I'd like to preface the following screed by saying that were I a resident of New Jersey, I'd be voting for either Corzine or Daggett; the idea of pulling the lever for a nothing like Christie would be akin to choosing Spam over Porterhouse. That said, could you specifically - and the Times in general - be more in Corzine's corner? You rightfully - and thoroughly - report Christie's failing to report the income earned on a $50,000 loan to a friend, but limit Corzine's affair with Carla Katz by saying "he has gone to court to protect the secrecy of his email messages to an ex-girlfriend who also happened to lead one of New Jersey's largest unions." Firstly, Katz led the state's LARGEST state worker union. Corzine didn't report the $470,000 he loaned her - nor its forgiveness, nor the gift tax ($160,000 appox) he paid upon that forgiveness. None of this was included. Secondly, I've a problem with reporters injecting themselves into stories. That said, when the two of you were (I think) in that diner, you'd pointed out some of what you viewed as Corzine's accomplishments. My question: who cares what you think? I can read that in a book or in an editorial. You could have pointed out his accomplishments (there've been more than a few) without saying YOU pointed them out. You didn't even wince when Ed Rendell said that "if (Corzine) wins...I think a lot of governors will say: it's ok to tell the people the truth" and what tough medicine lies ahead. Why didn't you jump all over that? How many will read that their state exectives have been lying to them for fear that we're too stupid or sensitive to know what's got to be done and that getting elected is more important? Unfortunately, the piece is endemic of how the Times is treating the race. A few days after your story appeared, another, entitled "A Rivalry as Strained as New Jersey's Finances" appeared
featuring accompanying pictures of Corzine - bathed in light and looking to
the heavens for guidance - and Christie - snarling in a darkened background. I understand that total objectivity can be elusive; it should at least be attempted. Thanks for listening.
Well. Thanks for taking the time to read and to write me, Adam. I can certainly appreciate your passion, but I fear you need to be a little more sophisticated about the way you read different venues. I'm a magazine writer and essayist. That's different from a newspaper reporter. I suppose I stay "objective" in the sense that my views are never predictably ideological, but I don't aspire to be objective in the sense that I treat all views, allegations and arguments as equal. Who cares what I think? The readers of the New York Times Magazine, I suppose. There's plenty of other media they can read if they want a less opininiated report. Readers of the magazine know that I will bring an honest, nonpartisan and analytical worldview to my writing. It's what I get paid for, and it's what they expect.
To a few of your specific points...first, on the treatment of Christie's loan versus Corzine's, I was making a specific point about Christie, which is that his campaign as a reformer had run into some problems. Corzine's personal issues are a older and less relevant to the present dynamic--that people don't like or especially trust him is well established already. It's not my intention nor my obligation to provide a perfectly balanced and compehensive laundry list of each man's transgressions. For that, I suggest you try wikipedia or something. Second, as for the Times' coverage generally, I have nothing to do with it and can't speak to your accusations. The magazine operates completely separately. If there's some institutional bias, no one sent me the memo.
Finally, I'm kind of fascinated by this line in your note: "You could have pointed out his accomplishments (there've been more than a few) without saying YOU pointed them out." I see: so you would be OK with my half-lying to the reader about that conversation, as long as it didn't appear that I had actually admitted to the governor what I believed to be true. That's not how I interact with my subjects, and it's now how I serve my readers. I think your complaint actually raises some interesting questions about how reporters should go about their jobs and how much candor is appropriate, but that's for a seminar someplace else. Suffice it to say that I believe in total transparency and in letting the reader draw his own conclusions about it, as you have.
Thanks again for a thoughtful critique.
on November 3, 2009
