The New York Times ran an explosive investigative story yesterday. Here are the first four paragraphs:
Inside the Financial Times newsroom this winter, one of its star investigative reporters, Madison Marriage, had a potentially explosive scoop involving another newspaper.
A prominent left-wing columnist, Nick Cohen, had resigned from Guardian News & Media, and Ms. Marriage had evidence that his departure followed years of unwanted sexual advances and groping of female journalists.
Ms. Marriage specialized in such investigations. She won an award for exposing a handsy black-tie event for Britain’s business elite. A technology mogul got indicted on rape charges after another article.
But her investigation on Mr. Cohen, which she hoped would begin a broader look at sexual misconduct in the British news media, was never published. The Financial Times’ editor, Roula Khalaf, killed it, according to interviews with a dozen Financial Times journalists.
Reporter Jane Bradley interviewed more than 35 journalists to write the story. She has worked in British journalism for 15 years. I worked in it for only a couple two before moving to America and can tell you, the reporting rings true. It has big implications for Ms. Khalaf, the editor, and the British media.
There is political and class nuance to the story. The Financial Times is a well-respected and prestigious publication. It is of the center right establishment. Many of its writers studied at elite institutions like Oxford University. Many of its readers are policymakers, academics, and businesspeople. The Guardian, meanwhile, is more often associated with a left-leaning, liberal, middle-class audience. That the FT pulled its reporting on a rival newspaper is notable for several reasons. Not least because to report on The Guardian in such terms would be to cut across those lines. Britain’s class system is more entrenched than America’s, and social mobility is slower. Journalists in England get to cross barriers which hold most people back. It is remarkable that The New York Times can disrupt all this. The class system is one of the main reasons I left England. No matter how much I enjoyed working and living there, people pointed out one too many times, I’m “from Croydon.” I thought they were joking for years until I realized there was a lot of unexamined prejudice going on. In New York everyone assumes I must know Prince Harry and then they move right along. I’m proud to live here these days and the piece feels like a triumphant rebuke of a lot of what is wrong with England. It turns out, Mr. Cohen’s departure on “health grounds” covered up a secret cash payment. The Guardian also praised him on the way out. Even Private Eye, an investigative and satirical outlet I admire, declined to cover it. At the FT…
A half-dozen Financial Times journalists said they saw it as part of a wider reluctance to expose bad behavior within its industry.
Oof. And of the editor at the paper.
A native of Lebanon, Ms. Khalaf is not a British media insider. Colleagues described her as a cautious editor, and some said the Cohen article had fallen victim to an institutional conflict between the newspaper’s investigative aspirations and its conservative, business roots.
Double oof. Mr. Cohen is blaming the behavior on his alcoholism, which is a dodge. Yet, as of writing, only two U.K. media outlets to have covered the story since it broke. Not the BBC, SKY, Spectator, or Private Eye. One’s sense is they’re waiting to see how hard it burns. Mr. Cohen has also blamed the story on Russian disinformation and, OMG, trans activists. I find it unlikely. He should apologize and take personal responsibility for his behavior. But if I were a foreign power looking to disrupt British society, this story is a good place to start. Except in this case, I am proud to say the foreign power is a commercial newspaper. The Times’ publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, wrote a long piece for the Columbia Journalism Review recently about the value of journalistic objectivity. His maxim, to report the news “without fear or favor”, strikes a chord.
Independent journalism is the exact tonic the world needs most at a moment in which polarization and misinformation are shaking the foundations of liberal democracies and undermining society’s ability to meet the existential challenges of the era, from inequality to political dysfunction to the accelerating toll of climate change. When the stakes feel highest—from the world wars to the red scare to the aftermath of 9/11—people often make the most forceful arguments against journalistic independence. Pick a side. Join the righteous. Declare that you’re with us or against us. But history shows that the better course is when journalists challenge and complicate consensus with smart questions and new information. That’s because common facts, a shared reality, and a willingness to understand our fellow citizens across tribal lines are the most important ingredients in enabling a diverse, pluralistic society to come together to self-govern. For that, as much as anything, we need principled, independent journalists.
Suffice to say, I agree with him. And this story represents excellent reporting. I hope it has the impact it deserves.
