On Media Blog Archives Select Date… December, 2015 November, 2015 October, 2015 September, 2015 August, 2015 July, 2015 June, 2015 May, 2015 April, 2015 March, 2015 February, 2015 January, 2015

NYT public editor slams al Qaeda story

The New York Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan blasted the paper for publishing an article that more or less pointed the finger at McClatchy for publishing leaked information that anonymous officials said did more harm than the Edward Snowden leaks.

"It’s hard to know where to start with the lead article in Monday’s Times. In it, anonymous government sources — described in the vaguest possible way (for example, “one United States official”) — are unquestioningly allowed to play their favorite press-bashing hand, featuring the national security card," Sullivan wrote in a blog post Thursday morning. "In so doing, they seem to take a swipe at a news organization that competes with The Times."

The piece in a question was a front page, top right article with the headline "Qaeda Plot Leak Has Undermined U.S. Intelligence." The article says terrorists changed their methods of communications after news organizations published details of how the U.S. monitors terrorists. Specifically, the Times points out McClatchy Newspapers, who first named the two Al Qaeda leaders whose communications intercepts led to the closure of embassies and travel warnings across the Middle East.

Sullivan trashed the heading and subheadlines of the article for its lack of attribution.

"Not a shred of attribution among the three – just straight from the mouths of anonymous government sources into the automatic credibility conferred by the paper of record’s front page," Sullivan wrote.

Sullivan reached out to the Times' copy editor who apologized for the headline, saying it was a poor headline due to deadline constraints.

The headline was not up to our standards. It should have better reflected the attribution or qualifications in the story. We’ve discussed this with the copy desk supervisors and other editors who were involved. Sometimes our editing safeguards fail us under the press of deadline, as they did here. It is good to be reminded that our readers expect better. I am sorry we disappointed them.

Sullivan has long been a critic of the Times' use of anonymous government officials, the paper's willingness to withhold information at the government's request and what Sullivan said is the paper's tendency to treat non-Times journalism with disrespect.