Mischief on the Metro Desk
The qa qaa at The New York Times gets deeper and deeper. Greenwich Time reporter Louis Porter (who is also covering the Connecticut angles of the ongoing intelligence “reform” bill debate) today breaks the story of the personal, profound and undisclosed conflict of interest between a reporter on the Metropolitan desk of the Times and the subject of her “reportage,” Dannel Malloy, the current Mayor of Stamford.
First, the backstory: Stamford is Connecticut’s 4th largest city. Dannel (not Daniel) Malloy has been its Mayor since 1995. Generally regarded as a successful steward of Stamford’s fortunes, Democrat Malloy now has his gaze fixed firmly on the Connecticut governor’s mansion. The disgraceful exit of John Rowland and the indictment of many members of his (nominally) Republican administration would appear to have opened the door wide for the Democrat nominee.
However, as this Associated Press story points out, the road to Hartford is a crowded one. Malloy is vying with New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, and potentially other significant political figures for the nomination. Imagine Malloy’s consternation, then, when local newspapers began to connect his name to charges of corruption in the awarding of no-bid municipal construction contracts. That story is beyond the scope of this post; suffice it to say that the charges are potentially serious (particularly in Connecticut’s currently corruption-soaked climate) and certainly worthy of investigation. Malloy has denied any wrongdoing.
The headquarters of The New York Times is about 38 miles from Stamford’s City Hall (technically called the “Government Center”, but “you can’t fight the government center” doesn’t exactly trip off the tongue). The Malloy construction contract story is thus squarely within the jurisdiction of the Times’ metropolitan desk, and when the story broke the Times assigned a Metro beat reporter to cover it. And that is where our story (or, more accurately, Louis Porter’s story) begins:
“The New York Times reporter covering a state investigation into the administration of Mayor Dannel Malloy once lobbied the mayor unsuccessfully to stop a development in her neighborhood.”
Note the word “unsuccessfully.” Note further what Cowan and her confreres did after their failed bid at “lobbying” Malloy:
“Staff reporter Alison Leigh Cowan also is a member of a homeowners’ association that filed a lawsuit against the city in 2002 in a contentious zoning dispute over the development.”
Wne it suited her purposes, Cowan was apparently happy to trade on her professional affiliation, as she “pointedly identified herself as a New York Times reporter” at a 2001 meeting in Malloy’s office. The Greenwich Time story portrays Cowan as a passionate pursuer of her position, taking her battle not only to Malloy personally and then to the courts, but also to the editorial board of the Stamford Advocate (Stamford’s daily newspaper and a sister publication of the Greenwich Time). She even went so far as to send “a postcard to The Advocate’s editor and publisher citing the paper’s ‘disinclination to cover certain topics important to the public interest.’ Curiously, Cowan signed the card “with her married name.”
Notwithstanding Cowan’s clear animus against Malloy (remember, she met with Malloy personally about the proposed development), it is Cowan who has been moving the putative Malloy “corruption” scandal for the Times (see stories here, here and here, for instance). When confronted with this issue by Porter, the Times evinced its utter and absolute failure to learn anything from Rathergate, and instead went into full denial mode:
“A New York Times spokeswoman said yesterday the newspaper has no problem with Cowan’s coverage of the mayor and city government.”
Much more interesting than the predictable denial, however, was the following quote from the Times’ spokeswoman:
“Ms. Cowan says her editors were informed, and we have no reason to doubt that,” Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis wrote.
“We have no reason to doubt that”? Uh, excuse me, but did the Times ASK COWAN’S EDITORS whether Cowan had disclosed her prior personal “lobbying” of Malloy? Her public statements? Her party status in an ongoing litigation? Her “postcard” to the Stamford Advocate? And, in light of all that, did those editors make the decision to keep Cowan as the “paper of record’s” lead reporter on a potentially career-ending (for Malloy) story?
If you ask me, spokeswoman Mathis’ “we have no reason to doubt that” is an artfully phrased response that gives “the editors” plausible deniability while subtly shifting blame back to Cowan. After all, the opportunity to blame a rogue reporter for not fully disclosing the depth of her conflict of interest must be infinitely more appetizing to the Times then admitting that “the editors” were aware of this mess and either did nothing or (even worse) approved Cowan’s continued participation in the story.
And make no mistake, this is a mess. Porter’s article ends with this quote from Professor Frank Harris III, chair of the journalism department at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, who told Porter that reporters should not cover organizations in which they have an interest.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to say the paper should probably have someone else cover it,” Harris said.
Welcome to Benedict's Blog. My name is Josh Benedict. I am the proprietor of this site. And no, that’s not me in the picture. Blogging about contemporary culture, including politics, religion, and entertainment.
Way cool, some great points! I appreciate you making this article available, the rest of the site is also high quality. Have a good.