Turning up no answers
In January, Daniel Boguslaw and Ryan Grim — reporters from the nonprofit news outlet The Intercept — wrote that The New York Times shelved an episode of its popular “The Daily” podcast “amid a furious internal debate about the strength of the paper’s original reporting” about sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas last Oct. 7.
The Times then launched an investigation to try and learn who leaked that information to The Intercept. The results of that investigation were announced Monday. And the answer? The Times doesn’t know.
Times executive editor Joe Kahn told staff in a note Monday, “We did not reach a definitive conclusion about how this significant breach occurred. We did identify gaps in the way proprietary journalistic material is handled, and we have taken steps to address these issues.”
Kahn added, “I want to reiterate the central concern in this case, which is that we need to be able to rely on our colleagues to maintain confidentiality during the reporting and editing process. Reporters, editors and producers need to be able to have candid exchanges and disagreements about the best way to tackle a difficult piece of journalism with the understanding that those exchanges will strengthen the story, not become the story.”
The Wall Street Journal’s Alexandra Bruell wrote, “Charlotte Behrendt, director of policy and internal investigations at the Times, oversaw the probe, interviewing close to 20 people over the course of many weeks. The investigation became contentious at times, with the union filing a grievance alleging that the company was targeting a group of staffers of Arab and Middle Eastern descent. Times leaders said the allegations are false.”
The memo, obtained here by The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, concluded with Kahn saying, “The breach that occurred should upset anyone who wants to have transparency in our editorial processes and to encourage candid exchanges about stories as they evolve. We work together with trust and collegiality everyday on everything we produce, and I have every expectation that this incident will prove to be a singular exception to an important rule.”
Four years ago
Veteran media writer Brian Stelter has a new piece out. This one is in Vanity Fair: “Here’s What Donald Trump’s America Was Actually Like Four Years Ago.”
It centers on Trump’s question, which is so often asked by those trying to unseat the current president: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?
Well, exactly four years ago we were in the still-early stages of what turned out to be the COVID-19 pandemic. And it was around this time four years ago that Trump, who was president then, was seemingly dismissing the seriousness of COVID-19 and wanting life to carry on as normal — that is, not wanting to shut everything down.
This is where the media comes in, pointing out exactly what was happening four years ago. In other words, answering the question asked by Trump and many of his supporters.
Stelter wrote, “In an emergency, leaders can either help or hurt. They can rise to the occasion or fail to lead at all. Trump’s record speaks for itself. But Politico deputy managing editor for politics Sam Stein recently observed that, according to polling data, many voters give Trump a pass for the COVID year of his presidency. Or, at least, don’t really hold him responsible for it. I get it. I don’t want to revisit the COVID year of Trump’s presidency either. But it’s crucial to remember.”
Civil War on film
I haven’t seen Alex Garland’s new film “Civil War,” but Los Angeles Times culture columnist and critic Mary McNamara has and she writes, “In trying to hedge its politics, ‘Civil War’ betrays its characters — and the audience.”
That’s the headline. In her review, McNamara writes, “It is a powerful film, which Garland has said he made to underscore the importance of journalism: to remind us that much of what we know about the world is a direct result of journalists telling and showing us what is going on at any given moment. Even if their lives and/or mental health are at stake.”
Later, McNamara writes, “By attempting to keep his film ‘above’ the current political fray, Garland comes close to the both sides-ism that too many journalists are expected (or have chosen) to embrace in an attempt to prove lack of bias. But the arbitrary demand for ‘balance’ should never be confused with objectivity, which requires, among many qualities, an understanding that not all things are equal in importance, relevance or, if it comes to that, blame.”
And here’s The Guardian’s Adrian Horton with “From Scoop to Civil War: why is it so hard to portray journalism on screen?”
Remember his attack
Author Salman Rushdie is out with a new book today called “Knife,” which revolves around the August 2022 incident in which he was attacked by a man with a knife during a lecture appearance at the Chautauqua Institution in Chautauqua, New York.
Rushdie, 76, was stabbed in the face, neck, chest, abdomen, thigh and hand. He lost his right eye in the attack. He told Anderson Cooper on Sunday’s “60 Minutes” that he didn’t want to write a book about what happened, but felt he had no choice.
Rushdie said, “I need to focus on, you know, to use the cliché, the elephant in the room. And the moment I thought that, kinda something changed in my head. And it then became a book I really very much wanted to write."
Rushdie told Cooper that he had a premonition two days before the incident on stage. He nearly canceled his appearance but decided to go through with it.
Rushdie writes in his book that he remembers being on stage and, “Then, in the corner of my right eye — the last thing my right eye would ever see — I saw the man in black running towards me down the right-hand side of the seating area.”
He added, “I confess, I had sometimes imagined my assassin rising up in some public forum or other, and coming for me in just this way. So my first thought when I saw this murderous shape rushing towards me was, ‘So it's you. Here you are.’”
The attack lasted 27 seconds. Rushdie survived, but said there were no revelations from his near-death experience, telling Cooper, “there’s no revelation to be had.”
For more on Rushdie and his new book, check out The New York Times’ Sarah Lyall with “He Was Blinded in One Eye, but Salman Rushdie’s Vision Is Undiminished.”
Sing us a song, you’re the …
