Truth and the New York Times

[Evilmav2]

Truth and the New York Times
In addition to making a spectacle of himself on "Charlie Rose," Howell Raines exposed the New York Times as having lied to reporters.
by Jonathan V. Last
07/18/2003 12:00:00 AM

Jonathan V. Last, online editor

HOWELL RAINES'S appearance on "The Charlie Rose Show" last Friday was filled with delicious moments. Andrew Sullivan (channeling Leon Wieseltier) has done a small dissection and other journalists have merrily piled on. It now seems possible that Raines could become not just a disgraced editor, but might actually descend into Pat Buchanan/Jack Kemp/Ramsey Clark territory. (For the full effect, read the transcript.)

Some of the highlights from the interview included Raines saying that "we should all strive for inner humility" and then a short while later explaining that he has "a passion for newspapering that sometimes comes across as an aggressive or adversarial intensity."

He told Rose that his overarching goal had been to increase the Times' readership from 1.2 million to something like 80 million (evidently there are "Times statistics" showing that 80 million people in the United States "have the intellectual appetite for a paper like the New York Times"), but he failed to mention that even with September 11 and two wars to pad the books, circulation at the Times dropped by nearly 5 percent on his watch.

Perhaps the funniest moment came when Raines allowed that, yes, there had been some bellyachers at the paper, but that he "could show you a stack of hundreds of communications from people on the staff editors and writers saying that this is a terrible mistake." (At the May 4 staff meeting at the Loews Astor Plaza he confessed to his employees that he understood that "You view me as hostile and arrogant." None of the news accounts of that meeting suggested that any staff members defended him.)

But amidst the spectacle was real news: Raines now claims that he was fired.

Howell Raines: After four weeks of working our way through these problems, Arthur asked me to step aside, and I did.

Charlie Rose: You would not have done it if he didn't ask? Everything--

Howell Raines: I don't know how to answer that. I suppose not, Charlie. But--

Charlie Rose: You don't just suppose not. Bear with me. You don't suppose not, you know you would not have resigned--I mean, everything in you--your hero--was you don't quit.

Howell Raines: Okay. I'll concede that point.

And later:

Charlie Rose: You didn't leave voluntarily.

Howell Raines: No.

Which puts Raines in direct conflict with the Times' version of events. Back in June, the Times insisted that he had resigned his post. The New York Observer's Sridhar Pappu reported that at the June 5 meeting where Raines announced his departure, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. told the newsroom that "the decision to resign was made by the two men [Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd]. He said that they did it for the good of the paper."

Who to believe? Probably Raines. At the time, Pappu's sources told him that Sulzberger had asked for Raines's resignation on June 3, but when asked, the Times denied it. Spokeswoman Catherine Mathis told Pappu, "Howell and Gerald made the decision to resign yesterday. They thought it was in the best interest of the Times, and Arthur agreed."

Now Raines has confirmed Pappu's story. Asked whether or not she stands by her statement from June, Mathis says only, "Obviously different people have different perspectives on this. I think what both men would say is that it was an amicable parting under sad circumstances."

And when I say "only," I mean only--nearly every question asked of Mathis elicited the same, droning, two-sentence reply, as if being read from a script: Obviously different people have different perspectives on this. I think what both men would say is that it was an amicable parting under sad circumstances.

So here the Times is, acting no better than a flailing dot-com or a middle-rank member of Congress. They obfuscated. Then they lied. And now they're spinning and refusing to answer questions.

Just something to keep in mind the next time the newspaper of record goes in pursuit of the truth.