Contra Costa Times Editor Responds (9/26)
While you never come right out and say it, the tenor of this week's posting on the Grade The News Web site strongly suggests that you believe the Contra Costa Times intentionally attempts to deceive its readers.
Your "evidence" is that you managed to find among all the advertising supplements produced by the Times (and there are literally hundreds of them) one supplement, Saturday Homes, that is not labeled as such. You note that the supplement has a different type font and carries the "bylines" of home developers, but you surmise that this could cause confusion on the part of readers, the one conclusion you reach that I would not dispute.
One has to wade through nearly 1,000 words of pontificating by you and others before you can bring yourself to concede "in fairness" that all other Times advertising supplements are appropriately labeled. (But how fair is it for you to suggest that by not labeling Saturday Homes as an advertising supplement, "only real estate interests are permitted to blur the distinction between news and ads"? In the very next paragraph you note that a Sunday real estate advertising supplement is appropriately labeled. Do you mean to suggest that the Times allows real estate interests to "blur the distinction" on Saturdays but not on other days of the week?)
The simple truth is this: The Special Sections/Advertorial Department of the Times, which produces Saturday Homes, failed to attach the appropriate label to the section. Knowing those people as I do, knowing the publisher's ethical principles as I do and recognizing that every other section produced by the department is appropriately labeled, there is no doubt in my mind that the oversight was unintentional.
The Editorial Department of the Times has never been involved in production of Saturday Homes. When I called the labeling oversight to the attention of the Special Section/Advertorial editors, they apologized and immediately remedied the situation.
Prior to your posting, you did ask for comment from me. Your request encompassed five questions, including one dealing with the Society of Professional Journalists code. A thorough and thoughtful response would have required at a minimum a couple of hours of research and reflection on my part, and I simply did not have the time. I had more pressing projects, including the launch last weekend of A&E, our new Sunday arts and entertainment section.
I asked for some time to respond, but you elected to proceed with your erroneous interpretation before hearing from us. At the Times we hold stories to make sure they have appropriate balance. It appears that at Grade the News questions of balance take a back seat to self-imposed deadlines.
You have had kind words for the Times in past editions of Grade the News, but as I have noted in previous correspondence to you, your lapses in fairness diminish the significance we attach to both your praise and your condemnation. On one occasion you accused the Times of racial insensitivity based on your erroneous assumption that a story subject was African-American. You drew that conclusion without seeking our comment, and you declined to correct the error when it was called to your attention.
Perhaps it's time for someone to grade Grade the News.
John Armstrong, Editor Contra Costa Times