[NYTr] FAIR: NY Times Responds on Firefighters Union

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

FAIR - Aug 1, 2007
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3151

Activism Update

Times Reporter Responds on Firefighters

08/01/07

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt has sent out an email response
(which appears in full below) to FAIR activists who responded to a FAIR
action alert (7/13/07) about a report calling a firefighters' union
video critical of Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani
"factually questionable." But the reply, which mainly provides the
self-justification of Times reporter Marc Santora, has factual problems
of its own.

Santora singled out two examples to back up the "factually questionable"
line--more or less restating what he originally wrote:

"The most glaringly "factually questionable" material in the video was
the highlighting of the   hand-held radios as the key component in
firefighters' failure to communicate.

That simply is not true. The 9/11 Commission said that at the heart of
the failure to communicate was the failure of the repeater--a device
designed to boost the radio signal from the lobby to the higher floors
of the WTC.

While it is true that newer, better radios might have made some
difference, the 9/11 Commission placed the emphasis on the failure of
the repeater. (The repeater system and the subsequent failures are
discussed on pages 297-301.)"

On its face, the description of Santora's complaint does not seem to
justify the intensity of his condemnation. Does the fact that the
firefighters "highlighted" a different problem than the one on which
the Commission "placed the emphasis" really constitute "glaringly
factually questionable material"? Particularly with the concession that
"it's true that newer, better, radios might have made some difference"?

The investigative record further weakens Santora's case. Santora had
originally reported that "most experts" believe the "central problem"
was the performance of signal-boosting repeaters inside the World Trade
Center towers. But Santora cites four pages of the 9/11 Commission
report as his only evidence; while there are parts of the report
critical of those signal-boosters, the report's judgment is hardly as
definitive as Santora claims. (It's also worth noting that the chairs
of the 9/11 Commission admitted that they were too soft on Giuliani,
calling his questioning a "low point"--New York Times, 8/6/06.) At one
point the Commission report refers to how the firefighters'
communication "became more limited and sporadic" in one tower "because
of the limited effectiveness of FDNY radios in high-rises." Later on,
the report also noted that the repeater channels were being used in the
South Tower. And in his testimony to the commission, Port Authority
official Alan Reiss said that "it appears the repeater system
functioned as intended for those who utilized it on September 11."

If one is claiming that "most experts" have agreed on something, then
other evidence is necessary--particularly from researchers with
scientific or engineering expertise. The National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a sweeping review of the
World Trade Center, and found serious problems with radio
communications at the WTC--but not necessarily because the repeaters
had failed. As their report noted, radio communication inside both
towers using the repeaters was recorded during the rescue efforts.
There were problems documented with the hand-held radios, but it is not
at all clear that the repeater system was at fault. (Much of the report
discusses the overlapping signals and the systemic problem of handling
so much radio traffic at once.) As FAIR pointed out in the alert, the
New York Times had already reported on the NIST evaluation (4/4/05),
noting the "report also found that the World Trade Center's high rise
communication repeater was working properly, a finding that contradicts
claims by some rescue workers."

Hoyt also writes:

"On the issue of the gold, Santora said that he knows of no evidence
that this charge was raised by the firefighters' union, which sponsored
the video, during the time when there was controversy over how long to
continue searching the rubble for remains."

That controversy was widely reported--including in the New York Times
(11/3/01), which reported on the reduction in search efforts described
in the video:

"Officials for the two unions that represent uniformed firefighters
said this latest reduction set off feelings of hurt and betrayal among
many firefighters. They felt that the city was treating hallowed ground
as just another construction site, the officials said; that the mayor
wanted the site tidied up by December 31, when his tenure ends; that
city officials seem to care more about removing the hoards of gold and
silver underneath the trade center than they do about removing human
remains."

Thus, the video made points the Times reporter was simply not familiar
with--hardly adequate grounds to deem them inaccurate.

As FAIR pointed out in the original alert, calling political statements
"factually questionable" is a rarity in the media. It would be a good
thing for the Times to examine the various claims of political figures
and to correct inaccurate statements; for example, the paper has
recently allowed (7/12/07, 7/20/07) George W. Bush to claim that a
proposal to allow his tax cuts to expire would amount to the "largest
tax increase in history." That claim is clearly misleading and
inaccurate (the Times pointed this out at the end of a story three
months ago--4/20/07), but the Times reporters covering Bush did not
feel the need to set the record straight--let alone warn readers of
Bush's untrustworthiness in the very first paragraphs of those articles.

In the case of the firefighters' criticism of Rudolph Giuliani, a very
different standard is being applied. Hoyt's failure to address this
double standard is disappointing.

Hoyt's full response to FAIR activists:

Dear Reader,

Thank you for writing about a Times article, published on July 12, that
described as "factually questionable" parts of a video assailing former
New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

The support for the term "factually questionable" was in the final two
paragraphs of the article. The first of those paragraphs said that,
while the video focused on hand-held radios used by firefighters on
9/11, "most experts" said the real problem was the failure of a device
meant to boost radio signals so that they could be heard on the high
floors of the World Trade Center. The second paragraph said that the
accusation that Giuliani was more interested in recovering gold stored
in a basement vault than in finding the remains of the dead was "widely
dismissed by people who closely monitored the cleanup."

I asked Marc Santora, the reporter who wrote the story, for more
information to back up the assertion that the video was in part
"factually questionable." This is some of what he had to say on the
issue of the radios:

The most glaringly "factually questionable" material in the video was
the highlighting of the hand-held radios as the key component in
firefighters'failure to communicate.

That simply is not true. The 9/11 commission said that at the heart of
the failure to communicate was the failure of the repeater ? a device
designed to boost the radio signal from the lobby to the higher floors
of the WTC.

While it is true that newer, better radios might have made some
difference, the 9/11 commission placed the emphasis on the failure of
the repeater. (The repeater system and the subsequent failures are
discussed on pages 297 -301)

Here is why. The hand-held radios used by both the Police and the FDNY
are not designed to transmit through steel and concrete and also can
transmit a limited amount of data. The police, years ago, installed
"repeaters" throughout the city because they frequently need to be in
communication with their headquarters, giving them a sophisticated and
functioning network. Firefighters, on the other hand, traditionally did
not have to communicate with headquarters.

The Port Authority, not the city, took the lead in installing a
"repeater" in the WTC. (page 283 of the 9/11 Commission report)

Therefore, to lay the failure to communicate squarely at the feet of
the Mayor is not quite fair.

(A major criticism raised by the commission ? and the one that could
reflect poorly on the mayor ? was the failure of the various city
emergency agencies, including the police and fire department, to
communicate with each other. The video does not touch on this topic.)

On the issue of the gold, Santora said that he knows of no evidence
that this charge was raised by the firefighters' union, which sponsored
the video, during the time when there was controversy over how long to
continue searching the rubble for remains.

Sincerely,

Clark Hoyt

Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent
those of The New York Times.