Editorial Omerta

In February 2005, Matt Taibbi, then a columnist for New York Press, wrote a column listing the various reasons that the impending death of Pope John Paul II would be funny. While few found the piece humorous, editor Jeff Koyen thought it worked and ran the piece as a cover story.

Not unexpectedly, both Taibbi and Koyen were immediately eviscerated from all sides, both by other newspaper columnists as well as local politicians. Eventually, even the paper's executives slammed the article, despite the fact that then-publisher, Chris Rohland, had reviewed it before it went to press.

"[The critics] were so hyperbolic in their condemnations that, in my opinion, the paper had little choice but stand tall in defiance," said Koyen, who is currently traveling in Southeast Asia. "To apologize—or even hope the controversy would disappear—would be selling out not only our columnist, but also other newspapers. I could not let New York Press be the meat on their election-year barbecues."

Koyen subsequently quit over the incident, but it's notable that, in all the flak he took, he never once apologized for Taibbi and continued to stand by the piece.

"If you edit an article—or someone who answers to you edits an article—then you have little choice but stand behind the writer," Koyen said. "This means all writers, of course, but especially if they're staff and/or regular contributors. It's not unlike any other managerial position: You are responsible for your employees. They, in turn, are responsible for you. Mutual protection. If it comes to light that there are glaring errors or offensive content or what have you, an editor has little moral choice but to accept responsibility. What you then do to your writer (or subordinate editor) behind closed doors is another story."

PROTECT THE FAMILY
It's not the classic editorial case study, but Koyen is certainly a manager who stuck by his writer. Call it the editorial Omerta—the code that required editors to support their writers and editorial staffers in times of crisis. If the staff is taking heat from readers and bloggers, from publicists, or even from the higher-ups at the company, most editors feel they need to circle the wagons, even if it means putting themselves at peril.

"A magazine is a small company and any small company is a family, even if it's a dysfunctional one," says former Men's Journal editor Michael Caruso. "And, as the Godfather taught us, you never take sides against the family. So you should always be on the side of your staff in public or with higher-ups. Later, of course, if you have reservations or more gray-area concerns, you can close the door and have a heart-to-heart with the person in question but it's important that they know your instinctive response is to be fully supportive."

Jane's recently-installed editor-in-chief, Brandon Holley, agrees, saying that it's vital her staff trust her in order to perform at their best.

"It's important that a staff feel protected and safe," says Holley. "If there is an issue between a reader, publicist, or corporate boss-type and one of my staff, I always call my staffer in and hear his or her side first. Usually the staff member has made the right decision and I stand by them."

But where should this support end?

Mike Ventura, the editor of free NYC daily Metro quotes a former editor who said that to be a good editor, you have to have "loyalty up and loyalty down," but that his support for staffers, even on tough stories, is not blind.

"I doubt many editors would go to bat for reporters who are sloppy or for a story that wasn't solid," says Ventura.

Jeffrey Sieglin, a syndicated ethics columnist for The New York Times and an associate professor at Emerson College, also says there are limits to an editor's support.

"If there's some sort of 'editorial screwup,' then it strikes me that the right thing to do would be to examine what happened that led to the screwup," says Sieglin. "If it was due to sloppiness or negligence on the part of an employee, then a responsible editor should address that situation with the employee. If it was caused because of some sort of failure of process, then a responsible editor looks to correct the process. In all of this, the editor has a responsibility to both his readers and his employees and he or she should do what it takes to find a way to address the needs of both of these constituents."

THE JAYSON BLAIR EFFECT
Slate columnist and New York University professor Adam L. Penenberg says the contemporary journalism scandals have changed the protective nature of editors. "Before an editor will stand by a reporter, he is going to perform due diligence. If, say, a reporter uses an anonymous source, the editor is not going to take the reporter's word anymore, he's going to demand to know the identity. I think in the past editors had a reflexive need to show loyalty. Nowadays, because of Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, editors have a much more skeptical attitude."

Or do they? The Judith Miller melee serves as a measurement of what The New York Times learned from its own past mistakes in preserving the editorial omerta. Will editors continue to want to take those risks?

Like many editors, Holley says she calibrates her support on a case-by-case basis, but addresses the issue.

"There have been numerous cases when a publicist has botched something and has called me to blame a staffer," says Holley. "This never works, and it always has made the publicist look bad. There have been times when a staffer has made several drastic mistakes in a row, and then it is my job to address that person, fix the situation, and do whatever it takes to ameliorate the problem."

In the end, Caruso says, the key is that an editor needs to have a good memory.

"Some editors seem to completely forget what it was like to be an editorial assistant or a senior editor," says Caruso. "The best ones are those who remember well and empathize."

David S. Hirschman is the news editor of mediabistro.com and a freelance writer.