[UPDATE – 3/15/04 – 4:07 PM PST – The New York Times has withdrawn its legal action related to the parody page. (Yay!) We here at Stumax.com have therefore withdrawn our protest, though we’re sure we really had the Times shaking in their boots. There has been no change yet from the Times on its policy relating to columnists. -sm] #

First, take a glance at this recent New York Times Corrections page #

Then, take a look at this page #

Finally, read this letter that I just sent to the Times. #

---

#

Dear Mr. Orkent and Editors of the New York Times: #

I am writing for two reasons: 1) to inform you of my protest of your legal actions against Robert Cox and his ISP, Verio, in relation to Cox’s New York Times Corrections page parody; and 2) to strongly urge you to change your editorial policies regarding corrections to op-ed pieces. #

Parody and Protest #

As someone who has become quite disillusioned with major media in general, I have often pointed to the Times as an example of a paper that gets a lot of things right. For that reason, I am extremely disappointed with the action that you’ve taken against Mr. Cox’s parody Corrections page, and I am dumbfounded at how you can fail to recognize the page as a legitimate parody. #

The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a cooperative venture of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and law school clinics like Stanford and GWU. On their website, I found this: #

Question: When is parody protected from a charge of trademark infringement?
Answer: Parody is a usage of a mark that pokes fun at the mark and does not confuse the public as to the source of the usage. In determining whether there is infringement the court balances the public interest in free expression against the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion. “A parody must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory messages; that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. To the extent that it does only the former but not the latter, it is not only a poor parody but also vulnerable under trademark law, since the consumer will be confused.” From Cliffs NOtes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 886 F. 2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989) #

The National Debate’s Corrections parody which you demanded be removed clearly meets this test. In addition, in calling attention to the Times’ failure to address serious errors made by its columnists, Mr. Cox is fulfilling one of the sacred duties of journalism; namely, to be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Furthermore, as a member of the press with a duty to uphold the First Amendment, it is unconscionable for the Times to resort to draconian legal tactics which, were they successful, could only have a chilling effect on free expression. #

Therefore, in order to protest what I consider to be the unnecessary and illegitimate actions of the Times, #

1. I will mirror the parody page on my own website here: www.stumax.com/Corrections.html.
2. I will discontinue linking to and recommending the New York Times or Times articles.

1. I will avoid doing business with Times advertisers, and should an opportunity arise, I will let them know why I am not doing business with them. I will stop my protest when you have withdrawn your legal action against Mr. Cox and his ISP and any other mirrors of the parody page, withdrawn any other public objections to the parody page, and have affirmed the right of authors to use satire and parody as legitimate forms of communication. #

   In response to the concern your legal department reportedly raised that Mr. Cox is encouraging others to follow his lead, please note that I am not taking these actions because of Mr. Cox’s example. Rather, I am taking them because of what I perceive to be the wrong-headed, un-American, bullying tactics taken by your newspaper. As a fairly savvy techie, I don’t need Mr. Cox or anyone else to tell me how to post a web page. If the Times hadn’t launched a legal offensive on free expression, I would not be engaging in this type of protest. #

   Ethics and the Times Op-Ed #

   As part of this protest, I am calling for you to strengthen the rules relating to corrections in your op-ed columns. I understand that at least one change – that of having columnists place corrections at the bottom of their columns – has already been implemented. I applaud this move, and I expect you to go further. I expect the New York Times to set an example, to set a standard of excellence, and to hold to established journalistic ethics. #

   I’ve taken the following from your own Code of Ethics (available online here). On page 5 is this: #

   13. In addition to this code, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing. #

   At least two of your columnists – Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman – by altering the statements of George Nethercutt, are guilty of violating these principles. Dowd has also meaningfully altered a quote by George Bush. If the Times has offered a correction for either of these, they do not appear on a search of your website. #

   Other Times columnists, as pointed out on the parody Corrections page, are guilty of playing fast and loose with the facts, yet the Times has been either slow or failed entirely to hold them accountable. I know you take this subject seriously, because on page 7 of your Code of Ethics, under Section 2 – Our Duty to Our Readers, is this: #

   15. The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them. #

   and this: #

   18. Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We will not tolerate such behavior. #

   And yet, by allowing your op-ed columnists to self-regulate, you are in fact tolerating such behavior. You are sending a message to your readers that, despite your own Code of Ethics, you are quite willing to avoid printing the “complete, unvarnished truth.” You are not correcting errors as soon as you become aware of them. #

   If there is a good reason why the Times refuses to hold its editorial columnists to these high standards, please enlighten me. Otherwise, I strongly urge you to implement a strict code of conduct for your columnists, one that mandates in no uncertain terms their responsibility to print the truth, and to immediately and publicly correct any errors. #

   The Society of Professional Journalists offers a code of ethics on its website. Though I think the entire code is worthy of merit, let me quote just a few of the items I would like you to consider affirming or re-affirming: #

   Seek Truth and Report It
   Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. #

   Journalists should:

   • Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. #

   Minimize Harm
   Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. #

   Act Independently
   Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. #

   Journalists should:

   Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. #

   Be Accountable
   Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. #

   Journalists should:

   Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

   Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

   Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

   Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others. #

  If you cannot manage to uphold these standards, then your paper is useless to me. If I cannot trust some of your editorial decisions, then I cannot trust any of your editorial decisions, because I won’t be able to know which ones to trust. This makes your paper irrelevant as a source of news and debate. #

  Our media hold a sacred trust with the public. In the name of our right to know and on our behalf, you demand the truth and report the facts. I expect The New York Times to be good stewards of this responsibility, and to uphold and defend the highest standards of honor and integrity. In addition, as communicators who command a large share of public attention, I expect you to uphold the principles set forth in our Constitution – especially our First Amendment right to free speech. #

  I look forward to positive steps from you in this regard. #

  Yours sincerely, #

  Stuart Maxwell
  www.stumax.com #

  P.S. I might never have discovered the website The National Debate if your legal actions had not taken place. I can see now that Robert Cox is an important source of news analysis, and I truly appreciate discovering his site through your actions, however indirectly. #

  Be Sociable, Share!

  • 

  
  • Tweet
  #
  • No Related Post

  Saturday, March 13th, 2004 @ 7:47 pm Free Expression Matters
  RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.