Clark Hoyt Responds; Has The New York Times Filed for Moral Bankruptcy?

In response to my second open letter to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, entitled "Why Is Anti-Semitism Permitted in Online Comments 'Moderated' by The Times?"
(http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html), I received on June 23, 2009 the following e-mail from Mr. Hoyt:

Dear Jeffrey Grossman:

As my assistant, ________ has told you, I am considering a public editor column on the subject of comments on the Web site of The Times. I have inquired about why your comments have not been posted and have been told that those that were rejected were considered off the topic.

Times editors agreed that some of the comments you objected to should not have been posted, and it is my understanding that they were taken down. Others were within the bounds of robust debate.

I appreciate hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Clark Hoyt

Public Editor

The New York Times

This message caused me no small amount of anguish. Allow me to explain:

As a student I always believed that there was something sacrosanct about The New York Times, a higher wisdom, an indubitable font of fact and learning. Later in life, I had the privilege to guide, interpret for and protect several of The Times' more fabled reporters during periods of strife, and I was inspired by their professionalism. Now, with one short e-mail from The Times' Public Editor, all of this has gone up in smoke.

Although extremely terse, let's examine Mr. Hoyt's e-mail line by line:

As my assistant _______ has told you, I am considering a public editor column on the subject of comments on the Web site of The Times.

Yes, your assistant, ________ indeed sent me an e-mail dated July 7, 2008, i.e. one year ago, stating:

Mr. Hoyt is thinking about addressing the issue of comment moderation in an upcoming column. Do you have a record of the comment you tried to post but was rejected? He would need to have the specifics.

I immediately provided the materials requested by Mr. Hoyt's assistant and continued to send him comments as they were rejected. i.e. censored, by The Times' moderators. Mr. Hoyt is still "considering" a public editor column on the subject of comments on the Web site of The Times? Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

I have inquired about why your comments have not been posted and have been told that those that were rejected were considered off the topic.

If Mr. Hoyt "inquired" about my comments, whom did he ask? If he was "told" that my comments were not on-topic, who told him? The "moderators" themselves?

Why didn't Mr. Hoyt take a minute to read one of the censored comments in my first open letter to him ("Why Are Non-Abusive, On-Topic, Online Comments Censored by The Times? Open Letter to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of The New York Times, http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-1-to-clark-hoyt-public.html). Go ahead, Mr. Hoyt, read the comment concerning Qaddafi, then tell me it was not "on-topic".

My most recent comment to be censored, in response to Bob Herbert's June 20, 2009 op-ed, "A Threat We Can't Ignore" ("Don't count out the connection between the right-wing hate-mongers and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams'), stated:

Bob, I also abhor the hateful, dangerous language of the far-right. However, I think you must also be cognizant of the hateful language of the far-left, which, in response to certain New York Times op-eds, has found its way into New York Times online comments. One such comment, which was removed following my protests, also appeared to call for a "well-aimed bullet". See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html

Not on-topic?

Yes, I know: when there are so many other important matters at The Times, why should Mr. Hoyt concern himself with censorship, and if it makes Mr. Hoyt feel any better, I informed Mr. Herbert of this censored comment, and Mr. Herbert did not bother to respond.

Times editors agreed that some of the comments you objected to should not have been posted, and it is my understanding that they were taken down.

Questions:

Why were these comments permitted by The Times' "moderators" in the first place and not removed until I brought them to the attention of The Times? Why did Mr. Hoyt not respond immediately to my e-mail objecting to this phenomenon (it was another editor of The Times, who finally acted on my complaint)? Why was there a proliferation of such racist online comments? What changes have been made to ensure that this phenomenon is corrected?

Mr. Hoyt doesn't say the ugly word in his e-mail, so let me say it again: anti-Semitism. Has it become politically correct? Are Jews the one minority whom today it is permissible to target?

Others were within the bounds of robust debate.

Notwithstanding my entreaties, anti-Semitism continues to find its way into New York Times online comments. Recently, I brought the following language to Mr. Hoyt's attention from a comment, the first posted by The Times' "moderators", in response to Roger Cohen's June 20, 2009 op-ed, "City of Whispers":

Look for Israel to use the US to bomb Middle Eastern countries and then Israel with the Sole Power will then take over the US. [Sic]

Is Mr. Hoyt claiming that this comment, which was not removed, falls within the bounds of "robust debate"? A subsequent comment posted in response to this same op-ed stated:

Obama wascompletly mute during 23 days 24/7 of jewish barabrities on Gaza civilians when 1400 of them perished in that onslaught. [Sic]

Okay, so The Times permits outright falsehoods, but is The Times also willing to allow a free interchange between the words "Jewish" and "Israeli"?

I appreciate hearing from you.

Mr. Hoyt appreciates so much hearing from me that it has taken him more than a year, since my first e-mail, to answer personally.

Yours sincerely,

Forgive me if I question Mr. Hoyt's sincerity. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the promise made by Mr. Hoyt's department to review Roger Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" from the standpoint of journalistic ethics, no one has gotten back to me.

*********

So, are we back to square one? If The Times is willing to permit anti-Semitism in "moderated" online comments, do we merely cancel our subscriptions? The Times doesn't care.

Imagine, however, if we inform The Times' advertisers, one at a time, about this "moderated" hatred.

More about this in a future post.