Weekend Edition January 13-15, 2012
The Unreadable Implications of the New York Times
The Budgies Are Listless
On Thursday, January 5, I was waiting for the elevator in the
lobby of my building when I was joined by a woman who lives up the hall
from me. She was carrying a grocery bag with The New York Times poking
out the top. “Why did you buy it?” I asked. “They just raised the price
to $2.50. Who can afford that for a daily newspaper?”
“I have a very large birdcage,” she said. “It’s the only newspaper that fits the bottom of my birdcage.”
My neighbor is a classical musician who makes a living at it. She
pays attention to politics and votes. She buys things. She’s a little
older than the actors playing obedient yuppies in the NYT commercials
that beg for subscriptions, but is otherwise their ideal reader.
“The only thing I don’t like about the Times is all the color
pictures,” she continued. “One of my budgies is listless, and I think it
might be chemicals leaching out of the pictures. So I cut them out
before I put the paper in the cage. I may have to take my budgies to the
vet.”
Afterward I sat in my apartment and thought, “Wow, that was the
perfect lead to a Thomas Friedman column, one of those deals where he
has a chance encounter that resonates with symbolism for some
earth-shaking problem, like the death of print. Would Friedman see the
budgies as upper management at the Times, making disastrous business
decisions for the entire 21st century and crapping on journalists by
cutting their benefits? Or would the budgies be the readers, listless
with their diet of toxic ink? Or would the budgies be reporters caged by
corporatism? The world is a flat birdcage, and the metaphors would drop
like turds from the sky. Is it for Tom or myself that I cry?”
Perhaps I was being unfair, I further thought. Perhaps the Times had
changed and I didn’t notice because I hadn’t read it regularly since the
last millenium. Oh, I glance at it almost every day online. But a
careful read? Nah. I hadn’t bought one outside of an airport for years.
So, for $2.50, I bought a paper copy—“the world’s best journalism in its
original form,” as the commercials say— the very same issue that my
neighbor put on the bottom of her birdcage.
I spent three fitful hours reading that night. When I woke up the
next morning, I couldn’t remember anything, except for an article about a
girl group in Myanmar who had just released their first album. It was
hard to tell if the girl group had anything to say, or if they were just
acting like they had something to say, in the manner of corporate
commodities like the Spice Girls and Lady Gaga. They did sing and dance
in a mildly suggestive manner, which is novel and controversial in a
socially conservative country run by a crazy military junta, but…I don’t
know…was I supposed to be happy that the girl group was expressing
itself, or sad that Western-style junk pop might be penetrating Myanmar?
When I went online later in the morning of January 6, I discovered an
article by Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy saying that the Times
had lied in an article by Steven Erlanger, who wrote that the
International Atomic Energy Agency thought Iran’s nuclear program had a
“military objective.” In fact, said Naiman, the IAEA inspections
revealed only that Iran had “technology that could be consistent with
building a bomb.”
“AIPAC,” he said, “is trying to trick America into another
catastrophic war with a Middle Eastern country on behalf of the Likud
Party’s colonial ambitions.”
Hmmm, I thought, how did I miss this sequel to the weapons of mass
destruction that disgraced the Times when it was cheerleading the
invasion of Iraq? I went back to the front page of the Times of January
5, and there it was in the fifth paragraph, above the fold: “The threats
from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent
assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s
nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue
in the American presidential campaign.”
Okay. The problem when I read the story the first time was that I
didn’t get past the headline and the first paragraph. The headline said:
“In Bold Step, Europe Nears Embargo on Iran Oil”. The first sentence
said, “European countries have taken their boldest step so far in the
increasingly tense standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, agreeing
in principle to impose an embargo on Iranian oil, French and European
diplomats said on Wednesday.”
When you see a value-laden word like “bold” in a headline in the
ostensibly objective news section, and then you see “boldest” in the
first sentence of the story, you know that they really, really, really
want you to think something is bold. And you know that you’re going to
wade through a factory farm lagoon of bullshit. In this case, to spell
it out, the thing they want you to believe “bold” is an act of war,
which is what an embargo is.
So the neocons are drooling with bloodlust again. I already knew
that. The only news value I saw the first time I read the article was
that “bold” appears to be the new “robust.” In the Bush administration,
pretty much any atrocity committed by the United States, any call for
atrocity, or any weapon used in an atrocity, was “robust.” Now that
robust is enfeebled with the connotation of innumerable Bush military
fiascos in the Middle East, it’s time to dust off bold for the next
round of fiascos. What, after all, is bolder than provoking a war that
will disrupt oil production in the middle of a depression and could
easily escalate into a nuclear exchange with Iran’s allies? Our
grandchildren will sing songs about how bold we are. Or maybe robust
will make a comeback by then.
At this point, my eyes bounced off the page, just like they bounce
off the television screen whenever the president says anything. I didn’t
catch the lie, because I didn’t read it in the first place. I therefore
salute press critics like Robert Naiman and FAIR and Glenn Greenwald
who can read NYT articles all the way to the end. I can’t.
While we’re on the topic of the bold embargo, did the Times lay off
all the copy editors? “French and European diplomats”? When did France
secede from Europe?
I did enjoy the last article in the news section of January 5,
“Methods in a Cat Litter Ad Don’t Pass a Judge’s Smell Test” by
Elizabeth A. Harris, which concerned a cat litter company suing another
cat litter company for false advertising. The defendant claimed to have
done 44 smell tests using “sealed jars of excrement” treated either with
its cat litter or the plaintiff’s cat litter to prove which company’s
product made the cat’s product smell better. Skeptical of the science
behind the smell tests, a federal judge ruled in a hearing that the suit
could proceed. The article survived the editing process with some humor
intact—a benefit of laying off a bunch of editors?—and I assume Harris
is praying every night that she gets assigned to cover the actual trial,
but any cat-owning reader was left wondering, “Why were they doing the
smell tests on cat excrement, which doesn’t smell at all two minutes
after leaving the cat? It’s cat urine that smells like you just gargled
with toilet bowl cleaner. Why didn’t they smell test the urine?”
Next I turned to the Corrections section on page 2. The best
correction that day concerned “a type of bird that snow geese may try to
displace when they arrive in the water of the Sacramento National
Wildlife Refuge in the wintertime. It is the white-fronted goose, not
the white-footed goose. And the article referred imprecisely to the Tule
goose. It is a subspecies of the white-fronted goose, not a separate
species.”
Let me be fair here. I’ve made lots of mistakes like that. Every
journalist has, because the human brain is imperfect, especially when it
has deadlines and quotas. Let him who could tell a white-footed goose
from a white-fronted goose cast the first stone. I don’t know anything
about the reporter, Felicity Barringer, who wrote about the geese in
question, but I imagine her as a Harvard graduate, a history major and
veteran of the Crimson, and she’s thinking, “I could have been sent to
Paris with a big expense account to promote the next war. I could have
been sent to Federal Court in Manhattan to smell cat litter. But
nooooooooooooo. They sent me to a swamp. In central California. In the
middle of winter. They freeze my ass, they freeze my pension, and they
publicly humiliate me because I don’t know one goose from another. Why
didn’t I go to law school?”
So let us heap no more shame on Felicity Barringer. Let us salute the
Times for manning up and admitting a mistake. Surely it would run a
correction in the print edition on Iran’s non-bomb the next day, since
they deleted the offending words from the online edition the same day
they ran it. I mean, what’s more important to get straight? Provoking
war with a country of 74 million people under false pretenses, or a
white-fronted goose?
No correction the next day. Nor the next day. Nor the next day. Nor the next day. Nor the next day.
Finally, on January 11, I noticed alerts by Naiman and FAIR that the
Times’ Public Editor, Arthur S. Brisbane, had addressed the issue in his
blog. “The Times published 3,500 corrections last year, a huge volume
that in itself requires a great deal of work to shepherd into print,”
said Brisbane. “I usually agree with its decisions about what to correct
and not correct, although there are sometimes cases where The Times’s
judgment call and mine are not the same.”
In one year, 3,500 corrections? Jesus. Have they considered hiring more journalists?
Brisbane went on to quote at length from the original IAEA report,
trying to show that a reasonable person could conclude that IAEA was
saying that Iran was definitely pursuing a nuclear weapon, and he linked
to Washington Post ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, who has similarly been
soaked with torrents of outrage from readers when the Post has
“overstated” the case for the next war. But Brisbane did finally
conclude in a 51%-on-this-side, 49%-on-that-side kind of way that “the
readers are correct on this,” and it’s “important because the Iranian
program has emerged as a possible casus belli.”
That’s a substantial fraction of a concession there. But “judgment
call”? It’s not even a disagreement. The Times knows that the
information in the original article was false, and it knew it was false
within a few hours of publication because it quickly deleted the false
words from the online edition. What it hasn’t done is correct in print
false information that remains in print. Does a misidentified casus
belli deserve as much attention as a misidentified goose or not?
Meanwhile, as I write these words, another Iranian nuclear scientist
has been assassinated, and the Times is doing the same turgid dance
between the truth and what’s “fit to print.” I can’t even begin on that
one. Let me just observe that there are two kinds of articles in the New
York Times: those that have implications for America’s imperial
project, and those that don’t have implications for America’s imperial
project. The ones with implications are unreadable. The ones without
implications are about cat litter.
So if I worked on the business side of the Times and were looking at
circulation plunge by the tens of thousands every quarter, I would be a
little panicked about the attractiveness of the product. I would talk to
the art department about getting rid of the color pictures that might
be poisoning my neighbor’s listless budgies. And if I were my neighbor’s
veterinarian, I would check to see if the budgies had learned to read.
CHARLES M. YOUNG is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent Project Censored award-winning online alternative newspaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment