The myth of the Erie Times-News 'public editor,' redux

I break this blog's self-imposed hiatus today to comment on the Times-News' newly anointed "public editor" (so-called), one of the newspaper's long time columnists, Liz Allen, who replaced Kevin Cuneo in that position recently.

It's been months since I have bothered to read any of Kevin's columns as "public editor," for reasons which may be inferred from the content below. I finally gave up on any hope that Kevin would ever fulfill the legitimate role of public editor.

But hope springs eternal. When I accidently noted that Liz, a fine writer and journalist, had taken over the position, I momentarily entertained an expectation that she might at last give that function a modicum of legitimacy and credibiity. But, alas, I was doomed to disappointment. It's the same old fluff, perpetuating the Times-News' "public editor" in the role of all-out advocate for the newspaper, rather than for its readers.

Below is a blog I wrote back in October,2007 on this subject. Under Liz's stewardship, nothing has changed. (For perspective, I refer readers to the most recent article by New York Times Pubic Editor Clark Hoyt,in which he skewers the newspaper, and in particular, its popular columnist, Maureen Dowd, for their blatantly sexist coverage of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary campaign).


Several years ago, in an one of many attempts to curb its dwindling circulation and advertising lineage, the management at the Erie Times-News, the monopoly daily in Erie County, did what many newspapers around the country have done in recent years for the same reason, including the prestigious New York Times. It appointed a “public editor” on its staff.

It was an attempt by newspapers to humanize their image as detached purveyors of news, and cozy up to the communities they served in hopes of drawing more readers into their subscription folds in order to grow advertising revenues. They have been falling alarmingly throughout the industry in recent years as a result of the proliferation of news and informational sources touched off by the digital revolution and the world wide web. The public editor, readers were told, would be “their editor,” representing them and giving them a voice within the Fourth Estate’s halls of received wisdom.

Though paid by the newspaper, the public editor would be an advocate of and for the readers, taking their side if their position or complaint were deemed valid by the public editor, even when it contradicted the staff position; and expressing the readers' views even when they came into conflict with the newspapers’ editorial version of news events or editorial conceits, providing a corrective lens whenever a newspaper was perceived to stray into error or down the wrong pathway, as they‘re frequently wont to do.

Among other things, a responsible public editor’s role is to respond to complaints and questions from readers by bringing them to the attention of the newspaper’s news and editorial staffs and finding a resolution between the two; but not one which necessarily accommodates the staff’s position.

The public editor in other venues also typically publishes letters from readers pertaining to his role or, on occasion, letters which the newspaper fails to publish in its regular letters section.

If warranted, in a regularly published column in the newspaper, the public editor would publicly take the newspaper staff to task for perceived errors or viewpoints, and issue corrections on the readers’ behalf if the newspaper itself didn’t.

Needless to say, if approached and executed correctly, the public editor’s job is no piece of cake. He or she must sit uneasily on a fence betwixt and between satisfying the “public” constituency,” without – if possible, but not at the risk of compromising his or her crededibility and independence from the official voice of the newspaper - alienating her or his newspaper bosses and colleagues. But there’s no danger of that ever happening at the Times-News. There, the public editor is public editor in name only, seldom in practice.

THE FIRST PUBLIC EDITOR

The first public editor at the Times-News was Jeff Pinski . After a long career as a reporter and editor there, he was demoted to that position, a sort of putting-out-to-pasture. Jeff served as public editor for several years.

Then, suddenly, without any notice, Pinski was gone without a trace; quietly replaced about a year ago by the current “public editor,” Kevin Cuneo. He’s another career Times Publishing Co. employee, following in his legendary father’s (Gene’s) footsteps, for years back in the post-WW II years the paper’s colorful and charismatic sports editor. The subtle announcement of Kevin Cuneo’s appointment as public editor came in the form of his first byline accompanying his first column in that capacity.

Not surprisingly, the bar for public editors has been set highest among those newspapers which have appointed them, by the New York Times. There have been three there over the past several years since the Times created that position, none a woman. All of them have been hired from outside the Times, coming with impeccable credentials, all of them limited at the outset to a term of about 18 months.

That’s about the optimum time it’s believed any person can tolerate the stress level involved in maintaining a credible balancing act between his or her public constituency and the staff of the newspaper which pays his or her salary.

At the NYTimes, all three have come from outside the newspaper and, when their terms were completed, the first two have returned to other prestigious lives in journalism, as will the third, Clark Hoyt, when he completes his term.

At the NYT, the public editor writes a column for publication twice a month responding to reader's feedback, or on his own initiative taking on perceived journalistic wrongdoing on the part of the newspaper staff, serving as its ethical conscience.

By contrast, The Times-News’s first public editor, Jeff Pinski, came from within the newspaper staff, where he had cultivated many loyalties and allegiances over the years, then served in the public editor’s position for several years.

That alone tells the story. Pinski was too wedded to the past and had too many friends there to carve a new path for the future as public editor. A nice guy and competent journalist, Pinski served far longer in that job (too long to be effective) at the Times-News than his counterparts at the New York Times, because he made no pretense of representing or advocating on behalf of the readers, thus avoiding the debilitating tension inherent in a real public editor’s role.

At best, he served as the newspaper’s go-between vis a vis the readers; at worst, as an apologist for the newspaper. While there were occasions when Pinski fulfilled the legitimate role of a public editor, they were few and far between, and he rarely, if ever, embarrassed or put the newspaper in a bad light even when it deserved to be.

Cuneo, also a nice guy, competent journalist and first-rate writer, during his tenure to date, has taken Pinski's mockery of the true role of a public editor even further. He has transformed the position into a fullblown advocate for the newspaper, rather than for the readers, wholly rejecting the well-established journalistic model.

In an e-mail to Cuneo shortly after he took over as "public editor," I told him his approach to the role was at odds with the norm. He cryptically replied: "We're not the New York Times. And Erie isn't New York." He got that right.
When complaints arise about the Times-News's coverage or editorial positions, his first impulse is to defend or counterattack, regardless of the legitimacy of the complaint. On rare occasion, he will make grudging concessions to the complainants when the paper's position or conduct is clearly indefensible.

I was once a victim of the public editor's recalcitrance in the face of demonstrable error on the part of the newspaper, as illustrated by this letter I e-mailed to Cuneo a couple months ago:

Dear Kevin,

On May 30, the Times-News ran an editorial lavishly praising the late Pennsylvanian Rachael Carson for her pioneering role in the environmental movement of the 20th Century and the repopulation of bald eagles in some regions of the U.S. The editorial ignores the journalistic adage that there's always more than one side to every story.

In the early 1960s, Ms. Carson demonized the use of the pesticide Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), leading to a widespread ban on its use. The revival of bald eagle populations in the U.S is often attributed to the DDT ban.

It may or may not be true that the banning of DDT saved bald eagles from extinction. Some reputable scientests of late vigorously disagree, citing massive land drainage and critical habitat loss instead. Some of them refer to Ms. Carson's writing as "junk science."

Baldies were never an endangered species in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska or Canada. In fact, they have always been plentiful there. In some environs, they are so numerous they are considered pests.

There's an irrefutable downside and incalculable human cost attached to the ban precipitated by Ms. Carson on the use of DDT as a pesticide. Though she did not advocate a total ban, her writings prompted them in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Untold tens of thousands of people have died of maleria, typhus and other infections contracted from legions of disease-carrying mosquitoes which the judicious use of DDT would have eradicated. For example, according to Wikipedia, from 1934 to 1955, there were an estimated one and a half million cases of maleria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter, due to the influence of "Silent Spring,"the program was abandoned, and maleria in Sri Lanka rose to about 600,000 cases in 1968-69.

According to the World Health Organization, after South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in Kwa Zulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is fewer than 50 per year.

Joe LaRocca

Cuneo never acknowledged my letter nor corrected the errors in the editorial, a common malpractice at the Times-News.