Our editorial this week is on Daniel Okrent who is, thankfully, leaving The New York Times. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you, Okrent.
"13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did" is the title of his latest travesty on readers of The New York Times. Eighteen months he had to deal with their issues. Instead, he lost himself in self-interviews, vacation reports, attacks on the Tonys and attempting to play Danny "Scoop" Okrent.
Critics, "deft" ones, have rightly noted that Okrent did a lousy job. As he attempts to have the last word, he alternately celebrates himself (did anyone doubt that was coming?) and attempts to answer some of the criticism without acknowledging it. Readers of The Common Ills will chuckle especially at some of his "justifications." (Yes, Okrent and Bovino are familiar with The Common Ills.) (Disclosure, CI took a pass on participating in this editorial when we stated we would be citing The Common Ills in this editorial.) These attempts to disarm will delight many who've barely paid attention and will see Okrent as "forthcoming." (Surprising since he "responds" to Randy Cohen's assertion privately and not publicly.) (We're sure Gloria Cooper will turn in tonight with more pleasant thoughts of Okrent.) But the reality is, Okrent once again fails.
"13 Things" should focus on thirteen topics never covered, are we right here? So is it really fair that he wastes readers time by devoting one of the thirteen to wishing he hadn't whined about how hard his job was? (He gets in yet another shout out for Dexter Filkens. As well as for another writer, another male writer. Did anyone else notice the sexist focus in Okrent's columns?) (That's number 12 of his 13, by the way.)
Note number 11, where he thanks the "readers." The same readers he's spent so long spitting on? Well, actually no. The only name check goes to a Wall St. Journal editorial. That's right, Okrent still doesn't have time for the "riff-raff." Public editor? Press representative is far more apt.
Common Ills readers will know that Okrent has long been asked to address the travel section. Finally, after eighteen months on the job, he does so. For one whole paragraph. What a man, what a man, what a mighty, mighty lousy man. And considering how fond he himself was of penning vacation reports, we're honestly surprised that he can only muster one paragraph.
He notes that the Times is currently using more freelancers. And his list is about 13 things he always wanted to write about. Apparently this new development is historical on the part of Okrent. Or could it be, dare we suggest, that once again he's padding out a column?
Reason two especially drew our attention, or rather this section:
No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is.
Nasty little girl doesn't know her place. Thank God, Big Bad Dan's around to put her in it?
Okrent is disgusting. Let's break down that critique. "No one" -- no one? No one? Note that he slams Dowd (Safire's given a pass in this sentence). Dowd's the one the sexist old man chooses to slap down. The Times has how many op-ed writers? Six. And the strongest words are reserved for Dowd, the lone female. Let's be blunt, Okrent, you suck.
Or rather, Okrent, you still suck.
In the first item he tries to justify his stance as a First Amendment absolutist. Common Ills readers are aware that C.I. steered readers to that claim by Okrent back in December. How long has it been bothering him? We can say since at least April judging by an e-mail we're looking at. Okrent can justify however he wants. He made the claim and he tossed it aside to out a reader. Strangely, that's not one of the thirteen things he's been wanting to discuss.
Lucky for him people like Gloria Cooper won't put him on the spot.
Okrent' gone and if there's a lesson here, it's that feature writers probably aren't going to be the best judge of a newspaper. Here's another lesson, old white men will write about and highlight . . . old white men. Younger people, who've grown up with diversity, may be different. But when you're dealing with a "free trade absolutist" who happens to be white and a baby boomer and male and not all that interested in women unless he can slap them down, you're not getting anyone who's going to examine the paper for any problems of perception or actual discrimination.
And on that topic, Okrent goes out still silent. Okrent's never addressed those topics.
He was useless. He wrote about "what I want to write about." He outed a reader over a private e-mail. He may have perfected the self-interview but we aren't really sure that's something the "public editor" and "readers' representative" should be proud of.
For complaints from readers, you won't find them in Okrent's final column (unless you consider an editor for The Wall St. Journal to be your average reader). You can, however, find some at The Common Ills. And don't forget to read up on some of the things he never wanted to write about here and here.
For those not in the know, we were Common Ills community members before we were bloggers. (That also goes for Rebecca and Betty who are assisting with this editorial.) And there are others who have critiqued Okrent. Online, they've inlcuded Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler and Atrios. But besides being the offspring of C.I., we're also aware that at The Common Ills, you heard about what Gloria Cooper and Jay-bird never bothered to look into: what did the readers think? You can't judge his tenure as public editor without knowing what readers wanted to addressed. Otherwise, you're acting as though he was an op-ed columnist. He wasn't. His title was "public editor" and he was represented as "readers' representative." He failed.
Those wishing to shine it on for Okrent should speak to some readers before rushing in with their praise for "one of their own."
Final note, he never took up the challenge issued by C.I. In one of his many slap downs of the readers, Okrent claimed that the Times had never promoted the phrase "paper of record." We're aware of that usage because C.I. found it while doing research for a piece we were all working on here. As he rushes to slap Dowd for an Alberto Gonzales assertion, he ignores the fact that he devoted an entire column to whining about readers using the phrases "all the news that's fit to print" and "paper of record." He whimpered that the Times had never promoted "paper of record." He was wrong. He leaves as ill informed as he was when he arrived.
If we weren't so busy celebrating his departure, we'd be upset by that.