NY Times doesn't report RNC donation until after Bush reverses pardon

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/NY_Times_doesnt_report_RNC_donation_1225.html

The motto of The New York Times, of course, is "all the news that's fit to print." However, two days before Christmas some readers were upset because the paper wouldn't update their blog with what they considered significant news.

As RAW STORY reported on Tuesday, one of 19 pardons by President Bush went to the son of a New York real estate developer, who defrauded the Housing and Urban Development Department government for millions of dollars and pled guilty to inflating the incomes of at least 100 families to make them eligible for federal loans in the lead-up to the worst housing crisis the United States has ever had.

What's more, Toussie's father gave $28,500 to the Republican National Committee this year, according to a RAW STORY analysis of federal campaign finance records available at the nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog Open Secrets.

While Ben Smith at Politico and other online outlets immediately pounced on Toussie, who was pardoned despite escaping restitution for millions since financial records were lost in the WTC attacks, the major media and wire services instead chose to focus on Bush's pardon of a soldier who illegally helped supply Israel with aircraft in 1948.

The Times' City Room blog covered Toussie's pardon on Tuesday, noting that he had "pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining federally insured mortgages and to defrauding Suffolk County by selling it overpriced land," yet, "[d]espite his convictions, Mr. Toussie and his father had become one of the largest landowners on Long Island by 2007, by buying surplus land at auction."

About one hour after the post was published, a commenter using the handle Vidiot pointed out the donation, and provided a link to it. Forty minutes later, another commenter chided the paper, "It’s a little disturbing to see the Times out-reported in its own comments section. Hint: when doing a piece about some obscure criminal pardoned by Bush, best to check their political donations….what do they teach in J-school these days?"

Perhaps Christmas slowed down the Times' investigative reporters, although it's three New York City competitors - Newsday, The New York Post, and The Daily News - all found time to report the donation.

On Christmas Eve, the White House announced that the pardon had been canceled.

"Based on information that has subsequently come to light, the President has directed the Pardon Attorney not to execute and deliver a Grant of Clemency to Mr. Toussie," the statement read. "The Pardon Attorney has not provided a recommendation on Mr. Toussie’s case because it was filed less than five years from completion of his sentence. The President believes that the Pardon Attorney should have an opportunity to review this case before a decision on clemency is made."

The new "information" included the donation, which even White House press secretary Dane Perino admitted "might create an appearance of impropriety."


Patrick LaForge, City Room editor responded to the J-school insult in the Times' comments section, "Thanks for your comment. The Washington bureau is preparing an article for the print edition about today’s pardons; this was just a quick blog post to break the news of the local one. Just about everything in the comments can be found through links in the article. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the relevance of the donation. In any event, we don’t have a problem with our readers adding relevant details to our breaking news reports. That’s the way of the Web."

Evidently, the Washington bureau didn't see the relevance of the donation, since two related pardon stories failed to make note of it or even Toussie, at all.

It wasn't until after the pardon was rescinded before the City Room blog and the Times' print edition reported on the RNC donation.

On Tuesday, commenter Dan Marbury responded to the City Room editor by making "two points."

"The Times family of blogs is not just any blog, it’s the Times," Marbury wrote. "Standards should apply. If the story is incomplete without mentioning the donation (and it IS incomplete), than so is the blog post. The 'Web' is no excuse for half-journalism."

Marbury added, "There are some handy links in there, yes, but I don’t see anything to the donation itself, which I think any objective person would agree is very, very pertinent."

"We think most readers understand there are trade-offs when it comes to reporting breaking news within minutes of an event," LaForge fired back. "It’s not reasonable to expect a breaking news post to be as comprehensive as one that is the result of hours of reporting and editing. 'Half-journalism' is an odd turn of phrase. All journalism is incremental."

LaForge continued, "This is not a standards issue. Of course our blog reports should and do meet standards: no rumors, no gossip, no unverified information, for example. The donation is an unverified detail, and it would not have served readers to hold back the story for that. Reasonable people might even disagree about its significance, and the importance of this particular pardon to readers beyond this local blog."

With Times print and online ad revenue down and a new survey which suggests that more Americans prefer getting their news over the Internet these days, for the future the Times might want to think about updating their posts in a more timely manner