Changing opinions

It's not often one is deeply disturbed by a public editor column. But leave it to The New York Times to do the extraordinary.\nFor those of you who aren't print junkies, newspapers use public editor columns to explain their inner workings -- how stories are chosen, how they do research, who is responsible for what, etc. Often, this is done to counter accusations of bias. On other occasions, to encourage readers to trust, even sympathize with journalists. Most significantly, it's used as a mea culpa -- to expose mistakes and abuses at the paper, and try to restore reader confidence afterward. The IDS has employed a public editor in the past -- just not at the moment, since it's summer and we're down to a skeleton crew.\nThis third, mea culpa, reason drove The New York Times' July 17 public editor column. The controversy began when, after printing an editorial by Capt. Philip Carter, The Times ran the following July 6 correction:\n"The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error."\nThe paper was quickly confronted with e-mails accusing it of altering Capt. Carter's editorial so as to change its intent: from suggesting that President Bush publicly address military recruitment, to a slam on the Bush administration. \nThus, the July 17 public editor column explained that it was all a mistake. After hearing that Capt. Carter was returning to active duty, a Times editor inserted the quotes above and asked the Captain for his approval. The Captain refused (twice!), saying they were inaccurate and contrary to his intentions. The editor relented and was to use the original column -- but the changed version was accidentally published instead.\nLeaving aside whether this was actually an accident or not, the public editor has inadvertently revealed a striking level of bias and arrogance at The Times. \nSure, the IDS makes mistakes on occasion. It's a student newspaper, after all -- even if one of the very best in the country. And my writing has occasionally fallen victim to typos and copy errors. Yet, in over 50 columns, I have never, ever had an editor pressure me to change my underlying message. To clarify things, sure -- but never to inject ideas that weren't there. What's worse, The Times doesn't even understand that this was wrong -- the apology was for inadvertently "putting words in a writer's mouth," not for pushing the writer to follow the paper's political line. \nA June 26 Pew Research Center survey reported that 60 percent of Americans see the press as politically biased, with 72% seeing it as favoring one side over another. Given the example provided by The Times, it's a wonder these numbers are so low.