To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » Dear Mr. Byron Calame

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

Dear Mr. Byron Calame

By David Peterson at Jun 13, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Mr. Byron Calame, Public Editor New York Times 229 West 43rd St. New York, NY 10036-3959 Dear Mr. Calame: Hello. And welcome to your new job as the Public Editor (or ombudsman) of the New York Times.--- Almost 40 years at The Wall Street Journal, huh? Well, at least you spent those years "on the news side," as you put it. As for your former colleagues who spend their time on the other side of the "thick wall" that you say separates the "Journal's newsroom and editorial page"....Do you suppose they'd be able to tell the difference between ethical issues and issues of pure political convenience, if the former weighed ten tons and were to step on their toes one day? One-hundred tons? The mass of the planet Jupiter? In "The New Public Editor: Toward Greater Transparency" (June 5), your first commentary after Daniel Okrent's departure, you mention more than once that you "plan to make greater use of the Web" and "intend to post more actual reader e-mails." In particular, that you are interested in reader feedback that "raise[s] questions about serious journalistic lapses or significant stories." Good. Very good. Because I spend an inordinate amount of my time on the Web. (It's a helluva lot handier than print, let me tell you.) And because I have two Web (i.e., electronically archived) items that I'd like to call to your attention. The first is an extensive study that Edward S. Herman and I completed in early 2004 of the New York Times's coverage of the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and of the work of reporter Marlise Simons in particular (i.e., extrapolating from Simons' performance throughout an extensive sample of her work to conclusions about the Times's performance as a whole). Please permit me to share with you here a link to one instance of the document:
The New York Times on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service, Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ColdType, 2004
Our conclusion---which I for one do not believe to be hyperbolic in the least---was that, although "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has been a thorough-going servant of NATO," and though "its judicial practice has continuously violated traditional Western standards almost across the board, even apart from its selective and politicized (and hyper-publicized) indictments and trials," nevertheless (p. 29):
The New York Times's Marlise Simons...has portrayed the Tribunal as a marvel of Western justice, by denying or (mainly) evading the evidence of its political role and judicial malpractice. We find it hard to believe that the Soviet media at the time of the Moscow show trials in 1936 could have done a better job on behalf of the Soviet prosecutor than Simons has done for the ICTY's prosecutors. In fact, Simons has almost surely done the better job, because she does quote Milosevic, even if briefly and with derisive comments; and while hugely biased, she is not frenzied and hysterical in her abuse of the villains. There is even a very small trickle of inconvenient facts within the overwhelming barrage of Tribunal-supportive propaganda. But this is effective propaganda – not propaganda that ordinary people will easily see through. As evidence gradually breaks through the “coercive consensus” that now prevails, and upsets claims of the Tribunal that have been conduited by Simons (though she is far from alone), we believe that...Simons and the New York Times will not rush to straighten out their brain-washed readers.
We invite you to read our analysis, and to share it among your new colleagues at the Times. Above all, we would welcome your feedback. The second item that I'd like to share with you derives from my assessment of the New York Times's own re-assessment of its performance on the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" allegations that the U.S. Government (among others) used to make with such aggressive regularity during the 18-19 months that preceded its March, 2003 invasion of Iraq. Namely, the Times's conclusion that it blew this story---and blew it on a monumental scale.
"The Times and Iraq," The Editors, New York Times, May 26, 2004
Now, Mr. Calame, for the really interesting part. If you take the trouble to examine a recent blog of mine ("'Preserving Our Readers' Trust'," ZNet, May 24), and, to save you some work, if you scroll down past the material devoted to your predecessor, all the way to the Postscript, you will find the following two sets of questions, which I will repeat for you here:
In case Byron Calame, the Times's new Public Editor, happens to be reading the ZNet Blogs any time soon, two questions.---In its coverage of the American state's preparations for war over Iraq, ca. 2001, 2002, and early 2003, was the net effect of the New York Times's coverage, particularly of the American state's “weapons of mass destruction” and “ties” to Al Qaeda claims, such that it helped the American state to get away with its military seizure of Iraq? Or did it hinder the American state? These are not trivial questions, after all. And if, as I suspect, the new Public Editor would recognize that he has no choice but to answer "helped," my next question is: In helping the American state to militarily seize Iraq, did the New York Times fail to carry out its real institutional purpose? Or did the Times succeed?
After all, Mr. Calame, it is quite undeniable: The New York Times is on record admitting that, when confronted with the U.S. Government's prodigious misrepresentations---with its lies, to be frank---concerning the former Iraqi regime's "weapons of mass destruction" and "ties" to Al Qaeda, the Times's role, overwhelmingly, was to disseminate these misrepresentations as "news"---to disseminate them uncritically, that is, as part of the daily package of the news that's fit to print. Rather than to challenge them. Let alone refute them. (For links to several of the more accomplished post-war refutations of the pre-war lies, sticking strictly to official sources, see the collection I've assembled at "'Intelligence' and the Invasion of Iraq," ZNet, April 1, 2005.) So, Mr. Calame, here is my challenge to you---and, through you, to the New York Times as an institution (and, through the Times, to the rest of the prestigious news media that in English-speaking country after English-speaking country, also disseminated the exact same pack of lies): In its coverage of the U.S. Government's (etc.) pre-war allegations about the "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorist" threats posed by the former Iraqi regime (which, as you clearly know, the Times admits it got factually wrong), did the New York Times facilitate the U.S. Government's military seizure of Iraq? Or did the New York Times impede it? Or, to steal the phrasing from Matthew Rycroft's July, 2002 "Secret Downing Street Memo": If, with respect to the issues of Iraqi terrorism and WMD, the objective of the U.S.-U.K. axis was to fix the intelligence and facts around the policy, did the New York Times help the U.S.-U.K. axis carry out its policy (i.e., by helping the axis fix the "intelligence" and "facts")? Or did the New York Times deter the U.S.-U.K. axis from carrying out its policy (i.e., by challenging and even refuting the alleged "intelligence" and "facts")? I won't repeat my follow-up question---the one about whether the Times failed to carry out its societal purpose, or succeeded. But you know where I'm going. And there's no point in my pretending otherwise.
Mr. Byron Calme, Public Editor, New York Times "The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage," The Editors, New York Times, May, 2004 "The Times and Iraq," The Editors, New York Times, May 26, 2004 "Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or Mass Distraction?" Daniel Okrent, New York Times, May 30, 2004 Preserving Our Readers' Trust: A Report to the Executive Editor, New York Times, May 9, 2005 (For the PDF version of the same.) "The New Public Editor: Toward Greater Transparency," Byron Calame, New York Times, June 5, 2005 The New York Times on the Yugoslavia Tribunal: A Study in Total Propaganda Service, Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ColdType, 2004 "Preserving Our Readers' Trust," ZNet, May 24, 2005 Dear Mr. Byron Calame, ZNet, June 13, 2005

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (2)

Person

Re: Dear Mr. Byron Calame

By Isjoel, Apples at Jun 15, 2005 00:25 AM
David, for your next letter keep in mind that Calame likes to be called ‘Barney' (http://www.gawker.com/news/media/new-york-times/okrent-please-forward-all-emails-to-byron-calame-038666.php). Also, you might want to refer directly to the New York Times handbook for ethics (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf). One relevant part of the handbook states "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." If Calame agrees that the NY Times helped to creat the war, then it is their ethical duty to end it. So, I think I'll sit back and have a cup of tea while I wait for the pigs to fly.

Reply this comment

Person

By Vramesh36, Krishna at Jun 14, 2005 20:19 PM
very interesting, but i'm not sure if i agree with your dichotomy of 'helping' or 'hindering'. in my mind, the obligation of the press should neither be to help, nor to hinder a military frenzy - it should be to report upon the events that are taking place, compile together and make available information that might help one to understand how the situation is where it currently is, and present opinions of alternative routes that things might go -(seen in our modern press system, in a rather lame form, as current-events, in-depth pieces, and op-eds). thus when it comes to an issue like the claims of weapons of mass destruction in iraq, the job of the ny-times should not have been to help nor to hinder the 'march-to-war', but should have been to present the facts. and, as the facts so would have it, the claims of the us/uk govts were false. so, in the end, you and i would have the nytimes printing the same - but i don't believe they should have done it to hinder the us/uk govts war, but rather apolitically, because it was indeed the truth. maybe it's just semantics? but i see a difference...

Reply this comment

Loading_border