Editors' Note <p>A front-page article on Monday described the use of steroids by men and women seeking larger, more chiseled bodies. The article traced the spread of the drugs from the world of weight lifting and bodybuilding to the general society. <p>In discussing the history of steroid use in athletic competition, the article cited a comment by Frank Shorter, a former Olympic marathon champion, who said that before a meet in France in 1969 he saw the hammer thrower George Frenn inject a steroid into his leg. Mr. Shorter is now chairman of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which performs drug tests for Olympic-related sports. The article said Mr. Frenn was a Frenchman, and Mr. Shorter said he died at an early age.<p>On Monday, a freelance track journalist alerted The Times that Mr. Frenn was alive and was a native of the United States. Telephoned at home in Sacramento, Mr. Frenn said, "Frank Shorter never ever saw me inject myself." He declined to answer further questions. In an interview later that day, he added, "How dare Frank Shorter say something like that." (New York Times)<p>***Hm. A simple Google search would have told the copy editor that something was wrong.***

Not to mention the reporter ....<p>But, as the city editor at my paper says, what do you expect from a paper with all the resources in the world and yet such horrible page design?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
Not to mention the reporter ....<p>But, as the city editor at my paper says, what do you expect from a paper with all the resources in the world and yet such horrible page design?<hr></blockquote><p>Pass this along to your city editor: "You're an idiot."<p>[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]</p>

I've come all the way around over the past
20 years or so. I think the Times is a good-looking paper. What'll be real interesting is how it looks when it starts running white space
where silenced columnists (Anderson, Araton, who's next?) are supposed to appear.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
What'll be real interesting is how it looks when it starts running white space
where silenced columnists (Anderson, Araton, who's next?) are supposed to appear.<hr></blockquote><p>Let's not overreact, please. Those guys are sports columnists. The paper has the right to spike their columns. The problem here is Boyd's ridiculous memo. As is usually the case, the newspaper gets in trouble when it tries to justify its editing decisions. The screw-up with the hammer thrower is far more serious.<p>[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]</p>

Whose columns were spiked and why?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
Whose columns were spiked and why?<hr></blockquote><p>
Here's a story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11469-2002Dec4.html

Yep, a copy editor should have checked that one out. The paucity of details about Mr. Frenn, considering that the quote would have been borderline libelous if he were known to be alive, should have been a warning flag. Plus, the anecdote falls into the "too good to be true" category...<p>(not absolving the reporter or backfielder, but on a page 1 story the copy editor should have been extra vigilant)

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by blanp:
<p>Let's not overreact, please. Those guys are sports columnists. The paper has the right to spike their columns. The problem here is Boyd's ridiculous memo. As is usually the case, the newspaper gets in trouble when it tries to justify its editing decisions. The screw-up with the hammer thrower is far more serious.<p>[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]<hr></blockquote><p>Of course the Times has the right to spike columns, or anything else. The issue is whether
the top editors there are exercising that right wisely. If I were Raines, or Boyd, I'd be most
wary of acting in an excessively arbitrary manner.
That's a paper where they're especially conscious of their roles as stewards of a tradition, and of how the place was run before them. Well, the tradition includes the dark and dictatorial days
of Rosenthal. Blanp seems to acknowledge that the paper's been unable to make a case for spiking those columns. I still think the dissenting voices of Anderson, especially, and also Araton
have their place in a paper that's covered the Augusta story to such excess. And that's coming from me, someone who agrees with the Times' position on an Augusta boycott.

(New York Times Page A1, 12/6/02)<p>***"Balancing act!"***<p>[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by blanp:
<p>Let's not overreact, please. Those guys are sports columnists. The paper has the right to spike their columns. <hr></blockquote><p>I just read the Post story, and I have to disagree with blanp. I think it's appalling that these columns (especially Anderson's) were spiked. First, they were writing about a societal issue, not sports. Second, our defense of free speech should not stop at the sports section.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
<p>I just read the Post story, and I have to disagree with blanp. I think it's appalling that these columns (especially Anderson's) were spiked. First, they were writing about a societal issue, not sports. Second, our defense of free speech should not stop at the sports section.<hr></blockquote><p>1. It's more a high society issue than a societal issue or a matter of civil rights. Yeah, they're jerks for not letting women join their good ol' boys club, but it's a club of millionaire CEOs. No one, regardless of sex, who isn't already powerful and privileged gets in.<p>There are bigger rights issues to worry about, including those of women's rights and poverty. This is about symbolism, and The Times putting on a show.<p>2. I don't see it as a matter of free speech, which would imply government censorship. The two writers whose columns were spiked have gotten more attention for their beliefs than if their columns had been published.<p>The Times comes across as idiotic in this, which is its right. It's hurt its own cause -- to get a few rich women sipping drinks alongside rich men in a small Georgia town. And it's hurt its credibility in the long run by insulting and attacking a Pulitzer Prize winner and another good writer for not marching in lockstep with management. <p>The Times is acting like a business first, not a newspaper. It's thinking like a corporation, as if solving an injustice at a country club really helps society. And is if keeping its workers in line is more important than using its power in the long run to fight serious national problems in this corporation-dominated world.

Wayne, even if this is not the most important issue to come down the pike, that doesn't excuse the Times's action (especially since the Time does regard it as an important issue). And of course the Times can squelch whatever it damn well pleases, but that doesn't make it right. When a newspaper squashes dissent, it sets a bad example. It's a form of censorship, and I think it is a free-speech issue in a broad sense.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
It's a form of censorship, and I think it is a free-speech issue in a broad sense.<hr></blockquote><p>Whoa! Ham-handed editing? Maybe. Irrational decision? Maybe. "Censorship"? Um, no.<p>Anyhow, it bears repeating: The error that began this thread is vastly more important.<p>[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
Wayne, even if this is not the most important issue to come down the pike, that doesn't excuse the Times's action (especially since the Time does regard it as an important issue). And of course the Times can squelch whatever it damn well pleases, but that doesn't make it right. When a newspaper squashes dissent, it sets a bad example. It's a form of censorship, and I think it is a free-speech issue in a broad sense.<hr></blockquote><p>i don't excuse its action -- it's not right. I agree that it sets a bad example. I don't agree that it's a form of censorship or a free-speech issue.
i'll agree here with blanp about his start of this thread, and add that apparently the Times needs to pay more attention to fairness and factual accuracy and less to symbolism and corporate orthodoxy.

I guess we have to disagree on this one. I realize that censorship is the suppression by the government of speech or expression. That's why I said the Times's action was "a form" of censorship, which I admit was not very clear. My point is that it's akin to censorship. In this case, the Times editor is playing the role of censor. There may be legitimate reasons for a paper to withhold a sportswriter's column, but I don't think offering a reasoned opinion that differs from the editorial page is one of them. I could understand it if he were spouting something truly vile or vicious, but that wasn't the case. The Times made a conscious decision to stifle dissent in its pages. I find that more disturbing than a copy editor's error.

From a Los Angeles Times story on the great column-killing controversy:<p>Changing your mind -- or admitting that you wrongly made it up in the first place -- is far more burdensome for institutions than it is for individuals, even great ones like Keynes. The only weightier cross to bear is that of assumed infallibility.
Cardinal James Gibbons of Baltimore, who participated in the 19th century Vatican Council that promulgated the papal version of that concept, once was approached by a woman who demanded to know how far he thought Pius IX's infallibility extended.
"Madam, that is not an easy question," the prelate responded. "All I can say is that a few months ago in Rome, his Holiness called me Jibbons."<p>***Stretching much?***

I'm afraid I haven't been clear on my thoughts on these related issues.<p>Probably most if not all of us here deplore the Times' stifling of expression and dissent. I prefer to reserve the word "censorship" for when governments act in this way; government clampdowns are pernicious, where the Times' behavior is merely insidious. The pen may be mightier than the sword (maybe), but the government has the biggest swords and tons of pens.<p> I doubt anyone at the Times deplores injustice -- including sexism, unfair accusations and other forms -- more than I do. And I wonder how many editors there have seen the effects of steroid abuse the way I have -- not only as an annoyed sports fan, or as a reader aware of the harm done to bodies by steroid abusers, but also as someone who's come to face to face with 'roid rages and accompanying threats.<p> That's why I'm so angry about how the Times has fouled up efforts to fight these problems. Even if we give its editors the benefit of the doubt in seeking to oppose injustice and dangerous behavior, the consequences of the paper's actions outweigh any good motives.<p>1. First, the Times trivialized a cause in its Masters crusade. It's chosen symbolism over reality -- a common flaw of corporations professing to do good. Those opposing its stand on women's rights and other issues have plenty to mock in what comes across as shallow-minded do-goodism or redneck-baiting.<p> Then, the Times compounded its error by suppressing viewpoints contrary to its leaders', leading to a controversy that's overshadowing its cause and further calling into question its sincerity in helping those in need.<p> If the Times is serious about helping women get ahead in the corporate world, it might want to look at its own masthead and Page 1 bylines, which are probably as testosterone-heavy as the clubhouse clientele at Augusta on a typical day.<p> To be fair to Augusta, the club allows women to play and schmooze there, just not as members. To be fair to the Times, it has given women more power and responsibility in recent years. <p>2. The steroid abuse story wasn't ruined by a copy editor's error; the copy desk failed to catch the error of the reporter and how ever many editors read the story before it reached the copy desk. <p> As in the bungled Masters crusade, the paper has lost credibility through sloppiness in thought and process. In printing allegations against the hammer thrower, it accused someone of grievous ethical and moral wrongdoing without a chance to respond.

As powerful as the Times is, when it screws up, either through sloppy work or hypocrisy, it reflects badly on all of us and can harm worthy causes.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
I guess we have to disagree on this one. I realize that censorship is the suppression by the government of speech or expression. That's why I said the Times's action was "a form" of censorship, which I admit was not very clear. My point is that it's akin to censorship. In this case, the Times editor is playing the role of censor. There may be legitimate reasons for a paper to withhold a sportswriter's column, but I don't think offering a reasoned opinion that differs from the editorial page is one of them. I could understand it if he were spouting something truly vile or vicious, but that wasn't the case. The Times made a conscious decision to stifle dissent in its pages. I find that more disturbing than a copy editor's error.<hr></blockquote><p>Killing off the Olympic hammer-thrower seems like more than a copy editor's failure to check names etc. in a story. Wouldn't the most guilty party of all be the lead writer -- Gina Kolata herself?

Editor & Publisher had an online article about the Times' Augusta flap. Only one editor out of eight E&P talked to gave unequivocal support to the Times. To quote Miami Herald Executive Editor Tom Fiedler: "That is something I wouldn't want any of our columnists to do. That strikes me as unprofessional, to take on the editorial position of the paper."<p>Yeah. Thank God the Times acted as professionally as it did, in a move that's drawing plaudits nationwide.<p>Anyway, if anyone was thinking of working for the Miami Herald in general, or Tom Fiedler in particular, consider yourself warned.<p>Click this line for that E&P article.

By now you do know, I guess, that the Times did cave and run the columns after all. This was a case full of non-obligations. The Times didn't have to run the columns but should have, at least the one that held together logically; Tiger Woods doesn't have to sit out of the tournament to support the women, but he'd sure make a splash if he did; the stupid Augusta club can't be forced to admit women but ought to know better than to exclude them.

Today's Washington Post carried a lengthy story about the Augusta Gold Club debate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42476-2002Dec11.html<p>*** No. 2 always trites harder? One wonders to what extent The Post, trying to play catch-up with The New York Times, let themselves be led and bullied into this story by virtue of its artificially elevated profile via The Times ....

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
*** No. 2 always trites harder? One wonders to what extent The Post, trying to play catch-up with The New York Times, let themselves be led and bullied into this story by virtue of its artificially elevated profile via The Times ....<hr></blockquote><p>That's easy for you to say.