Perhaps the New York Times will someday be sued for hiring an executive who is wilfuly indifferent to child sexual abuse by employees in his organization? It would be a bit like being in the position of the Archdiocese of Boston.
Cf. Joe Hagan, Is Mark Thompson the Next Judy Miller?, New York (Magazine) (Nov. 1, 2012).
Excerpts:
For the last few months, Britain has been consumed by its own version of the Penn State scandal — allegations that the recently deceased BBC children's television presenter and national institution Jimmy Savile was a pedophile who was tacitly enabled by his employer for decades. The story has been mostly ignored in America, but it could affect the closest thing this country has to the BBC, the New York Times. Mark Thompson, the former BBC director general hired by Times chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to run the newspaper in August, has faced intense scrutiny about what he knew about an unaired news segment examining the allegations against Savile. The report was killed while Thompson was still in charge of the British TV network. Thompson first denied knowing anything about it, but then confessed in the Times he had indeed heard about the report at a cocktail party after it was killed.
Many have questioned whether it’s plausible that Thompson didn’t know in advance about the existence of a TV report by and about his own network, especially one that could badly damage the BBC's reputation. And if he didn’t know about it, why not?
If Thompson seemed curiously incurious, so too does Sulzberger Jr. The family steward of the
Times has said he fully stands behind Thompson, defending him with the same vigor he did reporter Judith Miller after the Iraq War. ...
&&&
The dynamic evidence page
Evidence marshaling software
MarshalPlan
6 comments:
Are newspaper mandarins exempt from the ethical standards that apply to the heads of ordinary organizations? We shall see.
Paul Sonne & Cassell Bryan-Low, "BBC Chief George Entwistle Quits Over Scandal," Wall Street Journal (Nov. 11, 2012), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578111392793083304.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
The New York Times' former subsidiary, the Boston Globe, opined in 2002:
"[O]bservers say that most important is that the pope choose [a replacement for Cardinal Law who is] wholly untainted by the clergy sexual abuse scandal. That means, most likely, a bishop who has never served in Boston and who has not kept abusive priests on the job." http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/121402_choice.htm
So, in pari passu, the New York Times should choose a successor who is "wholly untainted " by any sexual abuse scandal?
John Burns & Alan Cowell, "Times Co. Chief Executive Testifies at Closed-Door Inquiry on BBC Scandal," NYTimes (Nov. 23, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/europe/times-co-chief-executive-mark-thompson-testifies-on-bbc-scandal.html?hp&_r=0
"[Mark Thompson's] testimony followed the disclosure earlier this month that a legal letter sent on his behalf by BBC lawyers to The Sunday Times of London while he was still the BBC chief included a summary of the abuse accusations against Mr. Savile, raising questions about Mr. Thompson’s assertions that he learned the specifics of the accusations only after leaving the BBC. He has not commented on the letter." Id.
Dan Sabbaugh, "Mark Thompson gives evidence to Nick Pollard investigation into Newsnight," The Guardian (Nov. 23, 2012) "Thompson has repeatedly said that he did not intervene in Newsnight's Savile investigation, which he was first made aware of by BBC journalist Caroline Hawley at a Christmas Party a year ago. He then inquired into the status of the Newsnight film and has said he was told by Helen Boaden, the BBC director of news, that because it had been dropped there was nothing for him to worry about.
However, his account altered earlier this month after it emerged that lawyers acting for him had sent a letter to the Sunday Times in early September, threatening to sue the paper for libel if he was accused of editorial interference. Thompson verbally agreed to the letter going out, but says he did not recall ever reading it or if he was shown it. The letter, critics say, implied that Thompson knew more about the Savile abuse allegations that he initially let on.
Advisers to Thompson say the idea behind sending out the letter came from the BBC's press and legal departments, and that its purpose was only to deny that the director general had exerted any pressure on Newsnight to drop the Savile film. They say that the letter was aimed at reinforcing earlier denials of executive interference in the Newsnight film – and did not imply that Thompson knew more about Savile than previously admitted."
Post a Comment