11/3/98

Dear New York Times,

I am writing because, as a publisher myself, and a person who makes his living reporting on developments both topical and specific, I am disappointed with your handling of the Starr Report.

While yours is the "newspaper of record" for the United States, reaching tens of millions, and my publication is an "alternative" magazine reaching only tens of thousands, we both share a certain responsibility. We need to prioritize the items and information we present in a responsible manner. After all, we are called "the media" because we mediate reality for our audiences. What we present, no matter what our presumptions, is not the truth, but only a representative version of events. We bring our biases with us, even as we mediate.

That said, I understand the pressures on your editorial staff to decide what to lead with, which stories to give what percentage of the "news hole" (as opposed to revenue-generating advertising space) and which feature or story gets the coveted, top of the front page slot. But I was appalled on the day after the Starr Report was released to find you leading with that salacious material and downplaying the fact that Congress had killed campaign finance reform. Both stories appeared on your front page on the same day, but you downplayed the second story almost to the point of oblivion. I have to ask myself why, and question how responsible that was on your part.

I also understand the pressure and temptation to conduct "Me, too!" journalism. Today, with CNN and the other television news outlets, other newspapers and magazines, and web sites like Matt Drudge's competing for the "scoops" and the attention of a fragmented, jaded and titillation-gorging public, there seems to be more pressure than ever to simply have the story which is causing the buzz.

It is not easy breaking away from the herd. Our publication faced much the same dilemma, and continues to do so. Nonetheless, I find it ironic in the extreme that you can support the notion that the Starr Report falls under your rubric of "...News That's Fit to Print." How exactly is this piece of pornography "fit to print?"

Sincerely,