After first defending its decision to publish the editorial, The Times is now saying that it undertook a “review” following scathing blowback from its own ranks. It has now determined that the op-ed didn’t meet its standards. In fact, the paper concedes the inflammatory article was published without the editorial page editor James Bennet having read it, The NY Post reports.
 |
| James Bennet |
“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication,” Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman, said in a statement. “This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short-term and long-term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.”
The Times’ Publisher A.G. Sulzberger has also vowed to change the process as a result, according to a report in The Times.
Earlier in the day, Bennet himself defended the op-ed’s publication while conceding it might have been a mistake.
“It would undermine the integrity and independence of The New York Times if we only published views that editors like me agreed with, and it would betray what I think of as our fundamental purpose — not to tell you what to think, but to help you think for yourself.”
The NewsGuild, the union that represents over 1,200 rank-and-file journalists at The Times, countered that publishing the piece promoted hate and endangered the papers’ own reporters in the field. More than 800 staff members signed a letter protesting its publication, The Times has reported.
Bennet, in turn, admitted he believed the union had a point, concluding, “I know that my own view may be wrong.”
No comments:
Post a Comment