# Posted 11:29 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

NYT BLOG DEBUTS! The first NYT blog -- referred to officially as a "Web journal" -- belongs to none other than Public Editor Daniel Okrent. The format of Okrent's journal will be familiar to all those who inhabit the wretched hive of scum and villainy known as the blogosphere. The journal consists of brief posts which contain links to those documents and articles to which Okrent refers. Each post has a permalink attached in order to give it a unique URL. And, finally, readers have the right to respond by posting comments.

(NB: "Kristof Responds" is almost a blog. If it linked to other authors' work, it would be there. Still, there's no question that Kristof deserves considerable credit for interacting with his readers.)

I say that this is a victory for openness and transparency at the New York Times. Its own in-house critic has chosen to adopt the means of communication preferred by the Times' most inveterate critics. I think we are beginning to see a transformation in the way that journalists define their responsibility to their readers.

While journalists' have long -- and deservedly -- insisted that they serve the public by publicizing information about public figures and institutions, they have always hesitated to let anyone outside of the journalistic profession define how such service ought to be performed. As a result, journalists ensured that they themselves were largely spared from the oversight to which they subjected other influential men and women. But we may now be seeing the beginning of a day and age in which journalists acknowledge their responsibility to justify their methods and decisions to the reading public.

The reaction to such oversight is not surprising. As Okrent reports in his most recent column,

A lot of people here believe that The Times should be as open to examination as those The Times itself examines each day; their welcome has been generous and heartening. What's worse than I expected is the overt hostility from some of those who don't want me here...

One reporter ripped me up and down about how offensive it was that the staff had to endure public second-guessing, how it makes reporters vulnerable to further attack, how the hovering presence of an ombudsman can hinder aggressive reporting. When I objected - "I don't think your complaint's with me; I didn't invent this job" - the reporter hissed, "You accepted it!"

I think that this sort of reaction is indicative of many journalists' condescension towards the reading public they are supposed to serve. This reporters response is reminiscent of something that might have been said in the Nixon White House in the midst of Watergate. How dare the public insist on its right to know! That's not in the Constitution!

Unsurprisingly, the rest of the Times' staff has begun to assert its right to criticize Okrent in public. For example, NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller told the WaPo that one of Okrent's columns was "ill-informed". That is something that should happen more often -- a powerful journalist should be forced to empathize with all those who are constantly misrepresented by the news media. Perhaps, over time, this will teach journalists to respect their subjects a little more.

Even now, these initial moves towards transparency are forcing journalists to begin grappling with one of the most complex and explosive issues in the media world: bias. If Okrent's mail is any indication, the criticism he gets is predominantly from the NYT's left. To understand the following quotation from Okrent's column, you have to know that he wrote it as an imaginary interview with himself, i.e. he both asked and answered the questions. Hence:

Q. Speaking of editors, when are you going to write about the editors' evident pro-Bush, anti-Republican, Likud-sponsored, Israel-hating bias?

A. Not soon. I'm reading carefully; I'm taking notes; a few readers have kindly offered to keep track of what they perceive to be bias. I'm going to wait until I've bird-dogged this one over time before I come to any conclusions.

Strangely, it seems that those who object most to the Times' coverage would like to see it become more like The Nation. Perhaps that is inevitable in a liberal metropolis like New York. Perhaps the majority to the Times' right has assumed that there is no hope for change. Which is why I am going to conclude this column with a salute to the one man whose unorthdox and brash journalistic style forced the Times to confront its own failures. His name is Jayson Blair.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion