"One reason was that our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period. . . . Another is that despite being a so-called 'czar,' Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official."
Yeah, right. This also explains why The Times' op-ed writers have studiously avoided the Van Jones matter and President Obama's announcement of the resignation in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend.
Given that Jill Abramson was "answering questions", I, too, sent her an e-mail:
Dear Ms. Abramson,
As you can see from the correspondence below, I was promised an answer by the office of The New York Times' Public Editor whether Roger Cohen's op-ed, "What Iran's Jews Say", was in keeping with New York Times journalistic standards of ethics.
In a nutshell, Mr. Cohen failed to inform The Times' readership that his interviews with Iranian Jews were conducted with the assistance of an Iranian translator, hired from an Iranian government "agency", who, as acknowledged by Mr. Cohen, was reporting on these meetings back to the "agency". Moreover, it is unclear whether the said "agency" arranged these specific meetings in advance.
Notwithstanding the promise I received from the Public Editor's office and Mr. Hoyt's personal awareness of and involvement in this issue, I have never received an answer.
Perhaps you would care to reply.
Best regards,
Jeffrey Grossman
Will she reply? Given her Van Jones response, you can count on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment