Providence Athenaeum vindicated

Our long-suffering readers know that we have had a particular interest in the travails of the Providence Athenaeum (details here and here) -- a nonprofit library whose origins go back over 250 years.

The recent attempt by a handful of eccentric but well-financed Old Providence types to take the institution private, against the wishes of virtually all its members, now appears to be over. In a ruling released on Friday, Judge Michael Silverstein decided against the would-be takeover artists on all counts (decision here). In some respects this is no surprise, but this nonetheless lifts a cloud that has shadowed the institution for the better part of a year, driving board members to distraction and its former director to a more peaceable haven in Toronto.

Not much in the press so far; the Providence Journal only posted an article late today. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no comment so far from the plaintiffs (who themselves declined to testify at the trial) or their lawyers. I wonder if the NY Times will do any sort of followup on their horrendously misconceived article from mid-December. Somehow I doubt it, given the Times' response to my letters: first, none at all; then, after writing directly to Daniel Okrent (appointed Public Editor in response to other problems the Times was having with keeping its stories factual), an absurdly dismissive letter from Nora Kerr, the assistant editor who had originally approved the article. Apparently the Public Editor just forwards complaints to those about whom the writer is complaining -- very useful, no? In this case Kerr stood by her reporter, albeit with a defense so unconvincing and oblique that one wonders if she really ever intended anyone to read it.

OK, for those who really want to read everything about this mess, here's the full text of the letter from the Times:

February 2, 2004

Mr. David Nishimura
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Providence, RI 02940

Dear Mr. Nishimura:

The Public Editor has forwarded your email about the Dec. 15 article on the Providence Athenauem and the controversy over the proposed sale of the Audubon folio. As the editor who handled it, I don't agree with your harsh characterization of the article's accuracy or the abilities of the reporter, Alison Cowan, as detailed in the website link you provided. [link here]

The article makes clear that the opponents of the sale constituted a relatively small group. The departing director of the Athenaeum is quoted to this effect in the fifth paragraph:

>>> On Dec. 8 the library announced that its executive director, Jonathan Bengtson, had given notice just two years after taking over. His letter of resignation, dated Nov. 23, cites the "lingering elitism among a small, but active, group of individuals" as a factor behind his decision to accept a new job in Toronto come February <<<

And later, the board president is quoted on the same point:

>>> Ms. Kertzer, the board president, said the people who disagree made up a "small but vocal minority" of the Athenaeum's 1,000 dues-paying members. <<<

Two paragraphs later, the number of actual plaintiffs is given:

>>> In August critics of the sale, calling themselved the Save the Athenaeum Association, sued to block the sale, which had been scheduled for fall, attracting 58 plaintiffs at last count <<<

Sincerely
(signed)
Nora Kerr
Assistant Editor
The Arts

This is, of course, a classic example of pulling passages out of context to support a predetermined argument. But what is interesting is that Kerr's letter completely ignores the most serious misstatements and violations of journalistic ethics. For a full list, see the line-by-line analysis; for now, I'll just single out the following:

(1) Misrepresenting the battle lines as being between the board and the membership, instead of between a handful of malcontents and everyone else: "Now the birds are at the center of a raucous battle between the people who run the library and the people who use it."

(2) Stating as fact that the plaintiffs had offered $2.5M if the Audubon sale were to be canceled -- an offer for which there seems to be no evidence beyond the statement of one of the more tangentially-involved plaintiffs.

(3) Failing to quote or even, apparently, to interview any Athenaeum members other than the tiny minority belonging to the dissident faction, even though several names had been provided to the reporter by the director and board.

ADDENDUM: Kerr's three-point defense completely misses the target, despite taking aim at just one complaint out of many. As noted above, the article led off with a bold statement in the authorial voice that the dispute was between "the people who run the library and the people who use it". This was hardly balanced out by the two statements Kerr cites, which appear much later in the article and in the form of carefully-unendorsed quotes. What is the reader going to believe? The proposition stated as objective fact in the lead, or contrary statements by parties involved in the dispute, presented alongside a highly sympathetic portrayal of their opponents? Finally, Kerr's third citation, concerning the number of plaintiffs, is a complete red herring: at issue was the number and identity of the dissidents -- not how many of them signed on to the lawsuit.

Posted by David on August 16, 2004 10:15 PM