Did The New York Times’ Bill Keller Diss Gawker? Only Kind Of

Foster Kamer, the weekend editor over at Gawker.com, posted a great item this evening about Clark Hoyt’s take on this bizarre “New York Times is about to drop a David Paterson bombshell” story.

Hoyt included a quote where head Times honcho Bill Keller’s “called out” Gawker’s coverage of the story, and Foster had an (understandable) objection. But was it warranted?

The Phantom NYT Paterson Story Now Growing via Masturbatory NYT Reacharound

By Foster Kamer

[. . .]

Bill Keller not only has his head up his ass if he’s simply writing off other news outlets as “wallowing” for the sake of doing so, because that’s our “purpose,” but he also starts to sound like anyone else who’s ever been reported on: combative and dismissive. Wallowing? Not so much.

We were reporting a story, which we did both when we first posted about the rumor just as we did when we were on the phone with the governor’s office, getting a denial the Times wouldn’t address, thereby shutting down part of a rumor. I’m pretty sure that’s reporting.

Sexton’s story became a newsworthy item in and of itself, which is something they don’t enjoy. Among other things, it could affect their reporting of the story, which doesn’t help their cause. And nothing makes reporters more uncomfortable than being newsworthy themselves. It’s part of the reason and culture around why organizations like the New York Times have always taken issues with organizations like ours: the tunnel-vision of not being able to hear a call coming from inside the building.

Full Post »

I agree that saying Gawker “wallows” in “all that” (i.e., reporting rumor) is, implicitly, kind of belittling, but focusing on his diction misses Keller’s larger — and, in my opinion, pretty valid point.

The Times is in a difficult situation here, and I think everyone (except the Paterson camp, obviously) agrees that it makes little sense for the paper to comment on a story it may or may not be working on.

But I don’t think Keller meant, necessarily, to suggest that what Gawker, et al is doing somehow isn’t “real reporting;” he’s just pointing out that it’s not the kind of reporting the Times does. The Times, (supposedly,) simply does not consider rumors newsworthy, while outlets like Gawker and the New York Post, etc. — who are, at least in part, expressly in the business of publishing and reporting rumors they consider to have news value — do.

So that’s why they’re not covering the story. The end.

There’s an argument to be made for that approach — after all, if this phantom Paterson story doesn’t pan out, then the Times can safely deny any complicity in fueling a fire that tarnished an innocent person’s* reputation.

Whether this holds up to scrutiny or not is a separate matter. Would (or has?) the Times reported on newsworthy rumors elsewhere? Would it avoid covering the same story if the Post or the Daily News were rumored to have such a major scoop instead?

Maybe not. But for now, at least, it seems like Keller’s just answering the question everyone — Gawker included — has been asking: Why Won’t The New York Times Acknowledged The Big Pink Elephant in the Room? (I mean, God, even Paterson can see it.)

* This point might hold up better better if the subject in question weren’t David Paterson. So, for the sake of argument, pretend we’re talking about Gandhi or something. You know, someone whose reputation you would feel guilty about smearing if it turned out they hadn’t done anything.

Also, I’m not saying that covering this story is participating in some sort of smear campaign, but as long as the Grey Lady refuses to join in, she can evade even the accusation.

Related:
• The Phantom NYT Paterson Story Now Growing via Masturbatory NYT Reacharound [via Gawker]