Spotlight on the New York Times: Why No Coverage of the Child Victims Act?

By Nancy Levine
Linked In
June 2, 2016

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/spotlight-new-york-times-why-isnt-newspaper-covering-child-levine

I am curious about why The New York Times has not reported on developments related to the Child Victims Act in New York State. The proposed legislation, authored and long-championed by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey would eliminate civil and criminal statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse.

The New York Daily News has been reporting news related to the proposed legislation. Governor Andrew Cuomo announced he is backing the bill. The Catholic Church paid lobby firms $2 million to block the legislation. Supporters of the legislation are planning to march across the Brooklyn Bridge this Sunday, June 5.

The Times has published items related to the Child Victims Act in the past. Why isn't the newspaper following up on news related to its previously published 2014 opinion piece authored by the Editorial Board, and a 2009 story about the embattled legislation?

Given the spate of news items about sexual abuse, e.g., Sandusky, Cosby, Hastert, Baylor University, etc., why isn't news about the Child Victims Act the focus of a "coverage cluster" about sexual abuse, as part of The Times' new editorial strategy?

In related news, the Forward reported that child sexual abuse survivor Sara Kabakov is working with Assemblywoman Markey to help champion the Child Victims Act. Ms. Kabakov came forward publicly for the first time in her opinion piece in the Forward, identifying herself as the then-14-year old alleged victim of former rabbi Marc Gafni, as reported by The Times in December:

"Mr. Gafni was quoted saying they had been in love. He added, 'She was 14 going on 35, and I never forced her.'"

And:

"A co-founder of Whole Foods, John Mackey, a proponent of conscious capitalism, calls Mr. Gafni 'a bold visionary.' He is a chairman of the executive board of Mr. Gafni’s center, and he hosts board meetings at his Texas ranch."

As it happens, The Times' Publisher and Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger's wife Gabrielle Greene Sulzberger sits on the Whole Foods Market board of directors. According to 7/20/15 proxy statement, Mrs. Sulzberger’s 2014 Whole Foods Market annual cash compensation was $422,049. According to 6/18/15 SEC reporting, Mrs. Sulzberger held 64,666 shares of WFM stock.

Presumably there is no causal relationship between The Times' absence of reporting on the Child Victims Act and the Sulzberger family financial interests in Whole Foods Market. But to assuage any remote concern about potential conflict of interest, especially given Ms. Kabakov's involvement with Assemblywoman Markey to champion the legislation, wouldn't The Times want to pay extra attention to reporting on the Child Victims Act?

The Times also did not cover recent protests at Whole Foods in New York and at the the supermarket company's widely heralded first 365 store launch in Los Angeles. Matthew Sandusky, adopted son of convicted Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky, and founder of Peaceful Hearts Foundation, joined protesters in Manhattan, decrying Whole Foods' silence about its CEO's relationship with Mr. Gafni. The Washington Post reported: "Protesters’ problem with new Whole Foods concept: An ex-rabbi’s alleged sex scandal."

On May 22, I emailed The Times executive editor Dean Baquet and asked him why the newspaper was not covering news related to the Child Victims Act, making this mention:

"I am not saying there is a causal relationship between The Times absence of reporting on the Child Victims Act and the Sulzberger family financial interests in Whole Foods Market. But to assuage any remote concern about conflict of interest, I would like to invite The Times to closely consider what it deems newsworthy."

Mr. Baquet responded:

"Only someone quite paranoid would see such a connection," and thanked me for calling this to his attention. As of this writing, The Times has not reported on news of the Child Victims Act.

Survivors of child sexual abuse are painfully familiar with Mr. Baquet's response. Rule No. 1 in the Gaslighter's Playbook: Respond to survivor's concern with "you're paranoid." Survivors of child sexual abuse have every good reason to be paranoid. Did you see the movie Spotlight and the systemic coverup of child sexual abuse by the Catholic Church?

In the film, then-Boston Globe editor Marty Baron, portrayed by Liev Schreiber, was the driving force behind the Spotlight team's investigation of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. As it happens, Mr. Baron is now executive editor of The Washington Post -- the only secular media outlet to cover the protests at Whole Foods. Mr. Baron is still shining the spotlight on the topic of child sexual abuse. Mr. Baquet's response indicates he is still in the dark on this topic.

The Times wasn't shy about covering Whole Foods' new 365 store launch. Neither was any other media outlet. Bloomberg reported:

"At a recent party to celebrate 365 in New York, guests included Whole Foods co-founder John Mackey, who is also co-chief executive officer, and New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. They chatted with celebrity chef David Chang over Fuku sliders and noshed on vegan chocolate cookies from By Chloe with Samantha Wasser, one of the founders of the trendy vegan eatery in the West Village."

Fortunately, the culture of silence surrounding child sexual abuse is slowly shifting. When a survivor voices a concern, and is met with "you're paranoid," he or she can now turn to a growing community of other survivors, supporters, and advocates for a reality check.

In this case, I asked professors of journalism for a reality check on The Times' reporting.

David S. Allen, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee emailed:

"I would argue the [Times] needs to be open and transparent about connections. If there was no conflict of interest, it should tell people why and what it is doing to make sure corporate connections do not interfere with news coverage."

Sandra Davidson, Professor, Curators' Teaching Professor, Missouri School of Journalism, University of Missouri, Adjunct Professor, School of Law emailed:

"How about full disclosure--transparency? Then let the readers decide how to weigh the various factors in formulating their opinions."

I'll let readers decide.

UPDATE: I emailed this blog post to Mr. Baquet. Our dialogue ensued:

DB: Dear Nancy, Can I be frank? I get tons of reader notes, and I try to respond. But I can't quite keep up with your various agendas. And I can't edit The Times for you personally. So forgive me if I don't actually check out every note you send. It is starting to feel just a tad like you are on a crusade. Best, Dean

NL: Thank you, Dean, I appreciate your candor and your response. I can assure you my only agendas are social justice and excellence in journalism, so we're on the same side. Best, Nancy

DB: Yes, but I think you're [sic] definition of excellence in journalism is coverage of issues you want covered as an advocate of particular causes. Mine is a little bit broader. My only point is forgive me if I don't respond to everything. Best, Dean