Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
When I started as an editor at The New York Times in 1990, I worked nights for the Metro section. Back then, we had a fax machine in the newsroom connected directly with the New York Police Department’s headquarters in Lower Manhattan. Periodically it would churn out filmy paper strips with the bare-bones details of murders, mayhem and other emergencies that the N.Y.P.D. thought The Times should know.
If a fax arrived too late at night — however newsworthy the information seemed — there wasn’t necessarily a need to leap into action. Once that evening’s deadline passed and the next day’s paper was on the presses, we had 24 hours to deal with any new stories that emerged.
Today, that slow-motion fax machine and the daylong lag between deadlines seem like details from some gaslit historical novel.
Much of our effort was still lavished on the once-a-day print paper even in 2009, when I took on a broader role as the Standards editor, advising colleagues on ethical questions and journalistic best practices. But the newsroom was quickly changing. As The Times focused more on digital publication, the pace and output of our work grew. What’s more, we stretched far beyond traditional text articles and into video, podcasts, social media, multimedia presentations and more.
Each innovation raised new questions. “How should we handle a correction on a Facebook post?” Good question. “Do the rules on editing quotations remain the same for audio as in a traditional story?” Let’s see. “Are the images in this video too graphic?” Let me think about that.
In the broadest sense, the answers to these questions were clear enough. Our fundamental journalistic principles don’t change based on the platform or the journalistic tool. Whether it’s delivered in a social post, a podcast or a traditional text article, Times journalism should be accurate and fair, and should adhere to the highest ethical standards. And every decision should be for the benefit of our readers.
But helping my colleagues apply those standards across the ever-expanding, ever-diversifying report seemed like an impossible mission. Eventually, I found myself drowning in a flood of do-you-have-time-for-a-quick-question emails.
Fortunately, The Times’s publisher and our newsroom leaders agreed with me that our focus on standards and ethics shouldn’t diminish as our journalistic ambitions grew. In 2019, in place of a solitary Standards editor, we started to build a Standards team — now led by my successor, Susan Wessling — comprising 10 deeply experienced journalists.
The role of Standards editors, more specifically, is to provide an extra layer of review for tricky or sensitive content before publication. Reporters and editors consult the team when grappling with tough decisions about sourcing, fairness, privacy, tone and other topics. We advise colleagues on potential conflicts of interest, and weigh in on whether outside activities like speeches or volunteering are appropriate. Overall, we work to safeguard the integrity, independence and quality of The Times’s work.
We’re guided by years of experience, and the accumulated wisdom of generations of Times journalists. One of my last projects before retiring was to revise and update the guidelines outlined in our Ethical Journalism handbook, which hadn’t been revamped in 20 years. Our standards and principles haven’t changed, but the revised guidelines should help colleagues apply those standards in today’s journalistic landscape.
One misconception I’ve encountered about The Times’s standards: People think there’s a hard-and-fast rule for everything. Many readers, and even many colleagues, seem to imagine that the job of a Standards editor is to know all the rules and make sure they are followed.
Some readers assume that The Times’s stylebook dictates in advance precisely what word or phrase should be used in every situation. What’s The Times’s official definition of “terrorist”? Which politicians are “liberal” and which are “progressive”?
Colleagues hope for similar hard-and-fast rules. How much time, exactly, do I need to give a company to respond before publishing an article? What’s our policy on interviewing 16-year-olds? What’s our rule for this? Where can I find the policy on that?
If only it were so clear-cut. In fact, Standards editors spend a lot of time helping colleagues navigate the gray areas, the competing goals, the close calls.
In making those calls, we start with our bedrock commitment to accuracy, fairness, independence and integrity. We consult our guidelines and review previous examples. We think about what our readers need and expect from The Times. We talk and Slack and email and compare possible approaches, and make our best judgment.
Then, it’s on to the next question and the next story.
Philip B. Corbett has been the associate managing editor for standards since 2009. He joined The Times in 1990 and worked as a copy editor and night editor in Metro before joining the News Desk in 2000 as deputy news editor.
The post Shedding Light on Journalism’s ‘Gray Areas’ appeared first on New York Times.
