I’m not a huge fan of Andrew Sullivan, but I’ll defend him from DDay on this charge when Sullivan says that he was forced to publish Betsy McCaughey’s hit-piece on Hilarycare.
This is taking responsibility? Who else but the editor of the magazine should be responsible for its content? Who was Sullivan fighting with, as the editor of the magazine, that forced him to label the piece as fact instead of as one woman’s opinion?
Sullivan implies that his choice was to publish the piece or resign. There is one person who can do that to the editor of a publication, whether magazine, newspaper or blog. That person is the publisher.
Now, perhaps Sullivan should have resigned. But contra DDay, yes, there is someone who can tell the editor what to do and who bears ultimate responsibility for what a publication’s content, even more than the editor, and that person is the publisher.
This is a fundamental truth you learn very quickly as an editor. I did, and I’m sure Sully did too.
tc
True, the publisher trumps. But as another blogger or commenter I read somewhere else pointed out, Sully has been professionally brandishing the McCaughey hatchet piece and the scalp of Hillarycare until very recently. He may have a few moral fibers left in him. How pathetic that a conservative opposed to torture is held up as courageous. He’s still an opportunistic creep to earn his bread, and don’t forget he was a shrill pantspisser after 9/11.
Cujo359
I’ve never been an editor, so I can’t comment on the power structure. But as a consumer of news agency products, I find it disconcerting, to say the least, that tripe will be passed off as fact because a publisher will order it to. What that tells me is that The New Republic is a news publication that can’t be trusted. It also implies that there are very few that can.
lambert strether
Cujo359:
Yes, that’s how it works. The publisher is at the top of the masthead, not the editor. That’s why the WSJ changed when Murdoch took it over, for example.
As for the rest of it: Yeah, you got it. It’s good to mau mau the reporters, but they’re less of a problem than the editors, who set story direction and priorities, as managers, and even the editors are less of a problem than the publishers.
Jeff W
It seems like dday faults Sullivan for not coming clean. It’s not only that Sullivan published a piece he knew to be flawed but that he did so because he caved under inappropriate pressure from the publisher, and he is openly acknowledging only the first part.
Also, I’m not an expert in journalistic ethics but my guess is, in theory, the responsibilities run something like this: the publisher has the ultimate responsibility for whatever finally appears in the publication; the editor has the professional responsibility for ensuring that whatever does appear meets whatever the prevailing editorial standards are, as to the readers and even as to the publisher against the publisher’s wishes. If the editor cannot meet those responsibilities, he should resign. (In other words, the editor can’t say, “Well, the publisher has ultimate responsibility so I am able to publish whatever crap he wants and, in fact, am excused from responsibility if forced to do so under threat of firing.” You didn’t say that, of course, and Sullivan doesn’t want to say that, explicitly, but, by ellision, he doesn’t negate it, either.)
I realize that’s idealized—it’s ethics after all, not the real world—and maybe it’s not a correct analysis because I’m no ethics maven—but perhaps that was what dday was thinking in asking his “who else” question.
So Sullivan’s apology might correctly state (or hint at) the ethical and real-world dilemma he was in—his apology might “read right”—but it doesn’t necessarily resolve it in his favor. (You didn’t say it did, either, of course.)
Ian Welsh
Well, he could have quit, and in fact he says he probably should have. So it was an ethical lapse and he admits it. I’m just saying that many people do things they know they shouldn’t if the choice is that or losing their job. It probably also wasn’t clear up-front that that article would turn out to be so important rather than just another article.
Editors who fight what their publishers want too much don’t remain editors. As with anything else it’s also an ongoing negotiation thing: you give on some issues and win on others, and you have to ask when you’re losing on things that matter enough for it to be the right thing to do to resign/quit.
Jeff W
I think you’re really fair-minded, Ian, and your characterization of the situation is illuminating and true.
But Sullivan’s saying “I guess I could have quit. Maybe I should have” is a bit too ambivalent and conflicted for me (and maybe for dday) as a way of taking responsibility, although it seems like an honest enough statement about his feelings. (Actually, that’s one reason why I really don’t like reading Andrew Sullivan’s stuff much—he’s always so tortured about everything.) Something like “In retrospect, I was wrong not to have resigned” might have cut it.
That’s how dday is looking at the statement—as a way of taking responsibility. Your gloss on Sullivan’s comments might—and probably does—describe the situation Sullivan was in really well but dday is just saying that those comments don’t take responsibility, even though he uses the words “I take responsibility.” You’re both right, I think. You’re “just saying,” and dday is, too, but about different things.
Not to beat a dead horse but even Sullivan’s comment—”I take full responsibility for being the editor of the magazine that published the piece”—misconstrues, whether intentionally or not, what he’s taking responsibility for. There’s obviously nothing wrong with being the editor of the magazine that published the piece. (It’s like saying, “I take full responsibility for being the captain of The Titanic.” What the hell does that even mean?) There is something wrong with knowingly publishing a flawed piece, as editor, especially under some inappropriate pressure from elsewhere. (Perhaps he meant “I take full responsibility as the editor” but I’m inclined to take his words at face value, given that he’s, well, an editor.)
As a bit of an aside, I’m not big on the whole Culture of Apology thing, really—I’m not so personally invested in other people’s wrongdoing that I crave their self-abasement—so I have, like, zero interest in reveling in a statement of responsibility from, of all people, Andrew Sullivan. But clearly Sullivan has some need to make one. (As I said, he’s always suffering from some inner torment.) If he’s going to do that, then people like dday are going to have an opinion about it (and, for better or worse, people like me might have an opinion about their opinions).
paul lukasiak
For me, the question isn’t whether Sullivan allowed the piece to be published knowing that it was deeply flawed — it was Sullivan’s failure to speak out when those flaws became “conventional wisdom”. Allowing a bad piece to be published should mean that the piece is roundly criticised for its falsehoods, and the editor suffers the embarrassment as a result.
That isn’t what happened in this case — Sullivan accepted awards, and continued to defend, the piece for years after it was published — he’s acted as a despicable opportunist, and his new “apology” has the unmistakable stench of further opportunism.
Jeff W
Yes, very true, I agree, Paul—and that seems like an even bigger ethical lapse. Well, let’s add that to the list of things Sullivan might take responsibility for, as long as he’s in a responsibility-taking sort of mood.
AR
Is it possible that Sullivan’s need for health care may have played a role? If he had quit, rather than run the piece, he mayd have been uncertain about his prospects for receiving needed care for his pre-existing health condition(s) in future. Irony, if so.
Josh Fulton
50 reasons why Obama should NOT have won the Nobel:
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-hell_10.html
Mandos
I am actually in awe of the Nobel committee, especially as I just took a peek at the Israeli press. They just committed an international mega-trolling. I think the 4chan kidz call it IRL trolling. This is IRL trolling on a grand scale. I think it’s genius and one of their better choices. It doesn’t matter what Obama did or didn’t do. I wish I could smirk along with them (as they are surely smirking) but I am just an insignificant pseudonymous internet minnow.