Cached from the New York Press:
http://www.nypress.com/article-17349-mailbox.html
New York Press, issue dated
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Mailbox
This
week: Last week’s look at Deborah Solomon’s way of conducting her
Q&As in the New York Times Magazine elicits a slew of
responses,
including two new reports of dubious reporting; a massage therapist has
her own questions about those “certified” masseuses; and a reader
laments the loss of Stephanie Sellars’ “Lust Life” column.
How to Succeed Without Really Trying
I was interested to read your recent story on Deborah Solomon
(“Questions for the Questioner,” Oct. 3-9), having been burned by her
myself. We had met professionally in New York on a few occasions, back
when she mostly wrote about art. In 1999, when she was working on a New
York Times Magazine story about Los Angeles art schools, she called to
ask me for an interview over dinner. I demurred, suggesting that the
NYT was unlikely to quote the art critic of the Los Angeles Times in
such a story; but she insisted that it would certainly not be a
problem, especially given my long-standing tenure and reputation, and
that it would even look odd to omit any reference. An interview would
also help her immeasurably, given her paucity of knowledge about L.A.
So in a spirit of collegiality, I agreed.
Having been a journalist (at that time) for almost two decades, I also
did my homework: I prepared a couple of quotable quotes on the subject,
which might encapsulate larger ideas. Since her story was about art
schools, over dinner at Pinot Hollywood I brought up the history of the
postwar American avant-garde and the debt it owed to the G.I. Bill. (It
represented the first generation of college-educated artists.) I then
said: “Modern art began as an assault on the academy, but post-modern
art might be described as a return to the academy.” When I said it, she
dropped her fork and said, "Wait, wait, say that again. I want to write
that down!" And she did. I was not surprised.
She used it in her story, too (“How to Succeed In Art,” June 27, 1999).
Except in her story it was not a quote; my words had become her words.
They were used to introduce her observations on the relevant history of
the G.I. Bill. Our interview was not mentioned in the 3,500-word piece.
(Frankly, the omission had its benefits since her story was awful).
I wrote Deborah a letter on June 30 telling her I was shocked by her
“grossly unethical behavior.” She called me—nearly two weeks later,
saying she had been out of the country—and blew it off as an editing
decision beyond her control. That’s the last time we had a
conversation. (Yelling at her to “Get away from me!” when she
approached at a Whitney Museum press preview doesn’t count.)
I suppose my mistake was not cc’ing my letter to Solomon’s editor.
Imagine my surprise that Ira Glass and Amy Dickinson later got
sandbagged in their Q&A's.
—Christopher Knight
art critic, Los Angeles Times
Knight was a finalist for the 2007 Pulitzer Prize in criticism.
Breaking the Solomon Spell
My experience with [Deborah] Solomon was very much like that of Ira
Glass and Amy Dickinson. I had to get very insistent with the fact
checker to get them to change some things they wanted to put in that
were torn out of context. I more or less succeeded. Yes, she
manufactured questions and comments after the fact that weren’t in the
interview. I wish I’d taped the interview (a good 90 minutes as I
recall) so I could substantiate this.
In my case, the amusing incident was that she asked me, several times,
if I knew Leon Wieseltier. I didn’t. (In fact, at first I confused him
with Simon Wiesenthal and said to her—“Is he the Nazi hunter?” and she
said, “Well yes, sort of.”) Clearly, she’d been talking with Wieseltier
about my book, Breaking The Spell (this was before his loathing review
came out in The New York Times Book Review a few days later), and he’d
put fear in her. Her manner when talking with me was as if she was
talking to the devil, or some horrible ogre. That had puzzled me until
I saw the review.
—Daniel Dennett, Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Center
for Cognitive Studies
Tufts University
Times Pretensions
Your piece on Deborah Solomon was enlightening, to say the least.
Perhaps the most remarkable part was the Times’ pretension that its
reporters do not “clean up” quotes. Every reporter does that, and it is
useless to pretend otherwise.
When I worked for CBS News 30 years ago, I once heard a very prominent
correspondent telling an interview subject, “I need you to say it this
way...”
—Paul Miller, Publisher of
The Carmel Pine Cone, Calif.
Sensationalizing the Solomon Story
Your piece about Deborah Solomon raises some interesting questions
regarding journalistic and publishing ethics. Unfortunately, your
treatment of the situation is sensational, ham-fisted and sophomoric.
The piece reads like something out of a hybrid of a high school
newspaper and a tabloid. Flaws in the approach and presentation of the
piece abound, but possibly the easiest to spot comes from the subtitle
from the cover: “Did Deborah Solomon of The New York Times break the
newspaper’s strict code of ethics? Ira Glass and Amy Dickinson say
‘yes.’”
From what we can tell in the article, this simply isn’t true. Neither
goes so far in their criticism of Solomon. I doubt either of the above
quoted are familiar with said strict code of ethics, nor did they
mention any such violation. All they said was that Solomon treated them
in a way that was, to quote Glass “lousy.”
The Times is obviously far from being above reproach, but your methods
and presentation of this accusation will not and should not warrant
even a second glance from them (or any other critical readers of the
news.)
—Christopher Thomas, Manhattan
Follow the Sheeple
Wow. This is what journalism should be. I really enjoyed your article,
and the response from The Times is a wonderful manifestation of what
the “sheeple” hate about them. They act like they’re too elite to
respond to the NY Press, which probably has lost fewer litigations than
they. Is this Mathis lady the only person dealing with the world
outside their bubble? It seems to me that she was the one thrown at
when complaints came up about the discount price given to Moveon.org. I
had assumed she was an accountant in advertising at the time.
I’d not looked at NY Press much since Russ Smith left, but now I’m
certainly going to read your contributions regularly.
—Kit Winterer, Beaufort, S.C.
The Whole Truth
As a journalist, I think it would be good if The Times explained how
the sausage is made when it comes to its Q&A column. People
don’t
speak in the short pithy sound bites that appear in Ms. Solomon’s
column week after week. She clearly is taking huge amounts of
information and boiling it down to bite-size morsels. The column would
have a lot more credibility if The Times would post the entire
interview online, allowing people to see what has been deleted.
—Frank Lockwood, North Little Rock, Ark.
Just the Facts!
How typical of The Times. Their opinions are so important to them that
they continually have to twist the facts to fit their opinions. Can’t
they just print the facts and leave us to think what we will? I am sick
of being told what to think! Just the straight facts please!
—Keith Dale, Ft. Worth, TX
Massaging the Truth
In the article titled “Sorry, Wrong Floor” (Oct. 3-9), author Leah
Koenig writes of the indignity and frustration she experienced while
working in close proximity to a brothel. She ends the article with a
comment about how a “mysterious massage parlor” moved in upstairs. As I
turned the page, I was surprised to see four glorious, full-color pages
of “massage parlor” advertising—just the kind of illegal business Ms.
Koenig had been offended by.
As a New York State licensed massage therapist, I’m disappointed that
your publication has to resort to these advertisements to, presumably,
keep you afloat. It seems a great hypocrisy to run an article
describing the disgusting day-to-day effects of the sex trade in New
York, and then advertise them on the very next page. In addition,
someone in your advertising department has tried to legitimize the
(very obviously) sex trade ads by describing them as “certified.”
In New York State, massage therapists are licensed, not certified,
through a years-long process and a state-regulated exam. If the New
York Press is willing to espouse one set of ethics in the articles, and
another in the back pages (i.e. sex—or advertising—for money), you have
lost not just one reader, but also the progressive and principled
authority your articles attempt to convey.
—Molly Montgomery, LMT, Greenpoint, Brooklyn
No More Lust
Recently, I discovered that Stephanie Sellars column, “Lust Life” was
being cancelled by you. How sad! I’m sure other readers as well as
myself will miss reading Ms. Sellars column, which mixed both
sophistication and sex so well. The NYPress will never be the same
again. My condolences.
—Chris C.