February 3, 2005
The NY Times calls (finally)
The NY Times' credibility took a big hit among Providence Athenaeum members with the publication of an inexcusably misconceived article on the Audubon controversy a bit over a year ago. The damage was only magnified by the Times' subsequent response.
So it was a surprise to receive a phone call early yesterday afternoon from Alison Cowan, the author of the article. Even more of a surprise were the questions she asked: Was I (still) an Athenaeum member? Did I know about the incoming director, and how long the search had taken? Did I know about the interim director, and if there had been more than one? She explained that she was following up to find out what had happened at the Athenaeum since she was last in town. I responded politely but without saying much, finally recommending that she take a look at what I had written at cronaca.com. She asked me to spell it, which I did.
If it had been clear from her article that she had never read any of my posts beforehand (even though they were reprinted and linked from the Athenaeum's own website), it was now clear that she had never read any of my posts after, either. And, by extension, that she had never bothered doing any Googling, then or now (try searching any combination of "Providence Athenaeum", "Audubon", "controversy", and my name, or her name for that matter, and you'll see what I mean). Equally apparent was that my letters to the editor (not answered or acknowledged) and the Public Editor (answered, dismissively, by Cowan's editor, Nora Kerr) had never crossed her desk.
So why did she call? Since she reached me at an unlisted number, she must have been using the contact information provided to her (with my permission) nearly a year and a half ago by the Athenaeum board. At the time, she didn't want to hear from members who supported the institution, so no calls were forthcoming. But now that the coup attempt is for all intents dead, the phones are finally ringing.
Funny, but many aren't that interested in talking.
Posted by David on February 3, 2005 1:31 PM
Strange.
One would almost think that this reporter wants stuff that will attract attention more than he/she wants to report news accurately.
We haven't seen that attitude before, eh?
Posted by: steve h on February 4, 2005 2:11 PM