Usually I have a positive reaction to journalists who publicly apologize for getting something wrong – even if the apology comes way too late; i.e. long after the damage has been done.
But not this time.
Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of the New York Times (the person who is supposed to cast an eye on what the Times publishes, and criticize it if/when necessary) has written such an apology, concerning the shooting and killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last August.
You can read her entire piece by clicking here. But, meanwhile, let me show you what I consider the key segment:
In the heat of a very hot news moment last summer, I criticized a Times story about the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.
Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I want to acknowledge that I misjudged an important element of that story.
In my post, I found fault with what I saw as “dubious equivalency” and the vaguely described anonymous sourcing in an article that led the paper on Aug. 20.
Giving implicit credence to the named sources who described Michael Brown as having his hands up as he was fired on by Officer Darren Wilson, I criticized the use of unnamed sources who offered opposing information: They said that the officer had reason to fear Mr. Brown. I even went so far as to call those unnamed sources “ghosts” because readers had so little ability to evaluate their identity and credibility.
Now that the Justice Department has cleared Mr. Wilson in an 86-page report that included the testimony of more than 40 witnesses, it\’s obvious to me that it was important to get that side of the story into the paper.
Uh, Ms. Sullivan, you still don\’t understand what you did wrong. So let me help you out: it should be obvious to you that it was important to get that side of the story into the paper even if the Department of Justice didn\’t clear Mr. Wilson.
It is called presenting two sides of the story, which, I would like to think, was taught to you and every other aspiring journalist in your first year (make that first semest….no, make that first week) of course work.
You have named sources? Great. Name them and present the information they have given.
But, unless and until you have definitive information proving those sources correct, you present differing information as well, even if those sources are unnamed….and especially given the fact that, in the supercharged racial atmosphere in Ferguson, created by sharpton and his likeminded pals, it was perfectly understandable that an eye witness whose account would make the most vociferous, aggressive, violent “protesters” out to be liars, might want to stay anonymous.
So while I\’m glad your too little-too late “apology” was made at all, your stated premise behind making it tells me that you still do not understand what you did wrong.
Too bad for you. And too bad for Times readers.
