According to Fast Company, when she first read a draft of the letter that had been leaked to her, “my blood pressure rose,” she writes, and she confronted publisher Arthur Sulzberger, who she claims eventually agreed to reword it with input from her and then managing editor Dean Baquet. But for Abramson, the letter was “still objectionable,” since it included language about being sorry for the “perception” the story created, and the episode “strained” her relationship with Sulzberger. Two years later, she was fired.
According to Abramson, Sulzberger was eager to appease the Chinese government because its operation in China was at stake. The paper had just launched a Chinese-language news site that included original reporting by a staff of 30 Chinese journalists, as well as translations of Times stories. But when reporter David Barboza, who was working on a deeply reported story about how family members of China’s ruling elite had accumulated vast wealth, contacted government officials for comment, they were enraged. The Chinese ambassador requested to meet with Sulzberger to “stop its publication.” Though he offered no evidence to rebut the claims in the story, the ambassador threatened “serious consequences” if the story ran, Abramson writes.
Sulzberger bucked the pressure and decided to let the story run. The publisher later told the paper’s then public editor, Margaret Sullivan, “I’m very proud of this work.” He added: “Our business is to publish great journalism. Does this have a business impact? Of course.”
Within an hour of publication, the story was pulled offline in China. In addition, the website was blocked, no new visas were issued to Times reporters, and some of their Chinese staffers were detained. To this day, the New York Times remains blocked in China.
No comments:
Post a Comment