David Halberstam was unquestionably a great journalist. The Best and the Brightest was a hugely important book in establishing a new mode of serious, writerly investigation. His coverage of Vietnam for the Times in the 60s (inspired by Graham Greene) helped turn liberal leaders against the war. Yet today The Times ran Halberstam’s obit on page C13, and it wasn’t very long. Even more insulting, it was a slow news day. Halberstam was elbowed off his rightful spot, the bottom of the front page, by two trend stories and the news from Bhutan. What a dis.
A couple reasons for the treatment may be excusable (the story broke late, Yeltsin was already a front-page obit), but a couple aren’t. Halberstam left the Times in the late ’60s, and as Clyde Haberman observed today in the obit, not on amicable terms. A few new journalists left the Times to make their names elsewhere, and the old gray elephant doesn’t forget. Second, Halberstam’s status diminished as he did sports books in recent years, and the Times was letting us know that, in its quiet way.
Related posts:
- This Time the Best and the Brightest Just Get Promoted (Bill Kristol Roosts at the Times)
- Michael Oren disses oral history of Nakba–but he did plenty himself in his own work
- Bias at Work: ‘Times’ Fronts Wrenching Foto of Dragged White Colonist While Israeli and English Press Focus on ‘Pogroms’ Against Palestinians
- Two ‘Times’ Employees ‘Loved and Cared Deeply About’ Darwish’s Work. Neither Was Assigned His Obit
- The LA Times Gives Bestselling Walt and Mearsheimer a Forum
{ 2 comments }
"The old gray elephant doesn't forget." I am trying to think of anyone still in power at the Times who was even there when Halberstam was. Abe Rosenthal had a long memory but now he is just a memory. Keller, Abramson, Geddes, Rick Berke, Jon Landman. They were all babies when Halberstam left the Times. I can't imagine them even thinking about his parting from the paper.
Halberstam was hardly a harsh critic of the Times in recent years. He was certainly not seen as a prominent critic. I think the explanation for the lack of prominence of the obit as you see it is more about forgetting than remembering. Had the Times editors remembered Halberstam better, they would have covered the run up to the Iraq War quite differently.
In your outsized thinking about the NYT, try not to forget that each day's paper is a product of a multitude of decisions made by lots of people trying to get home in time for dinner.
Anonymous, you're smart, and sounds like you know what yu're talking about more than I do. But do you think the Halberstam obit wasn't sharply underplayed?
Comments on this entry are closed.