I have complained in the past about the NYTimes' too easily granting its sources anonymity, and the lead story in today's business section: "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated" is another prime example.
The article attributes only two of its quotes, and does not even offer an explanation for not citing the other dozen or so. I suppose the authors reason that "speaking privately" means not having to stand behind your words, but how can the resulting story be considered news?
The two quotes that were attached to names are so innocuous that their relevance to the story is hard to determine. One professes to believe that bankers are not really the objects of the protest; while the other notes that "most of our clients like us."
The anonymous quotes, on the other hand, are much more interesting: "If you want to keep having jobs outsourced, keep attacking financial services"; or "They [congressional representatives who have expressed support for the protests, and who accept large campaign contributions from Wall St.] need to understand who their constituency is."
The NYTimes does not discharge its mission, when it portrays the banking industry as so out of touch without naming the sources. Nobody who has spent any time in Zuccotti Park lately would describe the occupants as "a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll." How can readers be assured it is really a top hedge fund manager talking? It sounds more like my neighbor across the the street, a retired car salesman who sports a tea-party flag on his front porch.
[A version of this was sent to the public editor at The New York Times]
No comments:
Post a Comment