Not a Healthy Hire...
An Interview With Our New Politics Editor
David Halbfinger comes to the job after almost four years heading The Times’s Jerusalem bureau. “I just can’t think of a more important way that I could contribute,” * he said of his new post.
I understand that American Jews, and dual citizens of Israel and America, are currently overrepresented on America's East Coast before the recent work-from-home diaspora untethered many workers and investors from a geographical business base. The New York Times editorial coverage skews to these Jews, advocating for America's continual ally Israel, and covering news in the Middle East the way the diaspora from other lands wish they could continue to read of international politics in their former homelands.
But if the New York Times is truly a national American newspaper, with a global audience of international readers, they need to have a diverse American staff of reporters and writers who understand our country better ...
National columnist Bret Stephens, who also came to the Times after stints in Jerusalem post 9-11 and at the Wall Street Journal, has been criticized as a trite, and ineffective national columnist, because his views are primarily minority concerns: the uber wealthy looking to shelter as much of the family money for the next generations as he can. America is but a tool for his international business and political concerns, a steppingstone, if you will...
That's not the typical American Jew experience either, nevermind all the other races and ethnicities currently vying for a place at the table, nevermind the top slot on the American politics beat. This isn't a healthy hire, and the paper -- and its place in national discourse -- will further suffer from the intellectual insulation. Understanding only minority issues will not carry the country much further, not competitively anyway.
Expect other media outlets -- foreign and domestic -- to report more timely and honestly on happenings in the American political world now. Who the heck on the NYT hiring committee looked at the current roster of editorial columnists and domestic reporters and said, "We need to hire a white male Jew, fresh from Jerusalem newspapers, to carry our American politics team and be our leadership voice into 2022?"
I guess Jeffrey Goldberg wasn't available?
*/snark off, but this is a national newspaper in America, selling ideas across the country, not an intellectual old rag-mag he's inheriting with a built-in subscription base that can accept out-of-touch minority viewpoints that won't sell overall in the country, but are accepted by those insulated by generations of private wealth.
------------
* Please with the "ways I can contribute" language too. Hasn't Maggie Haberman already contributed enough to American politics in the past year? Do we need more like that interfering and getting involved in news coverage, or do we need rock-solid American reporting with no existing foreign ties, family connections or previous partisan political jobs? Seems that would eliminate many from our current neutral reporting ranks already.
------------------------
ADDED: Ethical Issues from the start of his career, Mr. Robinson. *beep, beep* Ethical issues, Mr. Robinson... ethical issues. *Red flags raised -- you are putting this man on a domestic political beat in contentious times... Do you trust him? Whose water is he carrying? Family man now, they don't become more independently daring in their neutral coverage as they age. Avoid at all costs.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Clark Hoyt Says It Turns Out David Halbfinger Had An "Out-Of-Mind Experience." No Big Deal.
Yet again this morning, Clark Hoyt uses his Public Editor column to let the NYT and its reporters off the hook.In today's op-ed column, Hoyt finally addresses the odd discrepancy first noted by the Nytpicker on December 10 -- the morning an Editor's Note revealed that a David M. Halbfinger story had reported a phone conversation between Sen. Edward Kennedy and Gov. David Paterson that never happened.
In that editor's note, the NYT acknowledged the fact that the previous morning's Halbfinger "scoop" was false. But the Editor's Note failed to explain how that story could include the statement that a Kennedy spokesman had "declined to comment" on the original Halbfinger report.
If the Kennedy-Paterson phone call hadn't happened, shouldn't the spokesman have flat denied it, instead of just declining to comment? It never made sense.
Turns out Hoyt was curious, too. But in typical fashion for the man whose job is to forgive his employer its myriad mistakes, Hoyt has managed to make the situation murkier than ever.
But despite Hoyt's whitewash this morning, the facts now make clear that Halbfinger (and his confederate, Nicholas Confessore) both put stories into print that December day with clearly false reporting, and an apparent reckless disregard for the truth.
Here's Hoyt's version of how it went down.
On December 8, anonymous sources (referred to as "Democratic aides" told Halbfinger that Kennedy had called Paterson to lobby for Caroline Kennedy's candidacy for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
Halbfinger sent word to Washington correspondent Carl Hulse that he needed a comment from Kennedy about the prospect of a Caroline Kennedy candidacy. Halbfinger didn't say anything to Hulse about Kennedy's supposed phone call to Paterson. Hulse asked the press secretary for an interview with Kennedy about the Caroline Kennedy candidacy, and got turned down.
Halbfinger then sent his own email to the Kennedy flack, Anthony Coley, asking him to comment on "the Caroline thing." Again, no mention made of the phone call scoop that Halbfinger was planning as his lede. The flack declined to comment, saying that he would have "nothing for you on that story."
At this point in Hoyt's narrative of events in this morning's column, the Public Editor makes his own crucial mistake.
"Halbfinger said he mistook the answer as a no-comment on the phone call," Hoyt wrote.
What is Hoyt talking about? He has just made it clear that Halbfinger didn't ask the spokesman about the phone call. How could he use a word like "mistook" to describe a deliberate misrepresentation? Halbfinger knew what he'd asked and what he hadn't asked.
Two other deliberate acts compounded Halbfinger's sleazy handling of the flack's no-comment.
The first was, of course, Halbfinger's conscious decision not to call Paterson's office for comment on the call, before going into print with his scoop.
But Hoyt doesn't hold Halbfinger accountable for that failure except to say that "he couldn't explain why he didn't call Paterson."
The second was his decision to depend on some false reporting by Confessore -- a mistake that made its way onto the Times website, and remains there uncorrected as of this morning.
Apparently, on the morning of December 8, the Albany correspondent thought he'd heard Kerry Kennedy, a cousin, confirm the Kennedy-Paterson phone call. Confessore immediately posted this news on the NYT's City Room blog.
"Kerry Kennedy also confirmed reports that her uncle, Edward M. Kennedy, had lobbied Mr. Paterson on Caroline Kennedy’s behalf," Confessore posted at 3:18 p.m. on December 8.
"That turned out to be wrong," Hoyt writes this morning -- the first and only acknowledgement of this mistake by the Times.
Halbfinger told Hoyt "he thought he had some corroboration" from the Confessore report.
So what's Hoyt's conclusion? The Public Editor allows Halbfinger to describe himself as "chagrined" and suggest that there was "no rational explanation" for his handling of the story.
"Halbfinger said he couldn't explain why he didn't call Paterson," Hoyt writes.
Hoyt doesn't bother to sort through the holes in Halbfinger's story. Instead, he mutters that despite editors, policies and procedures in place to keep its content accurate, "bad things still happen."
But to anyone who has reported for a living, it's clear what likely happened.
Halbfinger got a story he thought was a scoop. He was afraid that if one of the principals in the story heard it and denied it, he'd lose his scoop. So he avoided asking either party about his story, and instead went into print without checking his facts with anyone.
His explanation: "I had an out-of-mind experience for two hours."
Are we supposed to think that Times editors accepted that "explanation" as an excuse for flagrantly violating the basic tenets of journalism?
They must have. Halbfinger continued to cover the Kennedy story for weeks afterwards, as though nothing happened to cast doubt on his reportorial skills. His byline still appears in the Times.
So does Confessore -- the reporter who couldn't even properly report on the contents of a television interview, and also reported a statement in the NYT that was never made.
It seems hard to believe that Halbfinger and Confessore represent the top talent the Times can come up with to cover the biggest political story in New York right now -- two reporters who don't bother to let facts and reporting get in the way of their hunger for scoops.
And as for Hoyt, it would be nice to see him use his access to the Times to do what a Public Editor is supposed to do -- hold the institution accountable for its mistakes.
Nowhere in Hoyt's column today does he even ask Times editors about their reaction to the phony scoops by Halbfinger and Confessore. He gets one quote from standards editor Craig Whitney describing Halbfinger's sourcing descriptions as "inadequate."
That's not enough accountability for an institution that calls itself the newspaper of record.
"Our journalism has never been more glorious."
--Jill Abramson, managing editor, The New York Times, January 7, 2009
While I was combing through Colmer’s papers in Hattiesburg, Halbfinger joined the protest and media circus in Trent Lott’s driveway on the Gulf Coast in Pascagoula (I spent quite a few days there myself). With my help, Halbfinger wrote a story from there about Lott’s attempt at an apology to keep his job.
Lott Apologizes but Won’t Yield Leadership Post
Asked on Dec. 13 in his home town of Pascagoula, Mississippi about the growing chorus of demands that he step down as Republican leader, Mr. Lott said that no senators had urged him to do so, and that some had called to say they were praying for him and to offer helpful suggestions.
“But, you know, I’m not about to resign for an accusation that I’m something I’m not,” he said.
The senator defended himself against charges of racism…
“Segregation is a stain on our nation’s soul,” Mr. Lott said, reading from a prepared text at an inn near his home here. “There’s no other way to describe it. It represents one of the lowest moments in our nation’s history, and we can never forget that.”
Although Mr. Lott’s remarks drew measured support from other Congressional Republicans, many Democrats called them unconvincing and said he should not become the next majority leader. Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus continued to call for his censure.
Mr. Lott’s lengthiest mea culpa to date came a day after President Bush rebuked him, saying, “Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong.”
The Sunday Story That Did Lott In
Even as that story was written and published, there was another story in the works for Sunday. I made copies of all the most important documents in Hattiesburg and circled and underlined all the most important passages — adding my own informative margin notes — and faxed them from my hotel in Hattiesburg to Halbfinger’s hotel in Pascagoula. I e-mailed him my “take” on the story with my analysis of the documents and how they played a role in the story and could and should be used in the paper.
When Halbfinger had time to go through what I sent him, he called me back on the cell phone.
“What do you think, David?” I asked. “Do you think we’ve got something there for a story?”
Halbfinger could hardly contain his laughter.
“Yeah, I think we’ve got something,” he said. “Head on down here to Pascagoula and we’ll get it out for Sunday.”
Below is the story that ran above the fold in the Sunday New York Times under the bylines of David Halbfinger and Jeffrey Gettleman. The decision was made between the correspondents and the editors to use the information from the letters down in the story, in part so Halbfinger and Gettleman would not have to share a byline with me, a free-lancer.
“We almost led with them,” Halbfinger told me on the phone later. The copy editor on the story told me what really happened. Prior to the Jayson Blair scandal, each department at the paper had its own policy on crediting free-lancers. The Science section never gave free-lancers bylines, unless they were a previous staff correspondent. The National Desk only gave credit, in their words to me, “When we could not have gotten the story any other way.”
In this case, I doubt the Times would have gotten that tip or had the personnel to understand library documents as fast as I did, but since they didn’t lead with the information, they conveniently omitted my name.
After checking my files while working on this version of the story, I discovered invoices for more than $1,000 for my work on the story, plus expenses. At the time, I was happy enough with the arrangement not to complain. In retrospect, perhaps I should have fought harder for credit. ...
Not a healthy hire, not a team player. While some reporters dig in the documents for the real story, he camped in a politician's driveway, and took full credit... Sad. And telling too, of what we're likely to see in future reporting ethics and journalism tactics at the Times. Diversity be damned.:
In case anybody doubts the veracity of my role in this story, here are a couple of the fax notes from me to Halbfinger, followed by the e-mail exchange between me and Nick Fox.
E-mail Messages
------------------
When the players get played: The reporter recently bit hard for a story put out by the Israeli military; I suspect the US generals will like the coverage they get from this one too...
A Press Corps Deceived, and the Gaza Invasion That Wasn’t
A spokesman led the international media to believe that Israeli forces had entered Gaza. They hadn’t. But the army wanted Hamas to think they had.
The Israeli military abruptly announced after midnight on Friday that its ground forces had begun “attacking in the Gaza Strip,” saying it on Twitter, in text messages to journalists, and in on-the-record confirmations by an English-speaking army spokesman.
Several international news organizations, including The New York Times, immediately alerted readers worldwide that a Gaza incursion or invasion was underway, a major escalation of Israeli-Palestinian hostilities.
Within hours, those reports were all corrected: No invasion had taken place. Rather, ground troops had opened fire at targets in Gaza from inside Israeli territory, while fighters and drones were continuing to attack from the air. A top military spokesman took responsibility, blaming the fog of war.
But by Friday evening, several leading Israeli news outlets were reporting that the incorrect announcement was no accident, but had actually been part of an elaborate deception. The intent, the media reports said, was to dupe Hamas fighters into thinking that an invasion had begun and to respond in ways that would expose far greater numbers of them to what was being called a devastatingly lethal Israeli attack.
The military’s English-language spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, insisted that the false announcement had been his own mistake, but an honest one, telling foreign correspondents in a tense conference call early Friday evening that he had misunderstood information coming in “from the field” and had released it without adequately verifying it.
But in the Hebrew-language press, the military was simultaneously being praised for luring Hamas fighters into a network of tunnels in northern Gaza that was pounded by some 160 Israeli jets in a fury of airstrikes beginning around midnight.
“This is how the tunnels became death traps for terrorists in Gaza,” Israel’s Channel 12 news station headlined a report by its military reporter, which called the spread of misinformation to foreign journalists a “planned ploy.”
The Israeli press cited the military as saying the plan had worked. That claim could not be independently verified.
But the possibility that the military had used the international news media to rack up a bigger body count in Gaza generated sharp questions for Colonel Conricus in the conference call. Israeli officials insisted that the call be held off the record, but a Times reporter who did not join the call obtained a recording of it from another news organization.
Representatives of The Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio and Agence France-Presse, all of which had mistakenly reported a ground invasion early Friday, peppered him with questions about whether they had been turned into accessories to the military, why it had taken hours for the invasion report to be reversed, and how they would be able to trust the military’s statements going forward.
Colonel Conricus, a veteran officer and spokesman with a reputation for precision in what he knows and doesn’t know, said there had been no “attempt to try to fool anybody or to cause you to write anything that isn’t true,” adding: “I can understand that it may look differently.” He called it “frankly embarrassing.”
But Colonel Conricus, who is set to retire from the military at the end of June, also acknowledged that the military had indeed sought to deceive fighters in Gaza, through tactics like noisily moving large numbers of tanks and other armored vehicles up to the border — as if an invasion were indeed occurring.
The objective, he said, was to induce Hamas anti-tank missile crews to emerge from their hiding places and begin shooting at Israeli forces, allowing their positions to be detected and destroyed — and to trick other Palestinian fighters to stream into the underground tunnel network, which Israel generals were confident they could now destroy from the air.
“Nobody here on this call are the target audience,” Colonel Conricus said. “The target audience are hopefully the dead terrorists that are now lying inside the tunnel. What the I.D.F. wanted to create was a situation where they went down into the tunnels so that we could attack them.”
But that prompted objections from several correspondents, particularly those from organizations with staff members in Gaza, saying it put them at greater risk.
Colonel Conricus declined to be interviewed for this article.
In an interview, Daniel Estrin, N.P.R.’s correspondent in Jerusalem, expressed frustration.
“If they used us, it’s unacceptable,” he said. “And if not, then what’s the story — and why is the Israeli media widely reporting that we were duped?”
Because of its vital role defending Israel’s military actions in the international court of opinion, the army spokesman’s office has been a sought-after posting and something of a launching pad for political careers.
The office has played a part in other deceptive tactics in recent years, including in 2019, when a fake medevac was staged, complete with bandaged soldiers and a helicopter ride to a hospital, to convince the Lebanese media that a Hezbollah missile attack had caused Israeli casualties.
The spokesman’s office waited two hours — long enough for Hezbollah fighters to declare victory and stand down — before announcing that no Israeli troops had actually been hurt.
But Amos Harel, a military analyst for Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, said that involving the office in a pattern of duping journalists would be an alarming development.
“It’s a very dangerous place for the I.D.F. to be, to be suspected of misleading the international press, especially when we’re on the verge of an escalation with Hamas, and Israel depends so heavily on trying to explain itself with the international media,” Mr. Harel said.
“It’s risky for journalists, too,” he added. “The Israeli Army may be forgetting that foreign journalists are on both sides of the fence, and it could be dangerous for them if they’re suspected of being used for Israeli psychological operations.”
All through the week, the conflict has inspired a broader storm of misinformation on social media, as well. False claims are being widely shared around the world — sometimes with misidentified or mischaracterized photos and videos, or fake rumors about Israeli troop movements or Palestinian threats.
Disinformation experts worry that in such a charged atmosphere, the effect of all that false information — some of it purposeful, some accidental — is potentially deadly, worsening tensions between Israelis and Palestinians at a critical time.
Adding to the swirl of confusion about the specific Gaza claim was a new report by Israel’s Channel 10 on Friday that a General Staff Deception Unit had recently been created, and that it had been activated to cause Hamas to think that a ground invasion was underway.
The false invasion announcement came at 12:22 a.m. Friday, in an English-language statement that was vague: “IDF air and ground troops are currently attacking in the Gaza Strip.”
The ambiguity of the word “in” had not been present in the Hebrew-language version of the statement, issued a few minutes earlier. But when Western reporters checked with Colonel Conricus, he assured them that Israeli troops were inside Gaza.
In the Friday conference call, Colonel Conricus at one point tried to minimize the damage, saying that the discrepancy was only “about a few meters — it’s not a very big difference.”
But the discrepancy between English- and Hebrew-language reports set off a frantic race in Israeli newsrooms and foreign news bureaus to clarify the situation on the ground.
At 1:43 a.m., Roy Sharon, the military correspondent for Israel’s Kann News, provided answers with certitude: “This is not a ground invasion. Repeat: There is no ground invasion into the Gaza Strip. I don’t understand this strange briefing.”
By then, according to Israeli reports, the military operation had already concluded.
<< Home