Good morning. I was a Detroit Free Press copy editor when l read the address of Henry Louis Gates in a July 20, 2009, New York Times article by Abby Goodnough: "Harvard Professor Jailed; Officer ls Accused of Bias." I did a double-take and reached for my style book, immediately! The Free Press and NYT style books have similar opinions on publishing a person's address. I am appalled by the dismissive tone of the education editor. The Free Press entry on publishing addresses--l worked there 11 years and cannot put my hand on my style book now--is listed under "crime coverage," l believe, and says something like, "unless there is clear and compelling reason to do so, we do not publish people's addresses." Now, l could not believe that The. New. York. Times. published Henry Louis Gates' address, so l wrote to the newspaper. l was curious, because l was an opinion columnist, too, and l had a strong opinion about why the New York Times should NOT have published Gates' address. I received and saved the flippant response because l knew l would eventually write about it. (Eventually.) l just pulled up the article. The address is still there.
I'm not sure if this was an attempt to add credibility to this article and thus the NY Times, I am subscriber and a long time reader of the NY Times, because of it's journalistic standards, but this is not right, this is wrong. What does the Times have to prove by printing the address, that point is lost on me. It puts people at risk, as much as Michael Flynn and his son's crazy assertion that the Clinton's had a sex ring under a pizza store in NY. put people at risk, Remember, an unstable man took his AR-15 shot up the pizza store with people in it. The NY Times should be well aware of that event since you covered it. That article demonstrated the fragile mental health of some people that the republican party has now made it easier to get assault type weapons. And how easily they can be pushed over the edge, in their fanaticism.
Stop playing into the hands of those who assert that the Times is "failing" of that it's fake news. Lets stick to what is important and keep your journalistic standards high, higher than other news papers, lets raise the bar of integrity so that other news papers must raise their journalistic standards. Let's stick to what is really important in today's world. You have bigger fish to fry than printing addresses and names of innocent people caught up in something larger than themselves.
Stop playing into the hands of those who assert that the Times is "failing" of that it's fake news. Lets stick to what is important and keep your journalistic standards high, higher than other news papers, lets raise the bar of integrity so that other news papers must raise their journalistic standards. Let's stick to what is really important in today's world. You have bigger fish to fry than printing addresses and names of innocent people caught up in something larger than themselves.
In light of the political situation as it is today, I think it unconscionable... and certainly unconscious... for both the names and addresses of these students to be used, even when they gave their permission. No one ought to be putting others in harm's way. I am quite surprised that a reporter... any reporter... would not be aware of this.
As a former reporter, I can't conceive of the rationale the reporter and your ranks of editors used in publishing room numbers. What did the precise address add to the story?
"Within good journalistic standards?" Gee, if the Times did it, it must be the right standard. Why don't you publish your home phone number after your pieces, your home address? That might make your pieces compelling.
The word that occurred to me, reading this, was "thoughtless."
"Within good journalistic standards?" Gee, if the Times did it, it must be the right standard. Why don't you publish your home phone number after your pieces, your home address? That might make your pieces compelling.
The word that occurred to me, reading this, was "thoughtless."
1
Jane Karr's loftily unconcerned, Marie Antoinettish reply that "it's a secure building" is the height of class-based, or yes, perhaps race-based, privilege. As if an ICE force will simply turn back when they see a key-card reader at the dormitory door.
3
I'd be upset if this information was included as a citizen, much less part of a group of people being targeted by an out of control executive branch. No one cares if the building is secure if ICE officials can camp out outside of it in unmarked vehicles checking for citizenship.
NYT is my paid subscription of choice, but with things as they are around us, you have to be strict and cautious with yourselves as a company. Didn't you also post the article on how to get information from whistle blowers? They would need to be able to trust you too. Be more serious with the privacy of the people who are putting their faith in the Fourth Estate please.
NYT is my paid subscription of choice, but with things as they are around us, you have to be strict and cautious with yourselves as a company. Didn't you also post the article on how to get information from whistle blowers? They would need to be able to trust you too. Be more serious with the privacy of the people who are putting their faith in the Fourth Estate please.
2
“In writing about a person whose family might face harassment or harm, consider a general neighborhood reference instead. If an exact address seems newsworthy because of a crime or other visible event, carefully consider the potential for harm before publishing it.”
...
"Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, said he too understood the decision to use the dorm address, saying that, while The Times doesn’t want to create unwarranted risk, the details are what make a narrative compelling."
-
Tone deaf editors. Sounds as though the Times needs to tighten up on its own standards. That also goes, by the way, for separating news from editorial, which has been pretty much discarded as an ideal. The headlines these days are filled with anti-Trump material.
...
"Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, said he too understood the decision to use the dorm address, saying that, while The Times doesn’t want to create unwarranted risk, the details are what make a narrative compelling."
-
Tone deaf editors. Sounds as though the Times needs to tighten up on its own standards. That also goes, by the way, for separating news from editorial, which has been pretty much discarded as an ideal. The headlines these days are filled with anti-Trump material.
2
Because Trump is driving the news, that's why he's in the news, the Times must stay on point though and not fall to their prey to assertions that they are failing, they have nothing to prove. They don't have to defend sound journalism, they do have to defend themselves when they print names or addresses, of innocent people, when that information is not intrinsic to the story.
Why are comments as yet not enabled in Today's Friday Mailbag? 10:07 AM EST
1
Many students in their early twenties are too young to understand the risk -- Perhaps they gave consent, but were they properly counseled on the risks? Many of my students still post things to their facebook pages that I'm certain they'll regret in a few years. Also a 'secure' building doesn't mean that they might not be targets of other students. Also, dormitories are subject to break ins-- it happens a lot.
I think the writer lives may enjoy certain privileges and may be unaware of the danger she put her subjects in.
I think the writer lives may enjoy certain privileges and may be unaware of the danger she put her subjects in.
3
This privilege is obvious based on the fact that the Times apparently feels 'comfortable' with divulging this information about a vulnerable population. It was completely unnecessary and does indeed place those students in potential harms' way. The level of callous disregard for the impact on those students is simply astounding.
1
PE: "Here’s the guidance from The New York Times stylebook: [quote from stylebook]"
A version of the NYT stylebook is available in print. A nearly identical guideline is in the entry for "addresses":
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th Edition:
The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative News Organization
by Allan M. Siegal, William Connolly
Thanks to "Dotconnector" for giving me the idea to look at the print version.
A version of the NYT stylebook is available in print. A nearly identical guideline is in the entry for "addresses":
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th Edition:
The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative News Organization
by Allan M. Siegal, William Connolly
Thanks to "Dotconnector" for giving me the idea to look at the print version.
3
Why did the reporter think it important to include room numbers, even if there were no risk to the students? That seems like filler that means nothing to the reader, as if the reporter were trying to pad out to some word limit!
4
Inconceivably, the room numbers are STILL THERE in the article.
6
I would guess that everyone on campus knows the dorm where these "undocumented" students are living on the top two floors. There are no secrets on a college campus. The larger issue for me is how are illegal aliens attending college in California? This practice takes seats away from qualified American citizens, who in my view, should rank above aliens.
"... how are illegal aliens attending college in California?"
If you bother to read the article, you will find the answer. Tip: Follow the link from the PE's post.
If you bother to read the article, you will find the answer. Tip: Follow the link from the PE's post.
1
@CMZ - I actually did read the article, thanks, and my question still stands - my point is that illegal aliens should not be educated in the US at all.
1
Lynn: "... my point is that illegal aliens should not be educated in the US at all."
Now you have a thesis, but you have to defend it.
Lynn: "This practice takes seats away from qualified American citizens, who in my view, should rank above aliens."
That would be a good start, but you have to cite EVIDENCE supporting your assertion that "This practice takes seats away from qualified American citizens".
Now you have a thesis, but you have to defend it.
Lynn: "This practice takes seats away from qualified American citizens, who in my view, should rank above aliens."
That would be a good start, but you have to cite EVIDENCE supporting your assertion that "This practice takes seats away from qualified American citizens".
It is often true that, as this NYT editor says, "details are what make a narrative compelling." The key issue is: which details? To call a dorm room address an essential detail to that compelling narrative is absurd. The story would not be less "compelling" without the addresses. And it would reflect a sensitivity, and good ethical judgement, that is clearly absent here from the reporter and editors. Their lack of humility is striking.
8
“We didn’t think she (the reporter) would even use the name of the residence hall,” said Alejandro Delgadillo, who oversees services for undocumented students on the campus."
The real story is that a State University has an official, paid with taxpayer money, whose job it is to assist people in this Country illegally in violation of Federal law.
The real story is that a State University has an official, paid with taxpayer money, whose job it is to assist people in this Country illegally in violation of Federal law.
2
Learn to read. The story doesn't say there's a person whose sole job it is to do particular things for undocumented immigrants. From my experience of such jobs at universities, that's probably one responsibility among about 37 other things that person has to do and all such admin positions will run you ragged.
Whatever you think about the university admitting these students, once they're admitted, begrudge them if you want to but they're students at the university, entitled to services. The university has an interest in giving them a chance to succeed. Admitting them and then letting them flounder by withholding services other students receive would be stupid.
Whatever you think about the university admitting these students, once they're admitted, begrudge them if you want to but they're students at the university, entitled to services. The university has an interest in giving them a chance to succeed. Admitting them and then letting them flounder by withholding services other students receive would be stupid.
2
There is a person who is in charge of the Bright Success Center overseeing a staff of about 15 people. According to the university's website, "Alejandro S. Delgadillo is the Associate Director of the Calvin E. Bright Success Center overseeing Services for Undocumented Students and Special Populations. Previously Mr. Delgadillo served for over six years as the Associate Director of Admissions at UC Merced." I don't know how these resources are distributed between undocumented students and special populations, but obviously DW, it's not one person doing "37 other things."
I looked at the staff page, and the guy you mention is "associate director," but it doesn't list all his responsibilities, so we don't know if overseeing programs for these students is all he does. It's unlikely. Such programs are not rolling in money.
Only one person on the staff page is directly mentioned as connected to services for the undocumented students, and she's a "program assistant." If you're going to have a program for these students at all, having a program assistant doesn't strike me as outrageous.
Only one person on the staff page is directly mentioned as connected to services for the undocumented students, and she's a "program assistant." If you're going to have a program for these students at all, having a program assistant doesn't strike me as outrageous.
Will the Times please provide a follow-up story that includes the following information for Phil Corbett (who sees the details as what make a narrative compelling); Jane Karr (who is comfortable with the decision); Patricia Leigh Brown (who is concerned for her own children, but no one else's); and Liz Sapyd.
Here is the information we would all love to see the Times print: home addresses (along with directions to get there and photographs of the homes); home phone numbers; and personal e-mail, facebook, twitter, etc. account addresses.
I think the Times would be within good journalistic standards to provide us this information -- no?
Here is the information we would all love to see the Times print: home addresses (along with directions to get there and photographs of the homes); home phone numbers; and personal e-mail, facebook, twitter, etc. account addresses.
I think the Times would be within good journalistic standards to provide us this information -- no?
4
...but only if they live in "secure buildings."
Once again, the public editor demonstrates that she only takes criticisms from the left.
1
As one of millions of parents who have worried every day about a child "out of the nest and off to school" I am appalled at this breech of common sense and decency by an NYT reporter and the reviewing editors. The term "in harm's way" comes to mind. I expect the current leader of the free world to be so frightened that he lets fear make him cruel. To see a Times reporter so afraid of not getting published that she lets fear make her cruel to kids who are already risking so much . . . Shame.
11
Public Editor Liz Spayd writes that the Patricia Leigh Brown article was, "an engaging piece, not only about these students’ unlikely path to a campus of an acclaimed university...It’s too bad that an otherwise strong piece was weakened by a decision" to publish the students' home address.
Sounds like the joke: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
An article that publishes the home addresses- dorms and room numbers- of teenagers, putting them at risk from anti-Hispanic bigots, cannot be excused as "an otherwise strong piece." Given the hysteria against Hispanic immigrants being ignited by Trump and his White Supremacist supporters, to suggest, as does Spayd, that the article was in any way "strong" is to ignore common sense and journalistic ethics.
The Times committed a major violation of both in this article. How very sad that The Times' management doesn't care that it did.
Sounds like the joke: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
An article that publishes the home addresses- dorms and room numbers- of teenagers, putting them at risk from anti-Hispanic bigots, cannot be excused as "an otherwise strong piece." Given the hysteria against Hispanic immigrants being ignited by Trump and his White Supremacist supporters, to suggest, as does Spayd, that the article was in any way "strong" is to ignore common sense and journalistic ethics.
The Times committed a major violation of both in this article. How very sad that The Times' management doesn't care that it did.
12
I commend NYT for reporting a negative article on themselves. The value of journalism integrity and a difficult thing to do. The reporter and the editor both have a serious career hit because they are named. Could NYT been a little more humble and contrite? Yes. This article shows they are still one of the best news organizations. In these time they are necessary.
3
What makes you think they'll take a serious career hot, or that anything at all is going to happen to them? I would be stunned if anything more than "Hey, be more careful" is said to either of them and I am absolutely confident their careers will be just fine.
The people potentially affected - the students, moreover people with no legal protections whatsoever - are not _important_. Anything can be done to them, and no one at the New York Times will be affected in any material way.
The people potentially affected - the students, moreover people with no legal protections whatsoever - are not _important_. Anything can be done to them, and no one at the New York Times will be affected in any material way.
5
Michael, they are no more likely to take a career hit than is Kellyanne Conway for brazenly shilling for Electra Trump's clothing line in violation of actual ethics law.
3
So now, every reporter is their own Copy Editor and Review Board. I guess this piece is evidence of all those layers of redundancy being removed for "Efficiency".
11
What is the purpose of the Public Editor column? Every week without fail- no matter the subject, the response is the same: Deflection from a department spokesperson, justification and ultimately an "It is what it is" conclusion. Either drop the column or change the title to : "Weekly Roundup of Justifications for Poor Journalistic Decision Making."
16
Add the fact that only complaints from liberals are addressed and yep, the position should be abolished. It is pointless.
2
Worse, the PE, after every instance of "deflection, justification, and it-is-what-it-is", followed by outraged online comments by Times readers, simply retreats back into the PE bunker until the next time when the same "deflection, justification" process is repeated.
The public editor should take these expressions of outrage from Times readers back to the editors and reporter who committed this terrible mistake and demand reflection, an apology, and a pledge to change in the future.
Instead, I'm guessing that the PE in her bunker doesn't even read these comments, let alone consider taking action to change The Times for the better.
The public editor should take these expressions of outrage from Times readers back to the editors and reporter who committed this terrible mistake and demand reflection, an apology, and a pledge to change in the future.
Instead, I'm guessing that the PE in her bunker doesn't even read these comments, let alone consider taking action to change The Times for the better.
2
Publishing the Dorm Room number of any student is a violation of Privacy and could bring potential harm to that student. If it were my child, the New York Times would be facing a massive law suit.
9
I remember phone books. Names, address and phone numbers...
2
Interestingly, there are no "NYT Picks" of comments for this piece. Why is that?
Longstanding policy initiated by Margaret Sullivan in 2013 and continuing under Liz Spayd.
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/perfectly-reasonable-q...®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=search&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/perfectly-reasonable-q...®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=search&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
1
@HPB. I appreciate your observation (i..e., np "NYT Picks" of comments), and had wondered about it myself on other occasions. But then it occurred to me that having the editorial side pick the best or most representative comments in response to the public editor's pieces would have the appearance of the editorial side trying to weigh on on and sway the public editor's observations and judgment, thus encroaching on her independence. So i think its a good sign that there are no picks, here. I think its just the editorial side respecting line between her work and their work, and not compromising her independence. Thanks for bringing this up, though.
1
I think it's because the Public Editor and her assistant are in charge of the column and comments, rather than the regular set of moderators.
I found the editor's and reporter's attempt to justify their decision to be after-the-fact rationalization. "It's a secure building" is an absurd excuse since the addresses of military personnel are never given and those families often live in very secure locations. Neither is the excuse that "they freely gave me their room numbers" compelling. Perhaps the students thought it was for verification or for some follow-up communications. These were college students, not ultra-savvy New York Times reporters.
I don't know which I find more repellent: their publication of the addresses or their so-called justifications.
I don't know which I find more repellent: their publication of the addresses or their so-called justifications.
13
@J Reaves: "I don't know which I find more repellent: their publication of the addresses or their so-called justifications."
Oh, no contest here. It's the justifications. This is tone-deafness to a degree I have never seen at the NYTimes. Completely out of touch with reality, and utterly insensitive to consequences. And dumb. SNL could do a parody skit on a news editors totally out of touch with the real world and not change a line. Don't worry because the dorm is a secure building? A comedy writer couldn't in a million years have come up with a more absurd line.
Oh, no contest here. It's the justifications. This is tone-deafness to a degree I have never seen at the NYTimes. Completely out of touch with reality, and utterly insensitive to consequences. And dumb. SNL could do a parody skit on a news editors totally out of touch with the real world and not change a line. Don't worry because the dorm is a secure building? A comedy writer couldn't in a million years have come up with a more absurd line.
6
The Times has an implicit responsibility to protect sources, especially such vulnerable people as these, from raw ignorance and bigotry, let alone the possibility of violence. A bad,bad call.
12
Where were Ms. Brown's editors? Isn't that their job?
9
Those people are "duplicative."
2
NY Times editor dropped the ball?
5
I understand that the Times is beginning to prune its editing staff. You might begin with Phil Corbett, "associate managing editor for standards," who thinks that adding dorm room numbers makes "a compelling narrative." But my guess is that he'll still be around after the layoffs come, if his stout defense of this incredibly stupid decision is typical of his work.
9
This is really interesting. The reporter appropriately regrets her decision, yet the editors still say, as always, "We didn't do anthing wrong!!" All those downsized editors should find plenty of opportunities in the new administration, where no one ever does anything wrong!!
And to cat in the hat, no one should pay 50gs for a college education. Don't blame the students for your lousy decision.
And to cat in the hat, no one should pay 50gs for a college education. Don't blame the students for your lousy decision.
6
How these people come to be in an University if they don't have documents?
Evidently you didn't read the article:
"Indeed, in contrast to South Carolina and Alabama, which prohibit undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition, and Georgia, which prevents them from attending three top public universities, California has a formidable array of state laws and university policies designed to support them."
"Indeed, in contrast to South Carolina and Alabama, which prohibit undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition, and Georgia, which prevents them from attending three top public universities, California has a formidable array of state laws and university policies designed to support them."
@CMZ
How can you apply to a college without documents? You say - I am John Doe?
How can you apply to a college without documents? You say - I am John Doe?
1
areader: "How can you apply to a college without documents? You say - I am John Doe?"
OK, I see that you have been misled by the word "undocumented", which is a euphemism favored by liberals who don't like the word "illegal". See "alien" in "Black's Law Dictionary".
As for the substance of your question, here is a web page explaining how illegal aliens can apply for admission to the University of California:
Applying to UC | UC undocumented student resources
http://undoc.universityofcalifornia.edu/applying-to-uc.html
OK, I see that you have been misled by the word "undocumented", which is a euphemism favored by liberals who don't like the word "illegal". See "alien" in "Black's Law Dictionary".
As for the substance of your question, here is a web page explaining how illegal aliens can apply for admission to the University of California:
Applying to UC | UC undocumented student resources
http://undoc.universityofcalifornia.edu/applying-to-uc.html
Having a room number did not give you more access to the students,” she said. “It’s a secure building.”
I'm sure ICE will be totally discouraged by this fact.
I'm sure ICE will be totally discouraged by this fact.
10
Identified students who feel at risk could be moved out of their identified dorm rooms ... but no one else should then be moved INTO rooms on those two floors. The location is now potentially dangerous for all residents.
6
The university administrators who facilitated the reporter's access should have informed students that publicity could be risky to them personally.
7
I find Jane Karr's response appalling. "Secure building"?!?! So, I presume that means you also regularly publish the home addresses of rich people who live in gated communities, right? I mean, they're secure neighborhoods, right?
By the way, the decision to publish the room numbers is terrible regardless of the students in question. It would be wrong no matter anyone's citizenship or immigration status. But it's particularly problematic when we're talking about putting at risk people who already face a higher risk than average.
By the way, the decision to publish the room numbers is terrible regardless of the students in question. It would be wrong no matter anyone's citizenship or immigration status. But it's particularly problematic when we're talking about putting at risk people who already face a higher risk than average.
9
Wow putting out Dorm buildings and numbers is like Doxxing someone's address. I would like to see the names of all the buildings where NYTimes reporters live posted online as part of their articles. Oh maybe not room numbers. I am sure that some have guarded entrances.
I have walked around many college campuses. To say these are secure environments is an atrocious self-serving lie. How about we just put up the locations of the Children of Times employees who go to colleges. We'll just ask for names and what colleges. Yeah, I thought not. Sure is different when it is your own kids safety and welfare isn't it.
This is the tyranny of abstract practices when you attempt to quantify them on the lives of others but not your own. It turns it not into ethics, but a goddamn game.
Yet again, the Times should be ashamed.
I have walked around many college campuses. To say these are secure environments is an atrocious self-serving lie. How about we just put up the locations of the Children of Times employees who go to colleges. We'll just ask for names and what colleges. Yeah, I thought not. Sure is different when it is your own kids safety and welfare isn't it.
This is the tyranny of abstract practices when you attempt to quantify them on the lives of others but not your own. It turns it not into ethics, but a goddamn game.
Yet again, the Times should be ashamed.
9
This is some serious rationalization by the editor for appalling journalistic ethics. To airily decide that " she is comfortable with the decision to publish the dorm numbers and does not believe that they are putting the students in danger.
“Having a room number did not give you more access to the students,” she said. “It’s a secure building.” Who makes that decision? The interviewee does. This is basic journalistic ethics. You don't decide that something that adds a bit of color to your story is worth putting someone at risk for. The arrogance and entitlement are appalling - even for the NYT. Shame on all of you, and I would NOT advise my students to ever talk to your reporters.
“Having a room number did not give you more access to the students,” she said. “It’s a secure building.” Who makes that decision? The interviewee does. This is basic journalistic ethics. You don't decide that something that adds a bit of color to your story is worth putting someone at risk for. The arrogance and entitlement are appalling - even for the NYT. Shame on all of you, and I would NOT advise my students to ever talk to your reporters.
7
I wonder if the editor's comfort level would change if she bet her life savings on it? If she were to be held personally liable should she be airily wrong?
1
I've always been struck by the caution of journalists when one of their own could be in danger... the self-imposed embargoes on news stories when a journalist is kidnapped compared with the more full coverage given when it happens to a mere mortal.
Journalists need to be far more honest with themselves when they report. "Is this detail necessary for the story" and "Will this detail do harm to the individuals involved" are always good questions to ask. There is no easy answer, but they should at least be asked.
The imbalance in sexual assault reporting also comes to mind. There is an understandable unwillingness to publish the names of alleged victims, yet publishing the names of alleged perpetrators goes on, even after we've seen numerous high profile cases fall apart, exonerating, or at least putting great doubt on the guild of the accused. If the name of the victim should be withheld because of the above concerns, why not the name of the accused? There will be plenty of opportunity to publish a name once a conviction is obtained. The only reason I can see not to wait is pecuniary.
Journalists need to be far more honest with themselves when they report. "Is this detail necessary for the story" and "Will this detail do harm to the individuals involved" are always good questions to ask. There is no easy answer, but they should at least be asked.
The imbalance in sexual assault reporting also comes to mind. There is an understandable unwillingness to publish the names of alleged victims, yet publishing the names of alleged perpetrators goes on, even after we've seen numerous high profile cases fall apart, exonerating, or at least putting great doubt on the guild of the accused. If the name of the victim should be withheld because of the above concerns, why not the name of the accused? There will be plenty of opportunity to publish a name once a conviction is obtained. The only reason I can see not to wait is pecuniary.
5
In the movie "Mississippi Burning," the Willem Dafoe character, an FBI agent heading the investigation into the murders of three civil rights workers, has a powerful line about the local culture circa 1964 that always comes to this reader's mind whenever (read: often) The Times defends the indefensible and takes disingenuousness and rationalizations to new depths:
"What's wrong with these people?"
Somewhere in the master playbook for Times editors, there must be an entry along the lines of "When criticized, no matter how wrong you might be, don't give an inch. In fact, double down."
Month after month, year after year, it simply can't be a coincidence.
"What's wrong with these people?"
Somewhere in the master playbook for Times editors, there must be an entry along the lines of "When criticized, no matter how wrong you might be, don't give an inch. In fact, double down."
Month after month, year after year, it simply can't be a coincidence.
4
Re: editor Jane Karr's comments that the dorm #s do not place the students at risk, would you take the same relaxed approach with a family member (don't know if you have kids in college, but I presume you would be OK with someone publishing their dorm name and room # in a national newspaper?) Or perhaps your desk or office number? (the NY times is presumably a secure building, no harm in releasing this info?)
6
Who advised these students that it was a good idea to make their undocumented status known to the general public by talking to a reporter?
5
Many prominent individuals who live in Connecticut and are mentioned in The Times often have not only their addresses omitted in articles, but (I've noticed) even the town where they live, which would be interesting to know.
6
Editors at the NY Times NEVER admit that have made an error. They strongly believe that what they do is always right. That impedes learning, unfortunately.
Perhaps the editor is unaware of the violence unleashed against minorities and immigrants, or perhaps the editor simply doesn't care. But it was a stupid decision and an unnecessary revelation.
Smug, arrogant, ignorant, uncaring? Which is it? Probably a combination. But it's pointless to point out errors to NY Times editors.
Perhaps the editor is unaware of the violence unleashed against minorities and immigrants, or perhaps the editor simply doesn't care. But it was a stupid decision and an unnecessary revelation.
Smug, arrogant, ignorant, uncaring? Which is it? Probably a combination. But it's pointless to point out errors to NY Times editors.
3
“I am a mother myself and the last thing I’d want to do is jeopardize any student’s safety or give them cause for alarm,” said Brown. “In hindsight, understanding that the room numbers seem to have caused distress and concern,"
No! Not stress and concern! The publication of the room numbers put these students IN DANGER.
"Jane Karr, an education editor at The Times, said she is comfortable with the decision to publish the dorm numbers and does not believe that they are putting the students in danger."
Oh, my God. I am dumbfounded by this.
No! Not stress and concern! The publication of the room numbers put these students IN DANGER.
"Jane Karr, an education editor at The Times, said she is comfortable with the decision to publish the dorm numbers and does not believe that they are putting the students in danger."
Oh, my God. I am dumbfounded by this.
5
Oh dear. I feel for the kids and for Patricia Leigh Brown. I am a reporter, too, and every once in a while we misstep without meaning to. I know when that happens to me I am eaten up with self-recriminations. Ii hope everything works out okay, for all.
1
Don't you think that by the time a reporter makes it to the Times she ought to know better than this? A rookie *might* make this mistake, but a Times reporter? And a Times editor?
Maybe I'm giving the Times too much credit. Layoffs in recent years and associated problems have doubtless lowered the quality of the journalism that's practiced there.
Maybe I'm giving the Times too much credit. Layoffs in recent years and associated problems have doubtless lowered the quality of the journalism that's practiced there.
I missed this. I can't believe this - it's unforgivable!
But you do realize I hope, NYT, that this is the sort of thing that will happen more and more when you cut back on the so-called "duplicative" layers of editing? This should never conceivably have gotten past an editor.
But you do realize I hope, NYT, that this is the sort of thing that will happen more and more when you cut back on the so-called "duplicative" layers of editing? This should never conceivably have gotten past an editor.
4
I'd like to think this inclusion of specific addresses of people vulnerable to various harms was some incredibly maladroit attempt at useful detail. I'd like to think that, despite the oddness of the decision, it was not the frisson of danger that was added thereby which lay behind the decision. And it was not an accident but a decision, shocking in its potential for harm.
2
- - - - - Jane Karr, an education editor at The Times, said she is comfortable with the decision to publish the dorm numbers and does not believe that they are putting the students in danger. - - - - -
Presumably Ms. Karr is not in danger of being seized by federal law enforcement and sent on a one-way trip to a country where she has never lived, as these students are.
Presumably Ms. Karr is not in danger of being seized by federal law enforcement and sent on a one-way trip to a country where she has never lived, as these students are.
6
I find appalling that there was even any question of identification, address in a dorm--that is terrible. This was a clear case of lack of judgement, at least caught retroactively, though still tried to be rationalized.. Hopefully, such won't happen again. Consent must be proposed, if details are shared.
2
Every day the news of the NYT and other upstanding and outstanding media outlets are filled with 'anonymous' officials making statements about government business. This is done to the point where it is semi-official policy to allow these people to reveal what the actual politician cannot reveal. At most, what would happen if the names these semi-official leakers were made public is that they would lose their jobs.
I'm going to make the leap that the undocumented students did not quite understand -even though they signed a release- that they were putting themselves in jeopardy for deportation and harassment. I'd call this shoddy journalism from an ethical standpoint. I'd also call these students quite brave.
I'm going to make the leap that the undocumented students did not quite understand -even though they signed a release- that they were putting themselves in jeopardy for deportation and harassment. I'd call this shoddy journalism from an ethical standpoint. I'd also call these students quite brave.
4
Relying on releases from young, immigrant and non-native English speakers is, frankly, cruel and dangerous in this era of political hatred fomented by a President against immigrants. The only proper course was to disguise their identities and their living arrangements to the point that identification would be extremely difficult. The reporter's exceedingly pathetic apology reminds me of those "I am sorry if anyone was offended . . ." apologies we get from loose-lipped politicians. That an editor thought this was just fine condemns both the editor and the reporter. This should never, ever happen again.
3
The room numbers should not have been published.
The university should facilitate a room-swap for the students, assigning them to different rooms to the ones that were mentioned in the story. From what I recall from my college days, changing rooms in a dorm is a relatively painless exercise. Even if each student were to swap with a classmate two doors down, which would be very easy to do, it would solve the problem of their room numbers being know.
The Times should not have published the dorm name, either. While it's not so easy to change dorm buildings, the university should give these students that option, too, if the students want to do so. If it means upgrading to a better dorm or a nicer room, The Times should pay for the extra rent.
The university should facilitate a room-swap for the students, assigning them to different rooms to the ones that were mentioned in the story. From what I recall from my college days, changing rooms in a dorm is a relatively painless exercise. Even if each student were to swap with a classmate two doors down, which would be very easy to do, it would solve the problem of their room numbers being know.
The Times should not have published the dorm name, either. While it's not so easy to change dorm buildings, the university should give these students that option, too, if the students want to do so. If it means upgrading to a better dorm or a nicer room, The Times should pay for the extra rent.
2
Who do you propose should move into those dorm rooms? I wouldn't do it.
Perhaps the Times could make up for this abuse of discretion by publishing the home addresses of Patricia Brown, Jane Karr, and Phil Corbett. After all, having Corbett's home address would make this piece "compelling". It is striking that academic researchers go to great lengths to protect the privacy, integrity, and safety of people they interview, including passing interviews through Institutional Review Boards expressly charged with avoiding exposing interviewees to unnecessary risk. These students, families of murder victims, and members of the Cabinet deserve the same. one can describe "modestly decorated surroundings" without attaching a specific address. Now I am sure that if something befalls one or more of these students Brown, Karr, and Corbett will sigh that while they feel badly for the individuals they personally cannot be held responsible. If the Times is so concerned with providing us with pieces that are "engaging" and "compelling" perhaps it could cover two dozen students who poured thousands of dollars into courses at Trump University, or profiles of its senior administrators, complete with their home addresses. Set one or two students saddled with debt or drained of savings next to those who made a good living pursuing this exploitation, complete with their home addresses so the reader could add his/her own visual geography. The students' names were not relevant (does it matter whether someone was named Gomez or Greenblatz?), much less dorm addresses.
28
A difficult call. It seems disingenuous to say the rooms numbers aren't important, "It's a secure building." But without the texture of specificity, the story starts going flat and the students become cardboard figures. And it is equally disingenuous to argue that, should some creep want to find these students, even without dorm name or room numbers, he could not -- "secure building" or no.
4
I can't see any merit whatsoever in including room numbers. Your argument that a creep could "find them anyway" makes your calling others disingenuous ironic indeed.
3
"Difficult call"? No, there is no "risk" that a profile on anybody presents a person as a "cardboard figure" solely for lack of exact details of home address.
3
If you seriously need subjects' dorm room numbers to add "texture of specificity" to your story, your story has already fallen flat.
5
How often does the Times publish an address for a legal resident? Very, very rarely! This was not bright. The students may not have been cognisant of the risk but a senior Times reporter should certainly have known what she was doing.
55
And Prof. Corey just died! I think you've got yourself a scoop there.
1
There is no "seems like". It was an unnecessary (not "unecessary") intrusion or it wasn't. Take a stand!
10
Am I wrong, or does this story fail to identify the actual editor who was primarily responsible for editing this story? (Jane Kerr is described merely as "an education editor.") Given what appears to be a violation of the Times's own usage guide, I'd like to know exactly why he or she failed to do their job. This doesn't really seem like all that complex a judgment call. Perhaps I'm wrong, but since we don't get a proper explanation from the editor involved...
By the way, is this what we have to look forward to as the Times eliminates all those "redundant layers" of copy-editing and substantive review?
By the way, is this what we have to look forward to as the Times eliminates all those "redundant layers" of copy-editing and substantive review?
50
Yup. And add to that a public editor who has an extremely shaky grasp of her role, and frequently manages to make an issue more confusing rather than less.
3
The editor and the reporter should both be suspended without pay for a significant period. The address details were completely unnecessary and added nothing to the piece. You should not have to explain this. It should have been clear upfront.
44
As an undocumented immigrant who recently graduated college, I can assure you the decision to include and then to keep the addresses of those students in the article is dangerous and ridiculous. Do you realize our community is in fear of deportation and hate crimes right now?
ICE doesn't care how "secure" a building is, nor does some radical. And by my own experience in "secure" dorm buildings, I can assure you, they're not as secure as you might think nor does it stop anyone from sending the students mail or waiting outside their building.
This is dangerous. Full stop. You have endangered the lives of nearly 2 dozen students for no reason at all.
ICE doesn't care how "secure" a building is, nor does some radical. And by my own experience in "secure" dorm buildings, I can assure you, they're not as secure as you might think nor does it stop anyone from sending the students mail or waiting outside their building.
This is dangerous. Full stop. You have endangered the lives of nearly 2 dozen students for no reason at all.
74
Of course, Julian, your being in this country without authorization says a great deal about your dedication to the Rule of Law, a concept that is at the heart of our society.
Aren't you. to a great degree, responsible for the risk that you are running, and aren't you showing a significant amount of contempt for those of us that you have insisted that we host you in our community?
Here's are a couple of suggestions...turn yourself in to our immigration officers and go home, or just hop on a plane and do it without further encouragement.
You could the apply for immigration at the US Embassy in your home country and take the legal route. You are more than welcome here if you come to our shores with the legal right to do so.
And, while you are waiting for the bureaucracy to work its will, you could work hard to create conditions in your homeland that would be enough to keep you at home. happy, comfortable, and suitably compensated.
Right now, sir, you are part of the problem.
Aren't you. to a great degree, responsible for the risk that you are running, and aren't you showing a significant amount of contempt for those of us that you have insisted that we host you in our community?
Here's are a couple of suggestions...turn yourself in to our immigration officers and go home, or just hop on a plane and do it without further encouragement.
You could the apply for immigration at the US Embassy in your home country and take the legal route. You are more than welcome here if you come to our shores with the legal right to do so.
And, while you are waiting for the bureaucracy to work its will, you could work hard to create conditions in your homeland that would be enough to keep you at home. happy, comfortable, and suitably compensated.
Right now, sir, you are part of the problem.
3
If one is not committing crimes, one does not have to worry about addresses any more than the average Joe.
Lots of people know my address, and it is not hard to find online for $9.99.
Lots of people know my address, and it is not hard to find online for $9.99.
The entitlement that illegal aliens have no problem expressing is astounding.
If Julian feels endangered, perhaps he should try to right the laws he broke by returning to his home country and pursuing entry to the US on a legal basis.
If Julian feels endangered, perhaps he should try to right the laws he broke by returning to his home country and pursuing entry to the US on a legal basis.
1
Okay to publish dorm room numbers? Not acceptable. Does the NYT publish addresses for all persons they interview for a story? Karr and Corbett are way off base. Believe me, not all dorms are secure: Doors are propped open, other students may invite non-residence students inside . . .
Karr and Corbett, What if one of these undocumented students was your child? Would you feel as satisfied with this editorial decision?
Karr and Corbett, What if one of these undocumented students was your child? Would you feel as satisfied with this editorial decision?
37
I thought news was who, what, when, WHERE and why. I guess we've become scaredy-cat nation.
2
So, you'd be comfortable having your address posted for all to see?
2
When I give your daughter's address to her vengeful ex, get back to me on that.
3
"Where" would include the school they attend - not their freakin' dorm plus room number.
3
If the NY Times still had copy editors to eliminate irrelevance from stories (which is precisely what the dorm room numbers are), this problem would never have existed.
32
Copy editors look at EVERY detail. A decent copy editor would have thought instantly, "Why are these room numbers here" and requested clarification, likely leading to the room numbers being deleted. You eliminate these people - or you torment these people, by halving their numbers and doubling the survivors' workload, or laying them off and re-hiring them as "contractors" without benefits - this is what you're going to get, only maybe it will have to be somebody more important than lowly undocumented immigrants before such a mistake trouble's anyone's sleep at a prestigious newspaper.
2
You seem to use "Cat in the hat"'s comment has signaling that the students might face violence now that you revealed their dorm numbers. Actually, that comment which was echoed in various ways by the overwhelming majority of people was spot on. That is the story, since it didn't fit your narrative, you fail to report.
Regardless, the dorm number was not necessary and the defense offered by the editors is not acceptable.
Regardless, the dorm number was not necessary and the defense offered by the editors is not acceptable.
18
Truly terrible decision to include addresses. Dorms are secure only to the extent that other residents--or other residents' visitors--don't pose a threat. This should not have happened.
16
Love your transparency NYT. An inspiration to not only media, but writers everywhere. It's why I trust you.
5
The dorm room numbers were immaterial to the thrust of the story. Including them makes it seem as if the Times suspected readers wouldn't believe the article unless such specific details were known.
As a one-time reporter, I wrote dozens upon dozens of articles about people, and not once was anyone's home address included in my reporting. There was no reason to do so then, and no reason to do so today.
As a one-time reporter, I wrote dozens upon dozens of articles about people, and not once was anyone's home address included in my reporting. There was no reason to do so then, and no reason to do so today.
20
What is this? The White House, were you sign off willy-nilly and don't bother reading the material?
22
Would you please publish the home addresses of Jane Karr and Phil Corbett. Their responses would be much more compelling if we all knew the details where they lived. And having their addresses would certainly not give us more access them. I'm sure they live in secure neighborhoods and buildings.
81
Right, and where is DeVos living for the next few months of the soon to be dissolved trump admin?
6
They should be fired. This is a very serious mistake.
8
Phil Corbett's address is apparently available on the Internet as is, apparently, Jane Karr. In this day and age, Google knows where you live.
1
Terrible decision from the reporter. A worse one from the editor, who should know better. Worst of all, those sitting around Times computers not redacting that extraneous and inflammatory information *now*. Does it take an actual act of violence to get through to you?
35
A dorm room number is like a home address, which The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage -- not to mention common sense, for heaven's sake -- warns against using for obvious reasons. It's not only an invasion of privacy, but a source of potential personal risk. In other words, it's nobody's -- and certainly not the public's -- business.
And dorm room numbers are the kind of details that "make a narrative compelling"? Oh, please, Mr. Corbett. Your central problem, and Ms. Karr's, just as with virtually every member of The Times hierarchy questioned by the six public editors over more than 13 years, is that you don't know how to admit error or acknowledge that you don't follow your own rules, let alone apologize.
The fact that The Times's editing structure is being systematically disassembled in the Digital Age does not bode well for the future. The late Arthur O. Sulzberger, who preceded his son and namesake as publisher, said, “You’re not buying news when you buy The New York Times. You’re buying judgment.”
Unfortunately, yet again, not in this case.
And dorm room numbers are the kind of details that "make a narrative compelling"? Oh, please, Mr. Corbett. Your central problem, and Ms. Karr's, just as with virtually every member of The Times hierarchy questioned by the six public editors over more than 13 years, is that you don't know how to admit error or acknowledge that you don't follow your own rules, let alone apologize.
The fact that The Times's editing structure is being systematically disassembled in the Digital Age does not bode well for the future. The late Arthur O. Sulzberger, who preceded his son and namesake as publisher, said, “You’re not buying news when you buy The New York Times. You’re buying judgment.”
Unfortunately, yet again, not in this case.
61
Why was a signed release required to take their picture? Was this a policy of the school, or is there a NYT policy on obtaining releases? My understanding is this would not be required unless the images were for commercial purposes. Plus generally college students are 18+, whereas a minor may require more sensitivity. Otherwise I completely sympathize with the students and what you're saying about respecting privacy.
4
Good questions. The Times needs legal permission to take photos in a private place, such as a dorm room. There is more in this book:
"Business and Legal Forms for Photographers" By Tad Crawford
(The chapter on the "Model Release" form covers some of the legal issues, although the students were not, presumably, being paid.)
"Business and Legal Forms for Photographers" By Tad Crawford
(The chapter on the "Model Release" form covers some of the legal issues, although the students were not, presumably, being paid.)
Following up on my previous reply ...
See "Permission" in the index to this book:
"Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert P. Krages.
(A preview of the book can found at the web site of a well-known online book seller.)
Both Crawford (in my previous reply), and Krages are attorneys.
See "Permission" in the index to this book:
"Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert P. Krages.
(A preview of the book can found at the web site of a well-known online book seller.)
Both Crawford (in my previous reply), and Krages are attorneys.
Three professional members of the editorial staff did not think there was going to be any danger in publishing full names and residence hall numbers. What juvenile planet did they graduate from? Considering that if they were working for a politician or a corporate business they could have gotten away with anonymity, it seems outrageous to me. No consideration given to the students' security? I thought editors were selected for their positions based on their experience, not only as journalists, but with the ways of the world we live in. I must be as naive as they are.
46
They are just arrogant. Arrogant and heartless.
14
I'm very disappointed in the NYT for identifying vulnerable people in this country by where they live. WHAT were you thinking? How am I supposed to continue to trust you when you do things like that?
27
PE: "The 22 students ... share life together on the top two floors of a single dorm."
In other words, the 22 students have been confined to a ghetto for illegals. The article itself supports that interpretation:
"And so as freshmen, 175 of the [Fiat Lux] scholars, 22 of them undocumented, live together on the upper two floors of Tenaya Hall, ..."
Yet there are "7,000 students" on the "Merced campus".
The article justifies the ghetto this way:
"Living together as a cohort is meant to foster bonding, and to ease first-generation students into the larger community."
How exactly does a "bond[ed]" "cohort" confined to a ghetto become integrated with "the larger community"?
In other words, the 22 students have been confined to a ghetto for illegals. The article itself supports that interpretation:
"And so as freshmen, 175 of the [Fiat Lux] scholars, 22 of them undocumented, live together on the upper two floors of Tenaya Hall, ..."
Yet there are "7,000 students" on the "Merced campus".
The article justifies the ghetto this way:
"Living together as a cohort is meant to foster bonding, and to ease first-generation students into the larger community."
How exactly does a "bond[ed]" "cohort" confined to a ghetto become integrated with "the larger community"?
6
Your deep concern for these students' well-being is clearly reflected in your engagement with the threat to their physical safety identified in this article.
7,000 refers to the entire student population, which includes a large percentage of commuter students who do not live on campus. UC Merced is a wonderfully diverse school with about 50% of first year students identifying as first generation college students. The students in this article are not confined to a "ghetto."
Sarah: "... the threat to their physical safety identified in this article."
Neither the PE's post nor the original article uses the word "threat". Please post an exact quote supporting whatever point it is that you are trying to make.
Neither the PE's post nor the original article uses the word "threat". Please post an exact quote supporting whatever point it is that you are trying to make.
NY Times position: "Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, said he too understood the decision to use the dorm address, saying that, while The Times doesn’t want to create unwarranted risk, the details are what make a narrative compelling."
How many stories does the NY Times publish that don't even identify sources? The NY Times lends its own credibility to those stories by virtue of its editorial policies and practices, and readers trust there is a process of verification. When names are used in a NY Times story, we all assume the NY Times verifies that these are not fictional people. When the NY Times identifies a source in a story, find another instance where it provides the home address of the source? Even in a story where identification of the individual's address does not place the source at risk? I would like to believe that this was done in good faith, but I'm having trouble imagining any justification. A dorm name and number means nothing to a reader in Kansas. That reader can do no more to verify the story than when the reader knows the name of the individual. Here, it seems the reporter did not disclose an intent to reveal addresses. And the students, based upon reading many NY Times articles, had no reasonable expectation that addresses would be revealed. I doubt they would have been sources had full disclosure been made.
How many stories does the NY Times publish that don't even identify sources? The NY Times lends its own credibility to those stories by virtue of its editorial policies and practices, and readers trust there is a process of verification. When names are used in a NY Times story, we all assume the NY Times verifies that these are not fictional people. When the NY Times identifies a source in a story, find another instance where it provides the home address of the source? Even in a story where identification of the individual's address does not place the source at risk? I would like to believe that this was done in good faith, but I'm having trouble imagining any justification. A dorm name and number means nothing to a reader in Kansas. That reader can do no more to verify the story than when the reader knows the name of the individual. Here, it seems the reporter did not disclose an intent to reveal addresses. And the students, based upon reading many NY Times articles, had no reasonable expectation that addresses would be revealed. I doubt they would have been sources had full disclosure been made.
25
Good point, uni.
I sent no fewer than three e-mails to the Public Editor today alone citing no fewer than five articles with anonymous sourcing in the past three days.
Donald Trump sitting alone in the West Wing in his bathrobe at 6:30 PM, and staffers who sit in the dark because they can't find lightswitches or doorknobs that exit rooms?
Supposed Cardinal Burke adherent "rad trads" in the Vatican passing around mocked up versions of L'Osservatore Romano making fun of Pope Francis? Did that one spring from the mind of Father Guido Sarducci?
The people who told Adam Liptak how Trump supposedly settled on Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court?
ALL of that nonsense speculation, and much more, coming down through the editing process to land like road apples on the Times' digital front page.
"We grant anonymity as a last resort for stories we consider reliable, newsworthy, and that can be reported in no other way." Unless we don't. Whatevs...
Why don't we publish the address of the reporter, the Education Editor, and the Associate Managing Editor for Standards?
I sent no fewer than three e-mails to the Public Editor today alone citing no fewer than five articles with anonymous sourcing in the past three days.
Donald Trump sitting alone in the West Wing in his bathrobe at 6:30 PM, and staffers who sit in the dark because they can't find lightswitches or doorknobs that exit rooms?
Supposed Cardinal Burke adherent "rad trads" in the Vatican passing around mocked up versions of L'Osservatore Romano making fun of Pope Francis? Did that one spring from the mind of Father Guido Sarducci?
The people who told Adam Liptak how Trump supposedly settled on Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court?
ALL of that nonsense speculation, and much more, coming down through the editing process to land like road apples on the Times' digital front page.
"We grant anonymity as a last resort for stories we consider reliable, newsworthy, and that can be reported in no other way." Unless we don't. Whatevs...
Why don't we publish the address of the reporter, the Education Editor, and the Associate Managing Editor for Standards?
8
paul,
i too, wondered about the legitimacy of the "anonymous" source for each of the articles you cite. the NYT runs those articles knowing the only blowback will be from whichever wacko shill the White House trots out that week, yet the Times publishes the dorm name and room numbers of the students as 'relevant'? PUH-leeze!!!
i was not enrolled in the college of journalism when i attended the University of Florida but i was attenuated to critical thinking and to common sense each and every day regardless of the course i was enrolled in. the decision to publish this information poses a real and present danger for all of the occupants of the residence hall. think Timothy McVeigh!
this was a violation of privacy, critical thinking, common sense, journalistic ethics and the Times' own style guide and rules. it makes me wonder if the inmates are running the asylum!
75gator
i too, wondered about the legitimacy of the "anonymous" source for each of the articles you cite. the NYT runs those articles knowing the only blowback will be from whichever wacko shill the White House trots out that week, yet the Times publishes the dorm name and room numbers of the students as 'relevant'? PUH-leeze!!!
i was not enrolled in the college of journalism when i attended the University of Florida but i was attenuated to critical thinking and to common sense each and every day regardless of the course i was enrolled in. the decision to publish this information poses a real and present danger for all of the occupants of the residence hall. think Timothy McVeigh!
this was a violation of privacy, critical thinking, common sense, journalistic ethics and the Times' own style guide and rules. it makes me wonder if the inmates are running the asylum!
75gator
1
My first question has to be what, if anything, does revealing the room numbers do to contribute to the news value of the article.
I see no "value added" to revealing that information. It was gratuitous and unnecesary.
The writer, the editor(s), and Mr. Corbett need to reassess the proclivity to publish any and all information just because they can.
Once again, the Times appears to be moving towards tabloid journalism at the expense of common sense.
I see no "value added" to revealing that information. It was gratuitous and unnecesary.
The writer, the editor(s), and Mr. Corbett need to reassess the proclivity to publish any and all information just because they can.
Once again, the Times appears to be moving towards tabloid journalism at the expense of common sense.
24
What baffles me about this bit of reporting is that apart from the danger in which it places these students, it adds absolutely nothing to the story. Why do I need to know their dorm room numbers (or even the name of the dormitory)? How does that information advance the story? It's just mindless stuffing.
37
Wow. Shockingly poor judgement on the part of reporter and editor.
20
I'm startled to find Times staff arguing for keeping the room numbers in the article and by the comment that the dorm is a "secure building." Jane Karr appears not to have been in a college dorm lately; "secure" is a very loose description.
It is not necessary for every NYT editor to become defensive when an editorial judgment is questioned; admitting mistakes often increases confidence in the institution.
It is not necessary for every NYT editor to become defensive when an editorial judgment is questioned; admitting mistakes often increases confidence in the institution.
20
They are not afraid of us. They are not afraid of the new public editor. They are thoughtless elites who think it is "compelling" to give out the addresses of undocumented students. Because they can.
5
It is unnecessary and appalling that exact room numbers were divulged in the story. Appalling that the reporter included them, and even more appalling that higher-ups at the Times didn't intercede and remove the room numbers. And Ms. Karr's statement “Having a room number did not give you more access to the students,” she said. “It’s a secure building.” is delusional. No place is secure, any more, and that was apparent before Trump's election. Despite my very high regard for the New York Times, I hope that if these students are attacked, that they and their families will sue the Times and win a large award. Meanwhile, for their own protection, these students should be relocated to a different dorm, or at least different rooms.
18
Um, Cat in the Hat has a good point.
That said, the NYT absolutely should not have included potentially identifying details about the students. You don't have to subscribe to the NYT's 'kick down the doors, let everyone in and give them everything' position (I'm in favour of reapprasing and reforming our immigration laws but also of enforcing the ones we have) to be against making the students potential targets of hate crimes. The NYT is on their side? With friends like this, who needs enemies?
That said, the NYT absolutely should not have included potentially identifying details about the students. You don't have to subscribe to the NYT's 'kick down the doors, let everyone in and give them everything' position (I'm in favour of reapprasing and reforming our immigration laws but also of enforcing the ones we have) to be against making the students potential targets of hate crimes. The NYT is on their side? With friends like this, who needs enemies?
12
"...it's a secure building."
What about the students who LIVE IN the dorm?
"Harm" can be more than only physical.
What about the students who LIVE IN the dorm?
"Harm" can be more than only physical.
5
This, perhaps more than any other story, demonstrates how clueless a newspaper the Times has become. As far as decisions that editors make goes, they don't come much easier than this. In fact, were a rookie reporter to include room numbers in a story like this, any decent editor would reprimand him/her for it -- probably adding something along the lines of, "Where did you go to journalism school, again?"
It ends with:
"Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, said he too understood the decision to use the dorm address, saying that, while The Times doesn’t want to create unwarranted risk, the details are what make a narrative compelling."
Giving the room numbers made the story more compelling?? The public editor didn't think to ask Mr. Corbett: how??
"Sometimes that’s true. But in this case, the dorm numbers were not make-or-break details. Since the students agreed to give their names, and signed a release for the use of their image, then I think The Times is certainly within good journalistic standards to use them...."
Obviously. Since that's what they were signing a release for. So obvious, the reader might assume "then I think The Times is certainly within good journalistic standards to use them" is referring to the room numbers.
"But saying who lives behind which door seems like an unecessary [sic] intrusion that didn’t help the students or the story."
Oh, so she isn't for it, I guess.
It ends with:
"Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, said he too understood the decision to use the dorm address, saying that, while The Times doesn’t want to create unwarranted risk, the details are what make a narrative compelling."
Giving the room numbers made the story more compelling?? The public editor didn't think to ask Mr. Corbett: how??
"Sometimes that’s true. But in this case, the dorm numbers were not make-or-break details. Since the students agreed to give their names, and signed a release for the use of their image, then I think The Times is certainly within good journalistic standards to use them...."
Obviously. Since that's what they were signing a release for. So obvious, the reader might assume "then I think The Times is certainly within good journalistic standards to use them" is referring to the room numbers.
"But saying who lives behind which door seems like an unecessary [sic] intrusion that didn’t help the students or the story."
Oh, so she isn't for it, I guess.
14
The students gave their consent?
MINOR students gave consent.
FOREIGN students who are going to be interviewed by the NEW YORK TIMES is like a rock star performing on campus saying to them, "Wanna come up to my place?"
You expect them to scrutinize the "potential harm" of publishing their name and room numbers?" "Mom, I'm in the New York Times!"
Your senior editors' comments are, AS ALWAYS, self-justifying and echo chamber. But, hey, it's the Times, and its "storied history," so it's "the pantheon of journalism.
MINOR students gave consent.
FOREIGN students who are going to be interviewed by the NEW YORK TIMES is like a rock star performing on campus saying to them, "Wanna come up to my place?"
You expect them to scrutinize the "potential harm" of publishing their name and room numbers?" "Mom, I'm in the New York Times!"
Your senior editors' comments are, AS ALWAYS, self-justifying and echo chamber. But, hey, it's the Times, and its "storied history," so it's "the pantheon of journalism.
12
They are in college, and presumably, over 18.
You know, adults.
The inability to call them by the proper terminology, illegal citizens of the US, and by their legal status, adults, not minors, may be the real issue, not just with addresses.
You know, adults.
The inability to call them by the proper terminology, illegal citizens of the US, and by their legal status, adults, not minors, may be the real issue, not just with addresses.
1
The NYT editors Karr and Corbett both say they're fine with what occurred. What a surprise.
What would really be a surprise is an admission things might have been done in a better way, eg not giving out room numbers.
What would really be a surprise is an admission things might have been done in a better way, eg not giving out room numbers.
26
Times, this is a CYA cover piece. You should know better.
31
I am surprised and disappointed that the Times has not modified the UC Merced story by removing the dorm name and numbers. These people may still be at risk, which would seem a rather compelling reason to alter a story, yet the link in this very piece sends readers to the unaltered story.
Last July, Michael Eric Dyson wrote an incendiary op-ed piece on race for the Times that was published right before the Dallas shooting in which 5 police officers were killed. The Times and Mr. Dyson chose to re-write the piece and it was toned-down significantly with a statement that explained “This essay has been updated to reflect news developments.” At the time, I absolutely blasted the Times (see my comment in the linked piece below, second in the Readers' Picks list). While I stand by my comment that the Times should not change an op-ed but instead allow the author to publish a follow-up piece, it seems there is a far more compelling reason to alter this article which not only violates Times policy but which, far more importantly, continues to put subjects in the article at risk. While it is difficult to eliminate all previous versions on the internet, it is inexcusable for the Times to leave such information posted. There are currently 10 comments posted to Ms. Spayd's article, and one of them suggests these students be arrested and deported. The information should be removed
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/michael-eric-dyson-liz...
Last July, Michael Eric Dyson wrote an incendiary op-ed piece on race for the Times that was published right before the Dallas shooting in which 5 police officers were killed. The Times and Mr. Dyson chose to re-write the piece and it was toned-down significantly with a statement that explained “This essay has been updated to reflect news developments.” At the time, I absolutely blasted the Times (see my comment in the linked piece below, second in the Readers' Picks list). While I stand by my comment that the Times should not change an op-ed but instead allow the author to publish a follow-up piece, it seems there is a far more compelling reason to alter this article which not only violates Times policy but which, far more importantly, continues to put subjects in the article at risk. While it is difficult to eliminate all previous versions on the internet, it is inexcusable for the Times to leave such information posted. There are currently 10 comments posted to Ms. Spayd's article, and one of them suggests these students be arrested and deported. The information should be removed
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/michael-eric-dyson-liz...
32
"... continues to put subjects in the article at risk."
None of the subjects of the article who agreed to have their names and photos published believe they are "at risk". The subtext for this fretting about room numbers is that the subjects are incapable of judging FOR THEMSELVES whether they are "at risk". That is fundamentally patronizing, if not racist.
"At the time, I absolutely blasted the Times (see my comment in the linked piece below ..."
As you clearly know, the Dyson OpEd was changed "to reflect news developments". The room numbers have not changed, so that rationale is irrelevant to Brown's article. Further, the room numbers were published IN PRINT.
Anyway, here is a direct link to your earlier comment:
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/michael-eric-dyson-liz...
None of the subjects of the article who agreed to have their names and photos published believe they are "at risk". The subtext for this fretting about room numbers is that the subjects are incapable of judging FOR THEMSELVES whether they are "at risk". That is fundamentally patronizing, if not racist.
"At the time, I absolutely blasted the Times (see my comment in the linked piece below ..."
As you clearly know, the Dyson OpEd was changed "to reflect news developments". The room numbers have not changed, so that rationale is irrelevant to Brown's article. Further, the room numbers were published IN PRINT.
Anyway, here is a direct link to your earlier comment:
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/michael-eric-dyson-liz...
2
"None of the subjects of the article who agreed to have their names and photos published believe they are "at risk". The subtext for this fretting about room numbers is that the subjects are incapable of judging FOR THEMSELVES whether they are "at risk". That is fundamentally patronizing, if not racist."
Did you ask them? YOU speak for them but I'M being patronizing? The title and Times guidance acknowledges the potential risk. Ms. Spayd's piece says that they didn't know their dorm name or room numbers would be published and university administrators are quoted saying they feel the students are at risk. I guess they must be patronizing too. By the way, "Mexican" and "Salvadoran," the countries of origin mentioned in the original article, are nationalities not races.
"As you clearly know, the Dyson OpEd was changed "to reflect news developments". The room numbers have not changed, so that rationale is irrelevant to Brown's article."
No, the Dyson op-ed piece was substantially changed far beyond correcting it for factual errors, it was rewritten because it suddenly looked strikingly offensive in the light of the shootings of 5 Dallas police officers by a black man. But no one was at risk for potential harm. In this case, the students might be and the Times should avoid making targeting them easy. No they cannot recover the print copies, but that's no excuse for leaving the information just one click away for anyone to see.
Did you ask them? YOU speak for them but I'M being patronizing? The title and Times guidance acknowledges the potential risk. Ms. Spayd's piece says that they didn't know their dorm name or room numbers would be published and university administrators are quoted saying they feel the students are at risk. I guess they must be patronizing too. By the way, "Mexican" and "Salvadoran," the countries of origin mentioned in the original article, are nationalities not races.
"As you clearly know, the Dyson OpEd was changed "to reflect news developments". The room numbers have not changed, so that rationale is irrelevant to Brown's article."
No, the Dyson op-ed piece was substantially changed far beyond correcting it for factual errors, it was rewritten because it suddenly looked strikingly offensive in the light of the shootings of 5 Dallas police officers by a black man. But no one was at risk for potential harm. In this case, the students might be and the Times should avoid making targeting them easy. No they cannot recover the print copies, but that's no excuse for leaving the information just one click away for anyone to see.
3
mj: "Did you ask them?"
The Times asked them. Quoting the PE:
"All of of the students in the piece agreed to the use of their names, and those who were photographed signed a release."
If self-proclaimed illegals give that kind of permission, they must not believe that they are "at risk".
mj: "the Dyson op-ed piece"
While I agree that the Times bungled the rewrite of the Dyson OpEd, I still can't see how any of that is relevant to the Times's continued online publication of the room numbers.
You can make a case for changes to the online version of Brown's article without ever mentioning Dyson's OpEd. And you seemed to do that when you invoked "Times policy" (it's actually called the "stylebook"), but you didn't read the quote from the stylebook carefully. The stylebook uses the word "might". You have to show that continued publication of the room numbers online "might" cause "harassment or harm". Can you do that?
For the record, here is the PE's full quote from the stylebook: “In writing about a person whose family might face harassment or harm, consider a general neighborhood reference instead. If an exact address seems newsworthy because of a crime or other visible event, carefully consider the potential for harm before publishing it.”
The Times asked them. Quoting the PE:
"All of of the students in the piece agreed to the use of their names, and those who were photographed signed a release."
If self-proclaimed illegals give that kind of permission, they must not believe that they are "at risk".
mj: "the Dyson op-ed piece"
While I agree that the Times bungled the rewrite of the Dyson OpEd, I still can't see how any of that is relevant to the Times's continued online publication of the room numbers.
You can make a case for changes to the online version of Brown's article without ever mentioning Dyson's OpEd. And you seemed to do that when you invoked "Times policy" (it's actually called the "stylebook"), but you didn't read the quote from the stylebook carefully. The stylebook uses the word "might". You have to show that continued publication of the room numbers online "might" cause "harassment or harm". Can you do that?
For the record, here is the PE's full quote from the stylebook: “In writing about a person whose family might face harassment or harm, consider a general neighborhood reference instead. If an exact address seems newsworthy because of a crime or other visible event, carefully consider the potential for harm before publishing it.”
As a former journalist, you are absolutely putting these students at risk! "Security." Like someone couldn't wait outside building for them, or worse, plant bomb. Really amazed The Times wouldn't be sensitive to even the remotest possibility that this puts the students at risk. Shame on you.
40
the problem doesn't lie with the reporter, it lies with her editor.
20
It lies with both. The reporter should have consulted the editor about including a note that 'in the interests of protecting the personal safety of the subjects, some potentially identifying details have been omitted or slightly changed'. There is ample precedent for that. The editor, of course, needs to have the real information available to reassure him/herself that this is not another 'Jimmy's World'. But there is a woeful lack of common sense here in that the reporter put the details in and also that the editor didn't modify them.
14
Actually, both. Both are required to be acquainted with the stylebook and the Times' standards. But I agree the ultimate culpability is with the admittedly clueless Education Editor.
9
Historically, this is a societal issue, not a journalistic one. It is the responsibility of authorities to protect these people adequately. And to students, perhaps even alums, the room numbers could have relevance. The trend toward anonymity, all too much embraced by the Times, is however a journalism issue.
3
Not publishing the name of the dorm or their room number is nothing remotely like granting them anonymity.
Was Adam Liptak protecting the lives of those who told him they knew how Trump decided to nominate Gorsuch to the Supreme Court?
Was Amy Cozick protecting the safety of those who said Joe Biden was going to challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination to fulfill Beau Biden's dying wish? Get a grip, Mel.
Was Adam Liptak protecting the lives of those who told him they knew how Trump decided to nominate Gorsuch to the Supreme Court?
Was Amy Cozick protecting the safety of those who said Joe Biden was going to challenge Hillary for the Democratic nomination to fulfill Beau Biden's dying wish? Get a grip, Mel.
3
In the UC system there is no danger in being 'undocumented'. Now if they were Republicans....
6
The reporter now regrets having published the room numbers - something her editor couldn't figure out was risky as well before the story went to press.
If this isn't a spectacular example of a privileged class of people in action, I don't know what is. I have always suspected that The Times hires only people from a narrow, upper-class stratum; now I am sure of it.
If this isn't a spectacular example of a privileged class of people in action, I don't know what is. I have always suspected that The Times hires only people from a narrow, upper-class stratum; now I am sure of it.
28
Directing readers to know exact addresses sounds like teens in charge, exhibiting a lack of imagination, particularly of the range of reader emotions and opinions.
Editing a reporting in terms of making "a narrative compelling" sounds like a fiction writer rather than a responsible adult. It reflects mis-weighed reporting of any media on the election itself, as though attention-getting and fear of engendering boredom took priority over common sense.
Editing a reporting in terms of making "a narrative compelling" sounds like a fiction writer rather than a responsible adult. It reflects mis-weighed reporting of any media on the election itself, as though attention-getting and fear of engendering boredom took priority over common sense.
14
I think it's a great thing that the Times publishes pieces that are critical of its own reporting, but what I don't understand is why the original article has not been updated to redact the room numbers now that this risk has been identified. While various editors and the author have defended their original decision to include these details, isn't it negligent that they continue to be accessible in the online version, and doesn't it represent a risk to the Times itself were any harm to befall these, or any other students/staff/emergency services personnel/etc, as a result of this information continuing to be publicly available?
77
I agree it should be changed, but arguably the horse is out of the barn. Information, once set free, is like a feather pillow ripped open in a high wind.
1
"... what I don't understand is why the original article has not been updated to redact the room numbers ..."
The room numbers were also published in the print edition.
"... now that this risk has been identified."
The students could be moved to different rooms if there really is a "risk" that "has been identified". The only "risk" that I can identify is that patronizing liberals will "identify" a "risk" where there is none.
Someone should call the campus police for an authoritative assessment of the "risk".
The room numbers were also published in the print edition.
"... now that this risk has been identified."
The students could be moved to different rooms if there really is a "risk" that "has been identified". The only "risk" that I can identify is that patronizing liberals will "identify" a "risk" where there is none.
Someone should call the campus police for an authoritative assessment of the "risk".
2
fortunately, the usa is a sane, rational country with no history of bigotry or violence. that, coupled with stringent gun control laws that make it the hardest place of any western democracy to possess guns, makes it a certainty that those students aren't in danger. finally, the usa has the lowest homicide rate in the history of the world....both per capita and in real numbers.
51
Unfortunately, you neglected to mention that no apparently safe or well-guarded building has ever been the target of bigots or terrorists in the USA.
19
that's true dating back to at least the war of 1812 when the brits set fire to the white house. that famous foreigner from upstate new york--timothy mcveigh--had no luck in oklahoma.
1
"I gave the students the option of not using their full names (none of them took it) and did ask for their room numbers, even double-checking them with some.”
Is the writer implying that the students should have known that she would be printing their addresses because she asked for them and even double-checked them with some and, since they didn't object, they gave their permission? Is this "blaming the victim?" When will we get past this mindset?
Is the writer implying that the students should have known that she would be printing their addresses because she asked for them and even double-checked them with some and, since they didn't object, they gave their permission? Is this "blaming the victim?" When will we get past this mindset?
80
Ms. Spayd: Good theoretical point. In reality -- 99% of readers probably did not even notice the dorm room numbers. I did not.
The story is just another in a 20-year series in The Times that champions illegal immigration over legal immigration. One wonders when The Times will treat those who "liberate" newspapers from corner newspaper boxes, in the same sympathetic manner.
That is, "hiding in the shadows" is really a big freaking joke, when "the voiceless" picket outside every day, in front of the White House. In China and Russia, they're laughing their heads off, at The Times' abuse of the English language.
The story is just another in a 20-year series in The Times that champions illegal immigration over legal immigration. One wonders when The Times will treat those who "liberate" newspapers from corner newspaper boxes, in the same sympathetic manner.
That is, "hiding in the shadows" is really a big freaking joke, when "the voiceless" picket outside every day, in front of the White House. In China and Russia, they're laughing their heads off, at The Times' abuse of the English language.
Where were the NYT editors who were supposed to be checking this story? If the the author isn't smart enough to realize the position she put the students in, surely the editors were!? I am not a supporter of the new administration, but this sort of stupidity plays right into their hands when you're in such a hurry to make someone look bad that you put another at risk. Good job NYT, more ammunition for the mouth breathers to attack with.
53
The only danger they should face is from law enforcement as they are deported...
5
As usual, the money quote that precipitates the problem comes from failing to abide by the Times' own stylebook.
"Here’s the guidance from The New York Times stylebook: 'In writing about a person whose family might face harassment or harm, consider a general neighborhood reference instead. If an exact address seems newsworthy because of a crime or other visible event, carefully consider the potential for harm before publishing it.'”
It is not as clear cut as the rules regarding anonymous attribution of disclosure of potential conflicts by outside writers in the Times, but it represents failure to yield to the rules. I fail to see what appending dorm room numbers added to the story.
Is this yet another example of the way the Times is going to be "edited" in the Sulzburger-Baquet Brave New World? Ugh.
"Here’s the guidance from The New York Times stylebook: 'In writing about a person whose family might face harassment or harm, consider a general neighborhood reference instead. If an exact address seems newsworthy because of a crime or other visible event, carefully consider the potential for harm before publishing it.'”
It is not as clear cut as the rules regarding anonymous attribution of disclosure of potential conflicts by outside writers in the Times, but it represents failure to yield to the rules. I fail to see what appending dorm room numbers added to the story.
Is this yet another example of the way the Times is going to be "edited" in the Sulzburger-Baquet Brave New World? Ugh.
18
Jane Karr, an education editor at The Times, said she is comfortable with the decision to publish the dorm numbers and does not believe that they are putting the students in danger. “Having a room number did not give you more access to the students,” she said. “It’s a secure building.”
So if the building turns out not to be secure and something awful happens to these students, may be --- in the spirit of the President --- say the blood is on Jane Karr's hands?
So if the building turns out not to be secure and something awful happens to these students, may be --- in the spirit of the President --- say the blood is on Jane Karr's hands?
23
The reporter, along with the education editor and the associate managing standards editor should be fired. And the public editor was much too mild in discussing this story and associated issue. What is wrong with the Times!
33
Fired? Really?
Few things are as black-and-white as many commenters would like them to be. The Public Editor's article was about how people could potentially be at risk. Thankfully, no one has been endangered. So lesson learned and the Times will have a better reporter and editor as a result.
And people really need to just chill out a bit.
Few things are as black-and-white as many commenters would like them to be. The Public Editor's article was about how people could potentially be at risk. Thankfully, no one has been endangered. So lesson learned and the Times will have a better reporter and editor as a result.
And people really need to just chill out a bit.
1
Fenchurch, here's the argument pro. In the last week, the PE has taken up the opinion pages failing to ask "required" questions of outside writers to reveal possible conflicts of interest by an outside writer. She has taken up this very same failure to uphold standards for the second time in a mere nine weeks. "On tight deadline," the journalistic equivalent valent of the dig ate my homework.
Reporting the exact address, in this case, dorm name and the room numbers inside, is contrary to the Times'standards.
Under the section "politics" alone, there have been at minimum five stories in the past three days with very casual grants of anonymity to sources. The standard actually states "we grant anonymity as a last resort for stories we consider reliable, newsworthy, and that can be reported in no other way." Somehow, writing of Trump staffers sitting in darkened White House rooms because they can't find the lightswitches, saying they can't find doorknobs that lead to exits, and tales of Trump in his bathrobe upstairs alone by 6:30PM, and Steve Bannon walking the corridors deep, deep into the night somehow qualify.
Fenchurch, if the Associate Managing Editor for Standards has no, like zero, ability to ensure that those standards be enforced, why does he still have a job?
Reporting the exact address, in this case, dorm name and the room numbers inside, is contrary to the Times'standards.
Under the section "politics" alone, there have been at minimum five stories in the past three days with very casual grants of anonymity to sources. The standard actually states "we grant anonymity as a last resort for stories we consider reliable, newsworthy, and that can be reported in no other way." Somehow, writing of Trump staffers sitting in darkened White House rooms because they can't find the lightswitches, saying they can't find doorknobs that lead to exits, and tales of Trump in his bathrobe upstairs alone by 6:30PM, and Steve Bannon walking the corridors deep, deep into the night somehow qualify.
Fenchurch, if the Associate Managing Editor for Standards has no, like zero, ability to ensure that those standards be enforced, why does he still have a job?
5
“Having a room number did not give you more access to the students,” she said. “It’s a secure building.”
I'm sure that's what the brochures say. But it's not difficult, or even risky, for a non-resident to wait for a large group entering the building and simply tag along for the entry. Another well-known trick is to wait for someone leaving and get to the door slightly later than they do. And those are only two of the most blatantly obvious and time-honored ways to enter a "secure" building you're not authorized to be in. There are others.
What this school administrator said was foolish and irresponsible. Including the dorm room numbers was, likewise, an irresponsible thing for the Times to have done-- completely unnecessary, too. Not only for the readers' understanding of the story, but for their appreciation of it, as well. Those details added nothing at all to the narrative. There were no other non-identifying details the reporter could have gone with? None at all that would have been more interesting than numbers that mean nothing to anyone not looking for these students?
I'm sure that's what the brochures say. But it's not difficult, or even risky, for a non-resident to wait for a large group entering the building and simply tag along for the entry. Another well-known trick is to wait for someone leaving and get to the door slightly later than they do. And those are only two of the most blatantly obvious and time-honored ways to enter a "secure" building you're not authorized to be in. There are others.
What this school administrator said was foolish and irresponsible. Including the dorm room numbers was, likewise, an irresponsible thing for the Times to have done-- completely unnecessary, too. Not only for the readers' understanding of the story, but for their appreciation of it, as well. Those details added nothing at all to the narrative. There were no other non-identifying details the reporter could have gone with? None at all that would have been more interesting than numbers that mean nothing to anyone not looking for these students?
36
Should we adopt the Trump warning that "if anything bad happens, blame" the Times and its reporter? Why invite THAT?
9
Mr Corbett : can you not see the forest for the trees ? What a bone-headed defense for putting lives in danger.
33