Columbia, The Slum of Academia

Part-time ombudsman and Pinch Sulzberger henchman Daniel Okrent on The New York Times' decision to publish a "scoop" on Columbia University's whitewashing of faculty anti-Semitism without seeking reaction from opponents:

Last Wednesday, a lengthy Editors' Note on Page A2 scooped a scoop I had planned on the toxicity of scoops. The note addressed irregularities in a March 31 front-page article by Karen W. Arenson, "Columbia Panel Clears Professors of Anti-Semitism." The Times, the note explained, had been given a one-day jump on other media in exchange for its agreement not to "seek reaction from other interested parties." While acknowledging that this was in violation of Times policy, the note said "editors and the writer did not recall the policy and agreed to delay additional reporting until the document had become public." It concluded, "Without a response from the complainants" - the students who had brought the anti-Semitism charges - "the article was incomplete; it should not have appeared in that form."

Samuel Glasser, a reader in Port Washington, N.Y., who identifies himself as a former reporter and editor with three major newspaper chains, spoke for many: "The idea that editors and reporters would even have to be told not to do such a thing in the first place, let alone that they would 'forget' the policy, defies belief."

So when an offer is made by a left-wing bunch of terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic academic hacks to aid and abet their sham "investigation" by simply not asking the students who brought the complaint for their reaction, The New York Times editors saw nothing wrong with that at all.

Not that The Times is biased, or anything.