How the New York Times hacks Op-Eds

Op-Ed columns are supposed to represent the point of view of the writer, and not that of the paper in which they’re published. They’re a primary vehicle for broadening the scope of newspaper’s editorial pages, and for bringing voices into the public policy dialog that wouldn’t otherwise be represented. This isn’t the case at the New York Times, however, where editors require Op-Ed contributors to alter their messages to conform to the paper’s point of view. Here are two recent examples, the first from “The New Though Police” by Tammy Bruce, recounting her ordeal in trying to place a pro-Laura Schlessinger Op-Ed with the paper:

… [I] faxed it cold (without a contact) to the editorial desk of the New York Times. Within an hour, an editor from the op-ed page called to say yes, it was a good piece and they?d love to run it. Voila! Back in the real world, with a newspaper that knows how to make a decision.

My Times liaison on the piece seemed sincere and hardworking; she checked in with me occasionally over the next few days for clarification on one point or another. It gradually became clear that there were several people involved in ?editing? and ?clearing? my piece. E-mails and telephone calls to me, however, consistently expressed the editor?s intent to publish, despite an increasing delay.

Eventually, I was e-mailed an ?edited? version of the piece that bore little resemblance to what I had originally submitted. It was now replete with sentences I never wrote and moved in a direction that was arguably anti-Laura.

In the past, none of the edits on any of my opinion pieces had been such as to warrant a protest, but someone at the New York Times had actually added the line, ?Not everything Schlessinger has to say is offensive.? This was so contrary to the intent of the piece that I asked for the line to he removed. The editors refused. Rather than let myself he positioned as some sort of apologist for comments I deemed to he offensive, I once again withdrew the piece.

A more recent example arose out of an Op-Ed critical of the UN Human Rights Commission’s stand against Israel and in favor of such notorious human rights abusers as China, Syria, Libya, and Cuba. The author is Professor Anne Bayefsky, a professor who represented the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists at the Durban Conference. Here’s a log of her e-mail dialog with the Times, over a piece you can read as written here.

This piece was originally submitted and accepted by the New York Times on 8 May 2002. After acceptance, editorial demands resulted in the submission of six new drafts, four additional drafts with smaller changes and corrections, seven drafts from the editors and 6 hours of editing by telephone. A piece, ultimately published 22 May 2002, was only accepted on condition – not only that the dynamic be significantly altered – but that the following words (in bold) be specifically omitted:

Its [UN Human Rights Commission] members include some of the most notorious human rights violators in the world today: China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Those countries prefer devoting UN funds, (22% of which are from the United States), to criticizing Israel – lest attention wander too close to home.

Human Rights Watch rushed out a report on Jenin and a critique of Israel, while a report on suicide-bombers operating for the past 20 months is still coming. Selectivity, as the UN calls it, is not just a governmental problem.

But one regional group remains outside the target range. The Asian group (including China and the bulk of Muslim states) has no regional human rights system. These states strenuously avoid international human rights scrutiny and are largely successful in their efforts. No resolution has ever been passed at the UN Human Rights Commission concerning China or Syria, for example. At the just-completed Commission session, the Special Rapporteur to investigate human rights violations in Iran was deleted after six years of denying him entry into the country.
Narrowing the gap between international right and remedy means confronting not only the double-standards advocated by states, but the slackening of standards advocated by NGOs. Their buzz word is listening to the ?voices of the victims?. This was the tack of Amnesty International at the Durban World Conference Against Racism. The glitch is that voices say all kinds of things. Like South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu who recently said in Boston: ?People are scared in this country [the US] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful.

Well, so what?…Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin…were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.? Human rights protection is not about the self-selection of the most extreme, the loudest, or best-funded of the mob. It is about universal standards and remedying legitimate claims.

That individual?s [the High Commissioner] chance to make a positive impact on the international protection of human rights will depend on his or her…willingness to confront the UN?s internal resistance to professionalism and transparency…
Negotiations between myself and the editors over the one sentence specifically relating to Israel, included the following exchange:

Original:
?…Those countries prefer devoting UN funds…to criticizing Israel – lest attention wander too close to home. The strategy of diversion has been wildly successful. Fifteen percent of Commission time and one-third of country-specific resolutions over thirty years are directed at this one state.?

Editor?s revision (15 May 2002)
?It [the Human Rights Commission] was, not surprisingly, toughest on nations that didn?t have seats on the commission this year, and especially tough on Israel (which is both politically offensive to many member states and very weak at the United Nations) and Cuba.?

Following my objections, the editor?s next revision (16 May 2002):
?The annual Human Rights Commission session…was able to agree on resolutions concerning just 11 of the 189 member states, and with its customary disproportionate focus on Israel.?

Only after continuous objection on my part, did they allow the one sentence on Israel in substantially the same terms as originally proposed.

The reference to anti-Semitism at the Durban World Conference was also the subject of interminable negotiation. Every draft received from the editor prior to the penultimate version, omitted any reference to anti-Semitism and refused to provide specific examples of the failings of human rights NGOs. In the end result, the language allowed was deliberately general and omitted the specific reference to those NGOs? one-sided concerns in Jenin. As such, it opened the door to a response from those same NGOs challenging the allegation of their selective human rights interests. Predictably, such a letter to the editor was in fact sent to the Times by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and was printed a few days later. When I inquired about writing a letter in response, which would have included the substance of my originally-accepted piece, I was informed that editorial policy did not permit authors of op-eds to respond to any criticism.

So it’s all the news that’s fit to print, but only the views that conform to The Times’ view of the world.