Okrent replies to BurtWorm re: NYT ommission in Ashcroft story

[BurtWorm]

A few weeks ago, I wrote the following letter of complaint to Daniel Okrent, the NYT's public reader (known as an ombudsman at "lesser" papers :eyes: ):

Mr. Okrent:

I'm distressed. I don't understand what is happening with the Times' standards.

I am mystified by Neil Lewis's article which purports to describe an event I witnessed with my own eyes on C-SPAN last night. The article unaccountably leaves out what I *think* is among the most newsworthy points about John Ashcroft's testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday morning: several Senators--Biden, Schumer and Durbin at least--asserting that the Attorney General of the United States may be in contempt of Congress for failing to cite a legal reason for refusing to turn over documents to the committee.

Can you or Lewis, or Lewis's editor, explain to me why this was not worthy of being included in the article? Isn't it highly unusual for an attorney general to be threatened with a contempt of Congress charge? Isn't this extremely serious? Please help explain why this fact was omitted? And why, while we're at it, wasn't this article, with the headline "Senators Say Ashcroft May Be in Contempt of Congress," on page 1 above the fold?

Do I have a better understanding than the nation's newspaper of record of what is news, or is it no longer news when the Attorney General is told in no uncertain terms that he may be in contempt of Congress?

Thank you for your help.


This week I received this reply from Okrent:

Thanks for your note, which I passed along to correspondent Neil
Lewis. He agrees that you have a point, and that it might have been helpful if reference to the contempt discussion had been included in the article. But Mr. Lewis stresses that he believes the substance of the discussion -- whether or not Mr. Ashcroft had the right to withhold the documents -- was more important than the rhetoric surrounding it. He told me, "Contempt of Congress as used that day as a possibility or threat seems more remote, more in the nature of someone threatening to file a lawsuit. To that, we reporters usually say, 'When you do it we'll cover it. But we won't give you space/publicity to make a threat.'... If ever gets beyond the rhetoric of that day, you may be sure we will cover it."

I think this is persuasive. But I'm grateful you brought this up, as is Mr. Lewis, who specifically asked me to thank you for your careful
readership.

Yours sincerely,



Daniel Okrent
Public Editor



I ask anyone here who witnessed that hearing, do you agree with Okrent that Lewis's argument is persuasive?

Of course, since I sent my letter--in fact, within a day or two of the hearings--the memos in question were magically leaked. We'll never know if the contempt threat was the secret weapon that opened the floodgate.

[havocmom]

1. I watched and the NYT blew it big time

The AG of the US put a chip on his shoulder and dared the Congress to knock it off.

[BurtWorm]

2. Thank you!

What bothers me most is, it wasn't just one lone Senator tossing around a threat. It was a bunch of them, and they were clearly angry. Their whole point was, "John, if you don't give us a reason for withholding the memos, you are in contempt." That seemed central to the event to me. A no-brainer. But here's a Times reporter deciding it's an empty threat and not worth covering!

[havocmom]

3. Agree with you. It WAS the story. But then there are no journalists left

near as I can figure. Media has neutered any that were still poking around after real stories.

[buycitgo]

4. YOU GO!!!!

that exchange was compelling, and the Times' backpedalling is shamelessly selfserving

give me a HUGE break!

that WAS the story

and you KNOW the pugs would have gone after Reno hammer and tong had the situ been reversed

amazing they even responded, those arrogant pLicks

[BurtWorm]

5. I'd forgotten that Schumer was one of the Senators!

He spent half his questioning deriding conspiracy theories and opponents of the war on terror. He even said most "reasonable people" would have no problem with torture if it were necessary to stop acts of terror. But even he agreed that not having a reason for withholding documents the committee called for was to be in contempt.

[Cat Atomic]

6. So to summarize:

The Times didn't report the potential contempt of Congress charge because there's no chance of it actually happening.

There's no chance of it actually happening because the public doesn't know about it.

The public doesn't know about it because the Times didn't report it.

Umm... duh? Hello, New York Times?