The day that news of the Newtown school shooting broke, The New York Times and other news organizations got some key facts wrong. Not least was misidentifying the gunman as Ryan Lanza, when it was actually his brother, Adam Lanza. According to Margaret Sullivan, the public editor at the Times, the paper's lead story the next day
got several major facts wrong, stating without attribution that Mr. Lanza was 'buzzed in' to the Sandy Hook Elementary School building by its principal, who 'recognized him as the son of a colleague.' Not so. He forced his way into the school, dressed in combat gear and carrying guns. There is still no confirmation that his mother, Nancy Lanza, ever worked at the school.
She begins her column–"Getting It First or Getting It Right?"–by noting that Jack Shafer, a press critic at Reuters, wrote recently that it is inevitable that inaccuracies will creep into first reports. But she disagrees. "To this, I offer a radical response: That's not good enough." And I agree. Sullivan points to a key reason for the errors: reliance on anonymous officials who might not be sure of the facts themselves.
I take issue with only one point. In her zeal to hold the Times to a very high standard, she mistakenly suggests that allowing inaccuracies to slip into early reports might be "good enough for some news organizations and some news consumers. But it's not good enough for The New York Times and its readers."
Yes, the Times is unique. And yes, it's the best paper in the country. But that doesn't mean Sullivan should dismiss the others as being less interested in accuracy and timeliness. I suspect most reporters and editors at other news organizations strive to adhere to the same standards as those at the Times, even if they, like the Times, sometimes fail.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply