Postrel, to NYT: Drop the Ethics Absurdity, Hire Good People, and Disclose

Matt Welch | December 29, 2009

Former Reason editor Virginia Postrel explains why she's ineligible to work for The New York Times, and what that might mean for the future of journalism:

I occasionally do paid speaking for companies that might conceivably be sources for a column on innovation. (Those speaking engagements generally pay quite a bit better than writing for the Times.) As an old journalism pro, I naturally know enough not to take a speaking gig and then turn it into an article, at least not without getting my editor's OK and disclosing any potential conflict to readers. But that's no longer enough for the Times. Its ethics guidelines now prohibit freelancers from taking honoraria or even travel expenses from anyone who might, in some theoretical future state of the world, be a source. In October, "Critical Shopper" columnist Mike Albo, a freelancer, was canned for taking a travel junket that had nothing to do with his NYT gig. [...]

To fill the PROTOTYPE slot, the Times turned, as it does increasingly for business and economics coverage, to someone who wouldn't care about its low article fees or nonexistent reporting expenses: a tenured professor with an academic research budget, in this case, Mary Tripsas of the Harvard Business School. She is an expert on innovation, but a journalistic innocent. And now she's in trouble.

Whole story, including some (free!) advice to the Gray Lady, here. Postrel's Reason archive here.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Just Sayin'|12.29.09 @ 7:45AM|#

Based on the likes of Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman, it appears to be a NYT columnist you have to be a moron and have no clue about reality.

|12.29.09 @ 7:47AM|#

Don't talk to me like that, asshole New York Times. I don't work for you yet.

Fist of Etiquette|12.29.09 @ 7:52AM|#

Yes, Virginia, there is a Jayson Blair. (Meh, it's still early.) A former Reason editor may be trustworthy but I don't blame the NYTimes for not taking that for granted. They should do everything to appear above board.

But then again, it's the Times, so I don't know why they're bothering.

John Tagliaferro|12.29.09 @ 8:59AM|#

This place hasn't been the same since VP left.

(Meh, it's still early.)

Never too early for a drink!

Jennifer|12.29.09 @ 9:53AM|#

Except Jayson Blair's problem wasn't "lack of disclosure" but "plagiarism" and "outright lies," i.e., not going on assignment to cover a story but writing as though he did.

And the fact that Maureen Dowd still writes for them shows the New York Times isn't overly concerned about plagiarists on staff anyway.

John Tagliaferro|12.29.09 @ 10:26AM|#

plagiarism

I missed or forgot that part of his story. Thought he was just making stuff up.

Jennifer|12.29.09 @ 11:32AM|#

Some of it he just made up; in other cases he lifted quotes or observations from stories written by reporters who actually WERE there.

John Tagliaferro|12.29.09 @ 12:29PM|#

Good thing he became a lawyer.

Fist of Etiquette|12.29.09 @ 10:38AM|#

Yes, Virginia, there is a Kurt Eichenwald?

The Art-P.O.G.|12.29.09 @ 7:59AM|#

Postrel really sums it all up rather well in the last paragraph. Is it too much to ask for the Times' editors to have some critical thinking skills?

Xeones|12.29.09 @ 8:18AM|#

Art: Yes.

The Art-P.O.G.|12.29.09 @ 8:41AM|#

< James Lipton> Well, maybe they should take some cues from the Reason editors. < /James Lipton>

|12.29.09 @ 8:27AM|#

Don't forget; those ultra-strict ethics rules eventually saved us from the demented ravings of Ben Stein.

|12.29.09 @ 9:04AM|#

I hear a hell of a lot mre demented raving from this site than I do from Ben Stein.

The Art-P.O.G.|12.29.09 @ 9:32AM|#

Wha? Broken snark detector or UltraSnark?

zoltan|12.29.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Ben Stein is a fucking moron so he would fit right in with the NYT (see: Expelled).

|12.29.09 @ 8:31AM|#

Now, if we could somehow prove Frank Rich has been shilling for the Raelians...

John Tagliaferro|12.29.09 @ 9:00AM|#

That has a truthieness to it. Write it up and print!

robc|12.29.09 @ 8:41AM|#

Did Welch's post kick off the drinking rule?

The Art-P.O.G.|12.29.09 @ 8:45AM|#

No, I think he would have had to say, "Postrel's Reason archive (it's a shame she left, causing the magazine to go downhill)..."

robc|12.29.09 @ 9:51AM|#

I thought the parenthetic was implied, in this case.

Matt Welch|12.29.09 @ 10:29AM|#

Almost. The winning formulation would have been: "Postrel's Reason archive, which really hasn't been the same since she left..." Bonus points for being true!

highnumber|12.29.09 @ 10:50AM|#

I would have thought that since she left the archive has been exactly the same.

|12.29.09 @ 11:14AM|#

That's what's different about it. The Dynamist is gone and now her archive's gone all Static on us.

|12.29.09 @ 12:40PM|#

But now it has threaded comments!

|12.29.09 @ 8:51AM|#

To fill the PROTOTYPE slot, the Times turned, as it does increasingly for business and economics coverage, to someone who wouldn't care about its low article fees or nonexistent reporting expenses: a tenured professor with an academic research budget

Could this be the salvation of print news?

John Tagliaferro|12.29.09 @ 9:02AM|#

Salvation is free. I think that is the idea they had in mind.

|12.29.09 @ 5:56PM|#

Then they didn't run it by their Accountant. Assuming they employ any.

¢|12.29.09 @ 9:15AM|#

The part where she implies that the editors of the Times should read the stuff that goes in the Times before it goes in the Times is very funny.

John Tagliaferro|12.29.09 @ 9:15AM|#

Did SugarFree get a job posting the Breath Easy --> link up there?

|12.29.09 @ 10:04AM|#

Its ethics guidelines now prohibit freelancers from taking honoraria or even travel expenses from anyone who might, in some theoretical future state of the world, be a source.

Do they prohibit their employees from doing the same?

How does this rule not result in ex-Enron adviser Krugman getting the axe?

classwarrior|12.29.09 @ 10:25AM|#

Let's just wait until the Times refuses advertising dollars for the same reason!

|12.29.09 @ 10:45AM|#

"Postrel's Reason archive, which really hasn't been the same since she left..."

Why would it change? She's not adding to it...

John Tagliaferro|12.29.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Is this another Abbot & Costello thread in the making?

Invisible Finger|12.29.09 @ 11:36AM|#

Harvard is a current news source. And they are a private business. Taking money from them is OK, but taking money from McDonald's isn't?

Geez, if the ethics are that full of holes, the proper word isn't "ethics".

Russ 2000|12.29.09 @ 11:49AM|#

The NYT wants its freelancers to not have any other income apparently. Which pares down the number of NYT-employable freelancers to just the shittiest and the stupidest. And then the NYT wonders why people go to the internet for content. Fuck, the NYT practically DROVE them there.

|12.29.09 @ 11:57AM|#

Does Paul Krugman work at ABC for free?

|12.29.09 @ 12:41PM|#

ABC isn't a source, it's a sink.

Patrick|12.29.09 @ 12:58PM|#

We employed an investigative journalist who also worked freelance for NYT. Another NYT freelancer who didn’t like our organization (for political reasons) tried to get NYT to can the guy. With much irony, our guy was investigating that other reporter’s “friend” finding that they were misusing tax dollars by funneling them to his own private corporation.

Rhywun|12.29.09 @ 1:55PM|#

What difference does it make as long as the Times continues to offer opinion pieces masquerading as news articles? Here's my favorite recent example:

"If Mr. Bezos wanted to do his part to avert layoffs of schoolteachers and firefighters and, yes, professors at state universities, he should start collecting the sales tax."

The Art-P.O.G.|12.29.09 @ 2:45PM|#

Opinion? It's not opinion, Rhywun. No right-thinking person could disagree with that. ;)

Rhywun|12.29.09 @ 2:56PM|#

Right, sorry.

Citizen Nothing|12.29.09 @ 4:44PM|#

Sorry to have to defend the NYT - but link IS an opinion piece, not a news article.

Rhywun|12.29.09 @ 6:17PM|#

It's an opinion piece posing as a news article. Otherwise, why isn't it on the Opinion page?

Flyover Country|12.29.09 @ 11:32PM|#

It's not "opinion". It's "analysis". That's how newspapers put opinion on every page of the paper.

|12.29.09 @ 11:58PM|#

I had a look at the NYT ethics rules Virginia linked to, and under the section headlined 'Paying Our Own Way' (http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html#paying) there was this rather impressively verbose slab of weasel-ese:

32. If permitted by the local newsroom policy, staff members may accept press passes or free tickets when explicitly assigned to review artistic performances or cover athletic and similar events (for example, auto shows, agricultural fairs or flower shows).

Well, isn't that convenient? I guess it's entirely coincidental that if the NYT Book Review alone started paying full list for their review copies, it would cost tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars a year.

The thing is this: If you're going to ride an ethical high horse, you've got to stay in the saddle when it's inconvenient. At the very least, we should know when The Times most definitely isn't playing its way.

Reason.com