And this one is crystal clear: Even reporters this accomplished and newspapers this outstanding can get carried away. Skepticism and open-mindedness are critical, even--no, particularly--when the adrenaline is flowing.
The episode is also a brutal reminder of something journalists should never forget: Their work has real-life consequences for real human beings.
One other thing: One of the healthier journalism trends in recent years is that newspapers at last have decided to tell their readers on occasion why they do what they do. Sometimes that means explaining a controversial decision--why we're running this picture, why we're naming this juvenile. Most painful, it sometimes means telling readers we screwed up, and why.
The New York Times, safe to say, has not been a leader in this movement. It's encouraging to see the Times confront tough questions about its reporting in print, even if somewhat grudgingly and under duress.

I'M PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE a new hire who will be a major force in AJR's future. She's Valarie Basheda, who comes to us from the Detroit Free Press, where she was an assistant metro editor. Before that she reported for the Detroit News.
It's clear Valarie has all the journalistic skills. But what really made her stand out to us was her deep passion for the craft. The fact that she's a Philadelphia Eagles fan didn't hurt, either.