New York Times apologizes for ‘poor choice’ on Atias photo
The New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan apologized in a blog post on Tuesday for making a “poor choice” when it came to printing an “emotional and sympathetic” picture of a Palestinian mother at the head of an article about the fatal stabbing of Israeli soldier Eden Atias.
and
NYT Apologizes Over Article on Slain IDF Soldier
New York Times apologizes for using a picture of the mother of the terrorist who murdered soldier Eden Atias.
and
New York Times Admits It Got It Wrong
The acknowledgment of fault by the New York Times is a significant achievement...
However, sources inform me that the thinking inside the NYTimes goes like this:
It's not an apology. It's a column by the public editor.
The Public Editor did write:
...two senior editors at The Times...Both the photo was a regrettable choice.
Isn't expressing regret like apologizing?
More:
said Michele McNally, the assistant managing editor in charge of photography...The selection of the Palestinian mother’s image...was not appropriate in this case...
So, the Public Editor is viewed as someone who just intereferes and has no bearing on the issue of media ethics in the paper? I hope Ms. Sullivan won't have to apologize to all those involved in making in inappropriate and regrettable selection of photographs.
Nice to know, though.
P.S. I have been informed that the digital edition is never changed.
But that can't be as I've seen loads of stories with the notation: this story is been changed to reflect....
^
Posts
1 comment:
Cross-posted from thisongoinwar.blogspot.com
Mr Medad, what you write here is quite stunning. We have felt the sting of being ignored by the NYT editors when stories directly touched us, personally. It's frustrating and painful, no doubt about it. But we have been ignored by other large bodies, including a certain Middle East government to which we pay our taxes, on issues just as painful if not more so, and we have learned how small we and our interests are in their eyes. But the NYT scandal is different. Here they pretend to have an attentive ear, an editor who represents us small people. But in light of what you say, her role - taken together with what she conceded in her column - is a farce. Understanding what it means when Big Journalism engages in farce, and the damage that flows from that, ought to make for interesting analysis by less ideologically-dedicated journalism professionals. We intend to start hunting for some.
Post a Comment