The Media Mob

Times Standards Editor Revists Sourcing in the Wake of Margaret Seltzer

Yesterday, The New York Times asked what the publishing industry—and the paper itself—could have done to have fact-checked a fradulent story produced by Margaret Seltzer that made its way into a book, and to the pages of the paper itself in a profile.

The freelance reporter who penned the profile in The Times, Mimi Reed, said, “The way I look at it is that it’s just like when you get in a car and drive to the store—you assume that the other drivers on the road aren’t psychopaths on a suicide mission."

Tom de Kay, the editor of the House & Home section, where the profile was printed, said, "I was to some degree trusting that the vetting process of a reputable book publisher was going to catch this level of duplicity."

Today, standards editor Craig Whitney writes in an internal memo that none of that was enough. Here's the memo:

Single-source profiles of people who are not already well known quantities are traps we have fallen into twice in the past year or two, and that's too often. Until publishers start fact-checking their own nonfiction books, and that'll be the day, we should remember that profiles of unknown authors
should always include reporting from other sources -- not just surrogates of the profilee like agents, publishers, lawyers, etc. -- to verifiy the most important facts.  But even when there's no book involved, the same rule applies. If we can't find ways to check key facts, names, graduation
claims, etc., we should hold the story until we can verify them, and if we can't, we should be suspicious.  Live and learn....
Craig

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

Anonymous (not verified) says:

This statement,
"The freelance reporter who penned the profile in the Times, Mimi Reed, said, “The way I look at it is that it’s just like when you get in a car and drive to the store — you assume that the other drivers on the road aren’t psychopaths on a suicide mission." is the same mentality of an employee of a law frim who went to work, while she was in acting school, was confronted by a psycho bi-sexual, and because she would not particpate, the pyscho put together a team of creatively starved and jealous associates who began to catalogue the employees Intellectual Property and through their corporate connections sell the IP right out from underneath the employee. This is a true story and the book & movie treatment are being shopped.

Anonymous (not verified) says:

What about the elephant in the room? Could it be that the usual vetting went out the door because Margaret Seltzer's editor is the daughter of the Times former book review editor who is currently an editor-at-large for the paper. The fact that the author of the book was profiled smacks of nepotism, and the notion that throughout the entire publishing process and the Times profile no one thought Seltzer's story seemed preposterous--a white teenage girl drug runner-gangbanger in foster care living in South Central? puhleeze--speaks to the guilelessness, gullibility or sheer stupidity of the publishers at Riverhead and the Times.

Anonymous (not verified) says:

"Revist" your proof-reader, while you're at it...

Anonymous (not verified) says:

"verifiy" your sources indeed. Need to proof read. Or is that reed?

Anonymous (not verified) says:

Curiously enough, a legitimate artist is being blocked, not being able to make a living, and maligned throughout the media, by certain elements in New York City,while fakes and impostors are published and given awards.

Anonymous (not verified) says:

A big fat typo in a memo from a New York Times editor -- how embarassing. When you write these things, they need to meet the same standards as a news article, because you never know where it might appear.

You know, if she had written this as fiction, it probably still would have made for good reading. I don't understand why people think they can fictionalize their own life and think they can get away with it.

Anonymous (not verified) says:

So half of the comments are about typos on an *internal email.* Nice, folks.

The serious issue of publishers and newspapers encouraging the fabrication of "facts" is lost on all the serious media critics around here. Just wonderful.

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.