No longer just a Bystander

In response to my post Shake down at the NYT's, David Cay Johnston sent me a very thoughtful email. He feels I misrepresented him. I don't want to misrepresent anyone, so I'm glad he wrote; my response follows his email:

Dear Nancy Catmull Matocha,

Your post creates, unintentionally, a false impression of the issues I raised with Catherine Seipp. I don't think this is deliberate on your part because, evidently, you took your cue from Seipp's own blog, whose posting is selective and misleading.

I also wrote this to Seipp --

** If Waxman has threatened you, as you seem to charge, then you ought to report that to the Public Editor and to her supervising editors. That would be improper conduct and a potential firing offense. Indeed, it would be wrong of you to fail to make the charge if it is true. **

That language ("seem to charge") was in response to an email from Seipp, whose language lacked clarity about just who was supposedly threatened.

It turns out that Seipp did NOT read my emails to her with care and assumed -- something working reporters should never do and press critics in particular ought to know not to do -- that I had seen her blog.

I had never seen her blog, only her column at National Review Online. And my initial email, and subsequent ones, clearly addressed only her column and her own responses, which were crude, rude and avoided dealing with the issue I raised.

The issue, which Seipp has been unwilling to deal with so far, is whether running off to tell the world that a reporter is working on a story does anything to improve journalism. It is about whether the traditional way information is obtained by reporters (in this case Waxman) and source (in this case Seipp the press critic) is going to change in such a way that sources will run off and tell the world what article(s) are in the works.

Quality journalism often takes time. Checking and cross checking to get the facts straight is not exactly compatible with the instantaneous of our Internet world. The evidence is that we have far to little checking and cross checking these days and I think that is bad for journalism and our democracy.

I had hoped to provoke Seipp, because she writes press criticism, to ponder what she had done, to evaluate her own conduct.

Instead I got back flippant and irrelevant responses, which I find surprising for someone who holds herself out as a press critic. But maybe press criticism is going to sink from thoughtful and penetrating observations to rants.

My clip file shows that I rarely use unnamed sources and indeed have written about their abusive use going back many years, including my 1987 Columbia Journalism Review critique of the problem with recommendations on how to get people on the record. That makes the impression created by Seipp and by your blog an issue.

While my language in seeking that we a private dialogue was awkward, you will note my use of the word "please." Seipp ignores this and mischaracterizes it as a command, which gives me pause about the care with which she approaches her role as a press critic.

Had I been contacting Seipp as a reporter working on a piece I would not have written that language. But I was not.

I hope if you write more about this at your blog that you focus on the issue that aroused my concern -- improving the quality of journalism -- and that you consider in light of the facts above whether your post ought to be amended.

Feel free to post this -- and to write back if you have a serious interest in the issues that afflict journalism.

David Cay Johnston

Here is my reply:

Mr. Johnston, thank you so much for your thoughtful email. I'm sure you're a busy man and so I appreciate the time it cost you.

I do not want to create a false impression of you or your position on my blog, and I agree, if Seipp feels threatened by Waxman then she ought to bring it up to Waxman's editors. On her blog, Seipp clipped part of an email to you saying, " When journalists go from keeping secrets about their sources to expecting sources to keep secrets about THEM -- as you, and Sharon Waxman, for some reason are now doing, which in her case involves threats and bullying..."

I took that to mean that Waxman was threatening the p.r. rep, not her, though I agree with you, it's not entirely clear.

In her comments section of that post, she later writes, "The anonymous p.r. person is no longer quite so anonymous, because yesterday he sent a signed letter to Sharon's supervising editors about her threats to him. Until he gives me the OK, though, I'm not saying his name here." http://www.haloscan.com/comments/cathyseipp/704/#288453

I'm not entirely understanding of your point that my blog creates the impression that you inappropriately or overly use anonymous sources. Perhaps you're making the case that my blog creates the impression that your correspondence with Seipp was merely to criticize her behavior when it was actually to discuss something much broader--"the issues that afflict journalism," part of which is sourcing, in which case both posts missed the point, mine unwittingly. I took Seipp's point narrowly to mean that you think sources should keep reporters and their questions anonymous.

I'm interested in why you think what Seipp did was wrong in her NRO column. She used her brief conversation with Waxman as a lede in to her opinion piece on two journos already outed for pundit payola. There was no new information there. It doesn't seem like she scooped any key information that would make or break Waxman's story. She didn't out her own brush w/ pay-for-play experiences. It would be different if she helped Waxman w/ the story, gave her the rep's name and the p.r. company and great quotes, and then wrote a column on the same before Waxman's story was published, but that's not what happened.

(If I am missing your point, I invite you to hammer me a little more. Some times it takes a brick.)

I am interested in journalism. I think traditional news sources and blogs have a symbiotic relationship that will improve both. As the relationship continues/ grows, there are sure to be many bruises, but I'm not yet persuaded that more transparency in the process of crafting a great story is harmful to the profession. I'll bet you're a very busy man, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Again, thank you for your email. I will post it along with my reply and add an update to my original post that links to your email.

Nancy

PS I also appreciate your effort in reducing journalism's reliance on unnamed sources.

Added: Blogger pushed all his paragraphs together, so I went through and separated them, but changed nothing else.

[Update: Further reflection. There's a lot of information and angles in this particular story, which may be why I keep missing Mr. Johnston's point, I think. If my original post shows Mr. Johnston as trying to bully Seipp into secrecy, then that's not really what I was trying to convey. I find Seipp's writing amusing and I clip it. He says she was selective in clipping his email and that it was to his detriment, so I apologize for highlighting it out of proportion. Mostly, I wanted to shine light on his opinion that her NRO column was less than honorable. In this case, I haven't seen any evidence that it was.]

[Update, the second: Again, I have little professional experience, so obviously it's entirely possible that I'm wrong--I'm just not sure why, though.]