Articles about "Joe Nocera"


Times public editor calls Joe Nocera column ‘intrinsically flawed,’ calls for more than a correction

New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan has weighed in on a dispute between two heavyweights. In one corner is high-profile Times columnist Joe Nocera. In the other, billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

In the end, she sides with Buffett, writing that a Nocera column about Buffett is “so intrinsically flawed, a standard correction didn’t get the job done.” She’s right, for the reasons she cites and for another that I’ll note below.

Sullivan’s post focused on a pair of columns (1,2) by Nocera about Buffett and recent decisions related to executive compensation at Coca-Cola, a company in which Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway is the largest shareholder.

Sullivan notes that both of Nocera’s columns required corrections for factual errors. But even more than the mistakes, the major concern for her is that “The entire premise of the second column is built on a mistake: that Mr. Buffett had changed his tone after ‘licking his wounds’ over the reaction to statements he made on April 23, including Mr. Nocera’s criticism.”

Nocera’s second column played up the apparent change of heart as his reason writing:

I am returning to this subject because, on Monday, following widespread criticism of his decision, Buffett gave a remarkable interview to Fortune magazine’s Stephen Gandel, an interview that was strikingly different in tone from his remarks of last week.

But that Fortune interview happened before Nocera’s initial column (and other criticism) was published. So Nocera’s stated reason to return to the subject was in fact wrong.

This is the exact situation people often raise with me when expressing their frustration with the way the press handles errors. When an article or opinion column is based on an incorrect fact or mistaken assumption, they expect there to be something more than just a simple correction. They expect the offending party to admit they were wrong, or to significantly alter their original assertions.

Sullivan agrees. Calling the column “intrinsically flawed,” she outlined her preferred remedy:

Mr. Nocera should have devoted at least part of another column to telling his readers what happened and why. In his email to me, Mr. Nocera referred to the second column’s fundamental mistake as “bad/dumb/embarrassing.”

Such a forthright admission should not be confined to an email answer to the public editor’s question, but should be published in the same Times pages where the two columns ran. Ideally, the online version of the second column would provide a clear link to the mea culpa.  That would go a long way toward making this right.

This raises another issue that remains unresolved: most people reading the offending column will likely read all of the incorrect assertions before getting to the correction.

The Times places its corrections at the bottom of an offending story, and it also puts  “Corrections Appended” at the top of the story, and hyperlinks that text to the correction. In most cases, this is great; you can go to the correction right away if you like, or just start with the story.

However, in a situation such as this, the issue is that the Times leaves the original, incorrect text intact even after adding the correction.

Any reader who gets the bottom of the Nocera column and sees the correction is going to feel like they just read all of this stuff about Buffet’s change of heart, only to discover that it’s not the case. It should be noted right away, or in the text itself.

To Sullivan’s point, when a column is so badly flawed there needs to be something more done for readers (and the aggrieved party). Either put the correction text at the top so that it’s clearly spelled out for everyone before they read, or require Nocera to fix the column, and offer an explanation, as Sullivan suggests.

As it stands, the correction’s placement and the lack of a corrected column exacerbate the mistake.

One final note: Sullivan’s post includes a necessary disclosure that she for years worked as the top editor at a paper owned by Buffett’s company:

(Disclosure: From 1999 to 2012, I was the editor of The Buffalo News, a paper owned by Berkshire and of which Mr. Buffett is the chairman. I own no shares of Berkshire.)

I had a lingering question after reading her post: how much interaction did she have with Buffett while in her role as the top editor of a paper he owned? It occurred to me because her post for the Times includes several quotes from an interview she had with Buffett. I wondered if they had spoken before.

“I’ve met him several times over the years,” she told me after I sent a question via a Twitter direct message. “We’ve had a cordial though not close relationship.”

It’s not an issue for her to have had past interactions with Buffett. But if I wondered about that, perhaps others did, too.

Update May 13: It looks like Sullivan’s post had the desired effect. Nocera has a new column up, and he uses it to offer a more meaningful mea culpa An excerpt:

“Although The Times published a strong correction, Margaret Sullivan, the public editor, wrote that she didn’t think it went far enough because my column was ‘so intrinsically flawed.’ Upon reflection, I agree with her. I sincerely regret the error.”

Good on Nocera, and nice work by the public editor. Read more

Tools:
5 Comments

NCAA gets personal in pushing back against ‘dumb’ and ‘lame’ journalists

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is being more aggressive in highlighting what it considers inaccurate or unfair reporting, often calling out journalists by name on its website and on Twitter.

A report in the Chronicle of Higher Education looks at the increasingly personal nature of the NCAA’s attempts to push back against reporting:

As digital sources of information have exploded—and the lines among reporter, analyst, columnist, and provocateur have blurred—the NCAA has taken a harder stance against some writers. Lately those exchanges have gotten personal, with NCAA representatives referring to some journalists as “lame,” “dumb,” “pseudo-journos,” and “bad ones.”

Read more
Tools:
1 Comment
ncaanyt

NCAA says NYT’s Joe Nocera faces conflict of interest; Nocera calls charge ‘bogus,’ ‘intimidation’

In a lengthy New York Times Magazine feature and two recent columns for the paper, Joe Nocera has taken a critical look at the world of student athletes and the operations of the NCAA.

In response, the NCAA contacted Poynter this week to note factual errors made by Nocera and suggest that a conflict of interest should prevent him from writing about the organization. In an email reply, Nocera said, “What the NCAA is trying to do is shut down a critic by tossing out bogus conflict of interest charges. I have no intention of being intimidated.”

It’s nothing new for the subject of a critical report to raise concerns. But does the NCAA have a valid complaint? It’s worth examining as a case study about the New York Times’ policy regarding conflicts of interest.

Two Columns, a Magazine Feature, and a ‘Cartel’

The issue began with a December 30 Nocera column that called the NCAA “a home-grown cartel.” After the organization pointed out an error in the column — Nocera originally said student athletes aren’t allowed to retain a lawyer after they’ve been accused of violating NCAA rules — Nocera followed up with another column about NCAA operations.

His January 6 offering led with an acknowledgement of his previous error and went on to explain that in the course of researching his error he “stumbled on a case so egregious — yet so perfectly illustrative of the N.C.A.A.’s judicial ‘process’ — that I concluded it needed wider exposure.”

The case involved a football player at the University of North Carolina, Devon Ramsay. Nocera lays out what he argues is the NCAA’s unjust handling of false accusations of academic fraud levelled against Ramsay. The column concludes with a promise from Nocera that he’ll keep reporting on the NCAA:

I know there are readers who believe I am wasting valuable space writing about sports. I got e-mails to that effect after last week’s column. To my mind, though, the fact that the N.C.A.A. is willing to destroy an athlete’s career without even a nod to a fundamental right like due process is simply wrong. It needs to change. That is why I will continue writing about this subject, as events warrant, in the coming months.

As one might imagine, the NCAA isn’t happy about the columns. An email sent to Poynter this week by Bob Williams, vice president of communications for the NCAA, said, “In a nutshell, we are very disappointed in how the New York Times has handled the errors of fact and conflict of interest in Joe Nocera’s recent columns.”

In terms of the errors of fact, the NCAA is for example unhappy about the error in Nocera’s Dec. 30 column, which has been corrected, and the fact that Nocera’s subsequent column used the mistake as an entry point for another critical column.

Most interesting, however, is the fact that the NCAA believes the Times shouldn’t let Nocera write about the organization. Is this, as Nocera said, a tactic to get a critical reporter to back off? Or does the NCAA have a point?

The Issue

The suggestion of a conflict of interest centers around the fact that Nocera’s fiancee is the director of communications for Boies, Schiller & Flexner, a law firm. One of the firm’s lawyers has provided some guidance to the lead attorney pursuing a high profile case against the NCAA involving former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon and other former college athletes. This fact was disclosed in Nocera’s New York Times Magazine feature, which included details about the O’Bannon case. Here’s the disclosure:

Full disclosure: William Isaacson, a lawyer with Boies, Schiller & Flexner, is among more than a dozen attorneys from various firms who have assisted Hausfeld in bringing the O’Bannon lawsuit. My fiancée is the firm’s director of communications. She has played no role in the case, and does not stand to profit if O’Bannon wins.

In an email, here’s how Nocera characterized the involvement of the lawyer at the Boies firm where his fiancee works:

The case is really being driven by Michael Hausfeld, who has his own firm, and would be taking place with or without the involvement of the one Boies lawyer, who did not instigate it and is not driving the litigation.

The NCAA said that connection is enough to keep Nocera off the NCAA beat. “We are very surprised the New York Times would allow such a conflict of interest to occur – especially given that this is not the first time Mr. Nocera has written about a case handled by his fiancee’s law firm,” said Williams.

He’s referring to an incident in fall of 2010 when Nocera wrote a column about Hewlett-Packard’s hiring of a new CEO — a man who led SAP when it engaged in activity that led Oracle to sue the company and win. The issue is the firm that represented Oracle in the damages phase of the case is the same one that employs Nocera’s fiancee. In fact, her direct boss was heavily involved in the case.

Nocera didn’t disclose that in the column, and the paper subsequently placed an editor’s note on the column stating, “To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, Mr. Nocera would not have written about the case if he had known of the law firm’s involvement.”

The Times public editor also wrote a column about the conflict.

“In that case, not finding out about the Boies involvement before I wrote was indeed a mistake,” Nocera said in an email. “… This, however, is a completely different situation.”

The core of the difference, Nocera said is that “I wrote about a case that David Boies was directly involved in, and in time, my fiancee became directly involved as well.” He said his fiancee has no involvement in the O’Bannon case, and that her firm is not playing a lead role in the action.

For its part, the NCAA views this current question of conflict of interest as being worse that the H-P example. From Williams’ email:

The conflict here is more egregious: Mr. Nocera knew about the involvement of his fiance’s law firm, he was allowed to write not only a lengthy magazine story, but two additional columns on the subject. And the columns did not make any mention of the conflict of interest.

Breaking it Down

Let’s start with the central contention from the NCAA: The involvement of a lawyer from the firm that employs Nocera’s fiancee in a suit against the NCAA should disqualify Nocera from writing about the organization.

Here’s the relevant passage from the Times policy regarding conflicts of interest related to the activities of family members:

The company and its units depend on staff members to disclose potential problems in a timely fashion, with an eye to working together to head off embarrassment to all concerned. Any staff member who sees a potential for a conflict of interest in the activities of spouse, relatives or friends must discuss the situation with newsroom management. In many or even most cases, disclosure will suffice. But if newsroom management considers the problem serious, the staff member may have to withdraw from certain coverage. Sometimes an assignment may have to be modified or a beat changed.

The above section makes it clear that it requires a “serious” problem for a Times journalist to be taken off a story or beat. That’s a fairly high standard, albeit one that’s open to interpretation. The policy also requires a journalist to speak with their manager about any possible conflicts.

Nocera said he raised the potential conflict issue with his magazine editors once he realized the connection between his fiancee’s firm and the case against the NCAA.

“Did I talk to my editors at the magazine? Of course I did,” he said. “… As I did my reporting, I became aware of the O’Bannon case (mainly through an interesting character named Sonny Vaccaro), and realized that I would be doing the readers a disservice not to put it in the article. My editors and I both agreed that involvement of the Boies lawyer required an appropriate disclosure, which I made, but no more than that.”

So Nocera spoke with his editors and they decided a disclosure was necessary. Meaning: this wasn’t deemed “serious” enough to alter his work for the magazine or completely remove him from the piece. When it comes to disclosures, the Times policy says it will suffice in “many or even most cases.”

One item that would be considered a major factor in determining the severity of the conflict is if Nocera’s fiancee stood to benefit financially or otherwise from the O’Bannon case, or any related action against the NCAA. (It’s also of course important if his fiancee is directly involved in the O’Bannon case, which Nocera said she isn’t, unlike the H-P case.) The issue of benefit is addressed directly in the disclosure, and Nocera raised it again in his email to me.

“As I said in the disclosure my fiancee has nothing whatsoever to do with the case, and will not profit from it no matter how it turns out,” he said. “To make things even more complicated, David Boies, who is my fiancee’s direct boss, is a good friend of NCAA president Mark Emmert and has argued with me against the positions I took in my magazine story.”

Even if you set aside the contention that Nocera should be forbidden from writing about the NCAA, there’s another valid question raised by Williams and the NCAA: why place a disclosure in the magazine piece and not in the columns?

“First of all, there was no need to disclose anything in the columns because they were not about, and did not mention, the O’Bannon case,” Nocera said. “I wrote about the NCAA in my third column as an oped columnist, (it was in April, I think) before I even knew there was an O’Bannon case; it is something I have been thinking about for a long time, and have strong opinions. I don’t apologize for that.”

Final Thoughts

My reading of the Times policy suggests Nocera has been in line with its prescriptions. I tend to agree he doesn’t need to include a disclosure in any piece of writing that mentions the NCAA, given his fiancee’s tenuous connection to the O’Bannon case. Any mention of the O’Bannon case will require disclosure.

What’s clear from this example is the issue of conflicts of interest come down to a judgement call within the newsroom. In order for the right call to be made, journalists need to raise potential conflicts with their managers and provide full disclosure. From there, it’s up to managers to apply the policy. Before all of that, of course, the newsroom needs a clear and widely communicated policy. (The Times is ahead of the curve in putting its ethics policy online.)

I don’t see any evidence that the Times or Nocera failed to act in accordance with the paper’s policy.  Of course, the NCAA is within their rights to disagree.

One thing we know for sure is the folks at the NCAA are going to read anything Nocera writes about their organization and student athletes very carefully to look for errors of fact or other issues to raise. Uncowed, Nocera is going to continue to be the opinion columnist he’s paid to be. Read more

Tools:
4 Comments
Unknown-2

Nocera: I’m branching out from pure business on the op-ed page

WPRI.com
Joe Nocera points to his NCAA column as evidence of that. “But I’m not going to be a political pundit,” he tells Ted Nesi. “I’m not going to write about, you know, the Senate races and the presidential races – that’s just not what I view as kind of how my brain works.” Q-and-A excerpts:

I’m totally excited about [doing an op-ed page column]. It’s a change for me because I’ve never written anything that short before in my life – my previous column, as you know, was literally twice as long – and [the new op-ed page column is] also twice a week. But I wanted to do it the old-fashioned way. I wanted to prove that I could write short, write twice a week, and bring business – as opposed to economics – to the op-ed page.

The Times, I think, has done – it’s a very interesting paywall. It’s a little bit porous, it’s a little bit flexible. But it does give people, regular readers, an incentive to want to pay for the thing. And I’m rooting for it.

I like the physical format of the paper, but I’m an old fuddy-duddy – I’m 58. I like seeing the choices editors make, page to page. During the day, I often love to look on the Internet or on my iPad to see updates. And in the evening, I often read the paper on the iPad, because I think it’s a beautiful way to read the paper.

More from the interview Read more

Tools:
0 Comments