Share This Page

The hiring hypocrisy of The New York Times

| Saturday, Nov. 17, 2012, 8:57 p.m.

Mark Thompson, a former director-general of the British Broadcasting Corp., began his new job Monday as president and CEO of The New York Times. The lack of embarrassment was remarkable. Thompson claimed he knew nothing about the massive sex-abuse scandal — and then its censorship — that's rocking the BBC.

Scotland Yard has been conducting a criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse by the late disc jockey and TV personality Jimmy Savile over six decades, describing him as a “predatory sex offender.” In mid-October, the metropolitan police stated they were pursuing over 400 lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims. Chris Patten, the head of the BBC's government body, called it “this great tsunami of filth.” BBC's “Newsnight” was about to broadcast an exposé last December — but BBC bosses spiked it, and, incredibly, aired Christmas tributes to Savile instead.

The New York Times has routinely found it implausible that a pope or a Republican president or a Rupert Murdoch could ever be unaware of grave scandals or allegations of scandals beneath them. The paper consistently telegraphs that someone so unaware of such a scandal must be the worst kind of knave or dolt. So the newspaper's hiring of Mark Thompson is the height of corporate hypocrisy. And that's the best that can be said.

Publisher “Pinch” Sulzberger insisted against all the evidence that Thompson “abides by high ethical standards” and “is the ideal person to lead our company.” How in blazes do Thompson's assertions of ignorance of censorship and child sexual abuse in the hallways of his own network constitute “high ethical standards” and ideal leadership qualities?

The Times has mostly buried Mark Thompson's role in the ignorance and censorship, largely consigning it to official-sounding paragraphs of denial buried late in its BBC scandal stories, deep inside the paper.

Matt Philbin and Clay Waters of the Media Research Center did some counting. Between Oct. 14 and Nov. 6, The Times ran just 16 stories on the BBC sex-abuse scandal, and only one ran on the front page. By contrast, in a two-month period in 2010, The Times published 64 news stories on Catholic sex abuse scandals, 13 of them on the front page. The BBC, in its eyes, is a global enterprise in enlightenment, while the Catholic Church is a global conspiracy of sexual repression and male chauvinism.

In an Oct. 15 column, former Times executive editor Bill Keller sneered at Murdoch, the “BBC-hater,” for making this an issue. “So far no evidence has surfaced that Thompson, his successor, or anyone else up top had anything to do with dropping the Savile documentary.”

Keller, by contrast, wrote a scabrous column in 2002 insisting that the Catholic sex abuse scandal was “of the pope's making.” And “The fact that the pope's passing reference to the rape of children as a ‘crime' was treated as a bolt of divine enlightenment reflects just how eager we are to let him off the hook. ... The scandal is the persistent failure of the church hierarchy to comprehend, to care and to protect.”

The scandal today is the persistent failure of Thompson and/or The New York Times hierarchy “to comprehend, to care, and to protect.” Keller and Co., heal thyself. Thompson must be dumped.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.