The one person 'Times' public editor didn't call about Andrew Goldman controversy: Andrew Goldman
Twitter fight!
2:10 pm Oct. 11, 20126
After a Twitter fight earlier this week between New York Times Magazine columnist Andrew Goldman and several other writers and editors, Times public editor Margaret Sullivan emailed a batch of questions to Times Magazine editor Hugo Lindgren, the responses to which she published in a blog post Wednesday evening.
But there was one person Sullivan did not not reach out to for comment on the matter: Goldman himself.
"No, I wasn’t contacted by the Public Editor," Goldman told Capital.
Goldman writes the magazine's "Talk" feature. On Saturday, the novelist Jennifer Weiner gently called out Goldman for including in his most recent installment, an interview with actor Tippi Hedren, a question about whether Hedren had ever considered "sleeping her way to the top."
Goldman responded: "Little Freud in me thinks you would have liked at least to have had opportunity to sleep way to top."
And, well, it all snowballed from there, although Goldman has since deactivated his Twitter account and issued an apology to Weiner.
Sullivan not only reported on the exchange, but also subtly suggested that it would not be unreasonable for Goldman to be fired ("Given his misbehavior on Twitter and his status as a highly replaceable freelancer," Sullivan wrote, "I think his editors are extraordinarily generous" to keep him assigned to the column). So why not reach out to Goldman directly to get his side of the story?
When reached via email, Sullivan said she did not have time for an interview with Capital. But she shared with us an email she sent to Goldman subsequent to the publication of her blog post.
As public editor, I sought response from the appropriate person: the editor of The Times magazine, Hugo Lindgren, who is responsible for all of its content, including freelance contributions; and I published his lengthy response in full. However, I sometimes return to subjects after initialing raising them in the blog, so if you'd like to respond, I'd be glad to consider using it as a followup, or as part of a followup.
Goldman, for his part, seems ready to put the issue to rest.
"I’m going to let my heartfelt apology to Jennifer Weiner speak for itself," he said. "For once in my life, I think it’s best to keep my mouth shut."
Asked whether Times brass was reviewing the matter and whether Goldman might face a reprimand, Lindgren had no comment.
Your story and your headline claims that Sullivan did not contact Goldman at all. But as you yourself report, Sullivan told you that she offered Goldman the chance to respond in a subsequent post, which directly contradicts your effort to dig up dirt. Furthermore, Goldman has nothing to say to you and, presumably, to Sullivan. In other words, this is a non-story.
Additionally, you falsely insinuate that Sullivan's investigation was merely about a Twitter fight. It was not. It was also about a series of sexist questions that Goldman has repeatedly put forth to his subjects. As editor of the magazine, Hugo Lindgren would in fact be the contact for journalistic standards. Because this happened on his watch. Goldman's approach has concerned numerous readers, including what I relayed in my article on the matter, for some time. Because one does not expect such vulgar questioning from the New York Times.
I think you have this twisted around.
"Sullivan told you that she offered Goldman the chance to respond in a subsequent post."
She still did not contact him before publishing an article in which she questioned his continued employability. I don't think you'd like it if I published an article saying you were lucky not to be fired, then afterward wrote you and said I'd consider printing anything you might have to say about it in a subsequent post?
"It was not. It was also about a series of sexist questions that Goldman has repeatedly put forth to his subjects."
I don't see this insinuation in this article, but I don't think it's wrong to *emphasize* the Twitter stuff. Sullivan emphasized it, for sure. She interviewed his Twitter interlocutors, not Tippi Hedren. And most of those interlocutors were complaining about his behavior on Twitter afterward, not the original article. (You should click through to the Storify link Sullivan directs us to.)
"Hugo Lindgren would in fact be the contact for journalistic standards."
I think you have a much more detailed understanding of the public editor's job brief here than even the public editor or anyone else does!
Unfortunatly, this whole episode is just part of a larger problem: the tarting up and dumbing down of a once-great magazine by this numbskull Lindgren. How sad.
Lifelong Buffalo News readers know why Sullivan excluded Goldman, and how our former editor-in-chief thinks: "freelancers are flotsam, why bother?" Calling out a worker's employability without giving them a call? Aren't they in the same building, for God's sake? Sullivan's so new, maybe she gets a grace period to make these kind of graceless blunders.
And for the record: Goldman's crack was way out of line. People should be able to expect far more sensitivity from Times writers.
There is no excuse -- NONE -- for not calling someone for comment in an article in which that person is criticized. This is as basic a rule in journalism as there is, and Sullivan needs to be held accountable for egregiously violating it. Presumably, she has an editor of some sort? Also, Sullivan may be too provincial to realize this, but she is on thin ice in this call of hers for tighter restrictions on the behavior of "highly replaceable" freelancers. Federal wage-and-hour laws are very particular about the essential differences between "employees" and "independent contractors" (which is what freelance writers are). If you seek to regulate the behavior of an independent contractor, you as an employer open yourself to all sorts of issues regarding wages and benefits and things like withholding taxes. Someone needs to sit Sullivan down and explain the actual world to her.