Skip to main content

What "not a target" means in the New York Times, and why self-serving statements (like that issued by FCR re Ridge Hill) should be checked

Well, I sent my post critiquing the New York Times's coverage of the Ridge Hill indictments (in which developer Forest City Ratner was cited but not indicted) and got the following response back from Senior Editor/Standards Greg Brock:
I had two editors go over your note and I agree with them that no correction or Editors' Note is warranted on any of these points. You might want to consider writing a Letter to the Editor about your thoughts on our journalistic efforts and how we could have improved this article. But there were no errors here and no violation of any ethics/standards policy that would merit an Editor's Note.
First, consider the implicit sneer (and not the first one) in Brock's invitation to me to write a letter with my "thoughts" on the Times. The newspaper has never printed a letter from me and has very little space for letters.

And my analysis does not consist of random "thoughts;" rather, it's backed up by clear evidence. We just read the evidence differently.

"Referred imprecisely"

Moreover, Brock--perhaps because I didn't raise the point--ignored that the Times regularly uses the phrase "referred imprecisely," as it has in several corrections, which, if not absolute errors, try to clear things up for the reader.

Brock in October 2007 told an interviewer:
I don’t know if you read our corrections much, but we often say we referred “imprecisely” to something, which means that we weren’t 100 percent wrong.

Misleading readers

So I will contact the Public Editor because, however much Brock and his colleagues circle the wagons, the Times's performance misled readers--and the bottom line is serving the reader.

And there can be serious consequences. As noted below, sometimes after a subject claims he's "not a target" of an investigation he gets indicted and convicted.

(I ran my arguments by several journalistic friends, who were divided; one said my complaints were completely valid but the Times was not required to publish a correction or Editor's Note; still, he said, the Times should publish my letter and/or the Public Editor should respond.)

The clearest error

As I wrote, it was misleading shorthand to claim that two of those indicted "are accused of bilking two developers," one of them Forest City Ratner.

In neither case is alleged fraud--the common definition of "bilk," as used regularly in the Times (as noted by Michael D.D. White in his Noticing New York blog).

I pointed the Times to the official indictment, which tells a story that suggests that Forest City Ratner cooperated in the scheme rather than got "bilked."

Given the very minor errors the Times regularly corrects, this strikes me as a clear error worthy of correction. At minimum, it it "referred imprecisely" when using the term "bilked."

Judgment call #1: disclosure

In a 5/5/08 article on the Ridge Hill investigation, the Times offered a disclosure: that Forest City Ratner "partnered with The New York Times to build its new headquarters." In this most recent article there was no such disclosure, though the articles are of similar import.

In June 2005, then Public Editor Byron Calame wrote, in regard to an interview with Bruce Ratner:
The New York Times, I believe, has an obligation to alert readers when they are reading substantive articles about a company or individual with whom the newspaper has some business or professional relationship.
The latest article surely meets that standard. But the Times has been so inconsistent that the editors can defensibly say that no policy was violated. But the current Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, should chastise the newspaper.

Judgment call #2: "not a target"

While it was certainly appropriate for the Times to quote Forest City's response about it not being a target of the investigation, the Times did not try to confirm that claim with the U.S. attorney's office Forest City's claim. In fact, when I contacted the U.S. attorney's office the day the news broke, a representative would neither confirm the claim nor offer any comment.

That seemed to me to be a violation of journalistic standards and worthy of a note. However, a search of past Times coverage shows that the newspaper has been remarkably inconsistent; in several cases, it has taken the word of sources regarding their status as a "target," but in other cases it has checked.

And, as shown below, it's better to check, because such statements can be misleadingly self-serving. After all, there's a difference between a self-serving statement and one confirmed by prosecutors, because prosecutors do at times confirm such statements.

Prosecutorial confirmation

Sometimes prosecutors, not subjects, make "not a target" official.

For example, in a 6/25/09 blog post headlined Justice Dept. Letter: Harman Is Not a Target of Criminal Inquiry. the Times reported:
In a letter made public Thursday by [Rep Jane] Harman’s office, a top Justice Department official told Ms. Harman’s lawyer that the California lawmaker “is neither the subject nor a target of an ongoing investigation by the Criminal Division.”
In a 6/13/89 article headlined JUSTICE DEPT. SAYS GRAY NOT A TARGET, the Times reported:
The Justice Department said today that Representative William H. Gray 3d, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was not the target of a criminal investigation.
Taking the subject's word

In several cases, the Times has taken a subject's word on the matter and didn't confirm with prosecutors.

In a 12/11/08 article headlined Officials Say Jackson Was ‘Candidate 5’ in Blagojevich Case , the Times quoted Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.:
Mr. Jackson said he had spoken with federal prosecutors on Tuesday and was assured that he was not a target of the inquiry or accused of misconduct.
In a 11/18/93 article headlined 2 Brooklyn Democrats Indicted in Judicial Corruption Case, the Times reported:
A lawyer for Branford Communications, Richard Guay, said that its principal, Ernest Lendler, "never knew of any such arrangement, and he never would have been involved in one." Mr. Guay added, "He has been told that he is not a target of this investigation."
In a 10/22/92 article headlined Ex-I.R.S. Agent Is Indicted On Affidavit, the Times reported:
But Mr. McGuire said yesterday that prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section had told him he was not a subject of any investigation.
Some checking

In a 5/15/07 article headlined Swiss Investigating BAE in Money Laundering Case, the Times followed up with an Editor's Note that both reported a subject's claim and checked with prosecutors:
[The article] noted a report in The Guardian, a British daily, that said Swiss investigators could examine accounts held by Wafic Said, a Syrian financier who helped broker a $79 billion arms contract between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia two decades ago. Mr. Said could not be reached by The Times before the article was published.

After the article was published, Mr. Said received a letter from the Swiss authorities that stated he was not now a target of the investigation, that his accounts were not being examined and that he was not considered a witness in the case. His lawyer provided a copy of the letter, dated May 16, to The Times. Swiss prosecutors declined to comment on the letter or on the case in general.
Interestingly, the Times acknowledged it should have made a greater effort to obtain a response from Said. But it didn't take him at his word, either.

In a 10/13/99 article headlined Bank of New York Executive Resigns in Laundering Inquiry, the Times reported:
Mr. Arkin said Ms. Kagalovsky is not a target of the Federal investigation and is not formally cooperating with it, but said she is prepared to answer any questions posed to her. ''We have nothing to hide,'' he said.

...The United States Attorney's Office in Manhattan and the Federal Bureau of Investigation declined to comment on Ms. Kagalovsky's resignation. The bank has not been charged with wrongdoing and has been cooperating with the inquiry.
Why it matters

Why is it important to check? Because sometimes self-serving statements turn out to be misleading.

In a 6/3/93 article headlined EX-OFFICIAL ADMITS FRAUD IN MISSOURI, the Times reported:
William Webster, the former state attorney general who lent his name to a major Supreme Court abortion ruling, pleaded guilty today to Federal charges of conspiracy and misapplication of public funds.

...Throughout the gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Webster insisted to reporters and to the public that he was not a target of the Federal inquiry. Prosecutors disclosed in court today that Mr. Webster had been informed in November 1991 that he was being investigated.
More recently, the Times reported, in a 12/20/06 article headlined Bruno Is Subject of Inquiry by F.B.I., the Times reported:
The New York Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, one of the three men who effectively control state government, said Tuesday evening that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking into his business interests.
...
He said he was told that he was not a target of the investigation.

Mr. Bruno said he did not believe that the inquiry would affect his ability to serve as majority leader.

“I am guilty of nothing, so why would it impact my ability to do anything?” he said.

The F.B.I. refused to confirm or deny any investigation.
Well, we know how that turned out: on 12/7/09, Bruno, now out of office, was convicted on two federal felony counts.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.