Playing the Press
A curious story: The
New York Sun reports that Columbia University brokered an arrangement with the
New York Times by which the
Times would receive an advance copy of its report regarding allegations of professorial anti-Semitism. The
Times received the report a day before it was made otherwise public on the condition that it not seek comment from any interested parties.
That, of course, would have made it very difficult for the
Times to write about the report early. So the paper asked the university's permission to call one professor named, unfavorably, in the report, for comment; Columbia granted the exception, the
Times made the call, and published its early story, which was given major play in the paper and was generally considered good for Columbia.
Is there anything wrong here? Well, yes and no. These sorts of deals happen all the time, of course. The advantage for the
Times is obvious. The advantage for Columbia: Well, the exclusive quid pro quo will generally guarantee the story greater prominence and, possibly, a favorable spin for Columbia. And then other papers will follow the
Times' lead....
What jars is the idea of a university engaging in such media manipulation. We don't like to think of such
realpolitik existing in a place of such idealism. But of course it does, and perhaps it's time to readjust our sense of how universities function. Harvard, Columbia, Yale, whichever—these are powerful institutions with huge amounts of money and prestige at stake.
But on the other hand, haven't we lost something when we concede that our finest universities labor to manipulate the press just as Microsoft or the United States government would?
