Thanks to New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan for providing the first acknowledgment by anyone at the Times of a fundamentally flawed story I have noted here before.
I won’t revisit the saga of a 2007 Times puff piece about matchmaker Pari Livermore here. Read the links below if you want the background. The story’s premise was flawed and it inaccurately referred to a “charity event,” when the primary beneficiary was not registered as a charity. I think the Times should have corrected the story, regardless of its age (Sullivan called for an follow-up, not a correction). While we disagree about the need for a correction, I applaud Sullivan’s acknowledgment that the Times should have followed up on it when it learned about its flawed premise.
Nancy Levine
On one point I will heartily agree with Sullivan. Nancy Levine contacted Sullivan and me after she almost made a donation to Livermore, after finding and reading the Times story. But Levine, an executive recruiter, did a little more checking and learned that Spotlight on Heroes, the organization Livermore told her to make the check out to, wasn’t actually registered as a charity.
Levine has sent dozens of emails to Sullivan, other Times editors, other media editors and directors, California legislators and regulators. Sullivan described Levine as “one of the most persistent people I’ve ever come in contact with.” That I can attest to. This, not so much:
I’ll note that Mr. Buttry is almost as dogged as Ms. Levine.
No, I’m not nearly as dogged as Nancy is. She is also one of the most persistent people I’ve ever come in contact with. The media need persistent, dogged people to hold us accountable. Thanks, Nancy!
Twitter reactions
Lookslike @stevebuttry managed to wear down the tough @Sulliview – shall we call it a truce? 🙂 https://t.co/FbM6ZxUvOV
— barbara raab (@bbabbo1) November 14, 2015
@bbabbo1 @stevebuttry @Sulliview I’m looking forward to how he will torment @jimbrady about ESPN stuff
— Matt DeRienzo (@mattderienzo) November 14, 2015
@TPrice504 @Sulliview @stevebuttry The story was incorrect when published. “Charity” event not a charity. I’ll take Wikipedia over incorrect
— nancy levine (@nancylevine) November 14, 2015
Previous posts relating to the Times Livermore story
Is there a statute of limitations on correcting errors or updating flawed stories?
Why are journalists so reluctant to correct and re-examine challenged stories?
Deni Elliott: Journalists often fail to think beyond ‘Charity = GOOD’
Other journalists correct a story the New York Times stubbornly refuses to correct
The Buttry Diary 
This was a persuasive comment on the Sullivan article:
MTF Tobin Manhattanville, NY 1 hour ago
.
.
Whenever I read anything (besides a short piece) on nytimes.com recently, I am shown links (often with photos) to 2, 3, or more “related” pieces.
A profile of the director of a new film may show me links to an article about the casting of the film’s leads, to another article about the book on which the film is based, and to a story about the on-location filming in an otherwise pristine village.
It seems to me it would be exceedingly easy (and, a great service to readers present and future) to show online readers any link(s) to Public Editor pieces concerning whatever they are reading.
For example, nytimes.com had a 2-part series on nail salons; the Public Editor has written about it three times. If someone reads next year about the nail salons, shouldn’t the page inform them (with links) that there were issues deserving of Public Editor attention?
My suggestion would pertain whether the Public Editor’s stance had been critical, approving, or neutral.
I may have suggested this in the past; I’m not especially dogged. 😉
Ms. Sullivan months ago listed 17 of her wishes for 2015. Number 18 should be: Greater effort to inform readers that the Public Editor has addressed some aspect of the topic or the article that has drawn their interest.
LikeLike
Excellent suggestion. And the Times has the programmers to make it happen. But I doubt it will. Or, when something is proven to be wrong, you could just correct the original story.
LikeLike
[…] was my third most-read 2015 post. That was the first of five posts on the topic, the most recent taking note of an examination of the issue by Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan. Margaret called Nancy persistent and both of us dogged (labels I think Margaret meant kindly and I […]
LikeLike