In Sunday's New York Times, the always fun to parse Corrections section has an editor's note that's arresting in its opacity, given the glaring conflict of interest it acknowledges, as well as the carelessness that seems to have led to the piece in question making its way into the Times' pages:
A question-and-answer interview on March 2 in Arts & Leisure with the director and a cast member of the Classic Stage Company's production of "The Seagull" was conducted by Rosemarie Tichler, a freelance writer who is on the board of directors of Classic Stage. She disclosed this fact in a note to the assigning editor, but it was overlooked in the editing process. Had The Times noticed her affiliation, it would have sought another interviewer for the article.
Her board membership, or possibly the note itself, was "overlooked"? "Had The Times noticed her affiliation"?
Whoops.
I'm not totally unsympathetic; we all know what it's like to be overwhelmed by the incessant deluge of e-mail and the demand that we be constantly in touch. But come on. Paying attention to all notes from anyone you're about to assign or publish is part of the editing process.
After all, you never know. They might say, "BTW, that story I pitched? Hope it's not a problem that I'm on the board of the theater!"
Leave a comment