A few weeks ago (Oct 16), the increasingly irrelevant and soon-to-be-an-afterthought like the rest of the dead-tree press New York Times published yet another c
ontroversial Japan article by the unflappable Martin Fackler.On first read, without even looking into the data Fackler and the Times provided, it smelt of overkill and predictably included required specialized Japan story jargon such as "Godzilla." It has been analyzed and criticized quite a bit* by folk who know a hell of a lot more about that floating world known as economics than I.
But those critics are most likely clueless. After all, the NYT has fact checkers who would not allow inaccurate and/or overwrought nonsense through in anything other than an editorial.
In answer to these whining nitpickers who "object to exaggeration" especially in the publication that they believe to be "the last bastion of reliable journalism" (giggle-giggle Fackler's NYT?) , the Public Editor(s) published a response. Apparently, the biggest problem was the use of the word Godzilla, and calling Japan an "afterthought." Other than that it was all hunky-dory, I guess.**
The Regional Editor for East Asia, Kyle Crichton (no known relation to the Japan expert
Michael Crichton***), agrees that Japan is an "afterthought" because the "Japanese economy is no longer a source of anxiety in Washington or anywhere else." Compare that to the 80s when Godzilla was buying up the US and you will understand like Kyle does.
Hmmm. Regional Editor for East Asia. (Note to self: Disregard all NYT reports from East Asia.)
Another Public Editor for the Times,
Arthur S. Brisbane, acknowledged the problem Fackler faced of how to "bring alive" Japan's economic decline for a "wide audience." Since Martin was for some unknown reason unable to include homeless ninja in the article to bring it alive for the masses, he was left with Godzilla and selected interviews with ordinary people. The story was a tremendous success according to Art, for it was a page one story in the paper version and reached the top of the most e-mailed list. Wonderful!!!! Congatulations!!!! That is certainly more important than accuracy when one talks about success for the New York Times!!!! Whooo Hooooo! You go Gray Lady!!!
I feel for these guys. I remember the good old days, just 12 or so years ago when newspapers did not have to take time out to respond to riffraff. Back in those days, they never had to admit any weaknesses at all, except for an incorrect address or misspelled name. A simple "We stand by our story" was all that was required, no matter how obviously flawed, absurd, or insane.
Oh, the name of the article?
Carrying the Facts too Far. What does that mean I wonder? How can you carry facts too far if they are facts? Is that sort of like exaggeration? And isn't an exaggeration sorta like inaccurate or even untrue to some degree? No problem, it is a Japan story after all.
*A check of NBR's Japan Forum (link in Japan Links) will give a taste.**So as not be accused of carrying the facts too far, I have to say that they were responding to a reader who complained about the use of those terms and who had expected "at least a passing resemblance to the truth."
***Sorry, that was uncalled for. A cheap shot. Very childish of me.
1055PM: Edited
Most folks around these parts go out of their way to avoid trouble, such as some idiot hanging around in back alleys in the rain taking pictures.
