Conversation starter

I asked David Westphal to elaborate on his tweet about the Times’ story. He writes in an email:

The Times’ anonymous source policy should have caught this one. The explanation for granting anonymity — that Russ Stanton is everybody’s supervisor — doesn’t work when he’s out the door in 10 days. For a sweeping pejorative like this one, a named source should be the price of admission.

Passages from the NYT story:

The cuts led to low newsroom morale and a sentiment that Mr. Stanton, while good-natured with a sunny disposition, did not have reporters’ best interests in mind, according to several newsroom employees who did not want to speak publicly about their supervisor. …

But Mr. Stanton also grew weary of cutting staff, associates said. With more budget tightening expected early next year, Mr. Stanton confided in friends that “he just didn’t have anymore layoffs in him,” said a former senior editor who would discuss Mr. Stanton only on the condition of anonymity.

Your thoughts? Share them in the comments section.



  1. Not just unfair, but false — everyone knows the business is collapsing and no editor is in a position to protect “reporters’ best interests.” The cuts are inevitable and will continue, and it won’t be the next editor’s fault. The NYTimes editor should have called BS on this blind quote.

  2. Here’s what I found fascinating about the Times post – the managing editor is described as “a frequent presence in the newsroom.”

    Does that mean the editor of the Los Angeles Times was not a frequent presence in the newsroom?

  3. Belinda Gomez said:

    Why bother with unnamed sources on a story that’s not about national security? Or does this mean that the NYT just made stuff up?