Ethics of our Times

I haven't heard back from Eric Asimov again about the flap over his Portland dining article. These are the questions I sent him:

1. The New York Times Handbook on Ethical Journalism states:

"The Times has exceptional influence in such fields as theater, music, art, dance, publishing, fashion and the restaurant industry. We are constantly scrutinized for the slightest whiff of favoritism. Therefore staff members working in those areas have a special duty to guard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict."

Do you think your coverage of Paley's Place in "The Pour" and in your published article met those standards?

2. The Times' 1999 document "Guidelines on Our Integrity" states:

"Because our voice is loud and far-reaching, The Times recognizes an ethical responsibility to correct all its factual errors, large and small. The paper regrets every error, but it applauds the integrity of a writer who volunteers a correction of his or her own published story."

As you now state that you shouldn't have participated in the wine event at Paley's Place, do you think the electronic version of the story should carry an addendum, and will you request one?

3. Were you aware that, before your arrival, the Paleys issued a press release inviting the public to dine with their "good friend" Eric Asimov?

4. In regard to that wine dinner: did you pay for your meal personally, through your expense account, or was it comped?

5. Have you ever been a guest of the Paleys at their home as well as their restaurant?

I've also got a similar letter out to Pete Wells, Mr. Asimov's editor at the Times. Willamette Week picked up the story this morning, so I don't think this is the end of it.

On a similar note, Matt Elzweig of the New York Press has an eyebrow-raiser of a story this morning about Deborah Solomon, a columnist for the New York Times Sunday Magazine, and accusations from two of her subjects that Solomon plays fast and loose with her Q&As. The headline writer calls it "a pattern," which I think is far too strong a word when Elzweig cites only two examples...but those examples are doozies: Ira Glass of NPR's "This American Life," and syndicated columnist Amy Dickinson ("Ask Amy"). More evidence for a pattern comes from The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar, who finds a third complainant against Solomon: Tim Russert, who detailed his grievances in a letter to the editor.

Elzweig reports that Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The New York Times Company, says that the paper stands behind Solomon. I'll be interested to see if they do the same with Eric Asimov.

Comments

[metroknow]

What I don't get about this (please help me understand, venerable newspaper journalists) is why Asimov didn't just disclose a little in the first place for this type of article? Does it erode his credibility that much to add an addendum that says you are a friend/acquaintance of one of the subjects of the article, particularly when you are writing an article that is not your corner of the paper anyway (he is the Wine critic, yes?)?

I suppose it could have disqualified him according to the NYT's rules (thanks for the research, Kevin), but it seems like the spirit of the guidelines is to maintain both the appearance and the persistence of honesty and integrity, which simple disclosure seems to accomplish.

If he was honest about his relationship with the restaurateurs in the first place, it would all be a non-issue. And had I read a little italicized para at the end of the article stating as much, I would still have enjoyed the article...So why not just disclose it?

[Joe Wilson]

Kevin,

I'm glad WW picked up on this too. Good job! As a journalist, I clearly understand that Mr. Asimov holds all of our reputations in his hands. Thanks for holding his feet to the fire. Trust is so hard to earn again, once it is gone.

Joe Wilson

[Kevin Allman]

Metroknow: I agree with you that an addendum or explanation would've cleared up a lot. And it still would.