New York Times
reporter Emily Palmer has been covering the trial of the man who tortured and
ultimately killed six-year-old Zymere Perkins in New York City in 2016. She
wrote a story which was published a short time ago, after the man was
convicted. But she’s been editorializing
about the case on Twitter as she’s been covering it.
Because of that, and
because of a conflict-of-interest issue, yesterday NCCPR appealed to New
York Times Metro Editor Clifford Levy to
intervene. Perhaps he did. The story is
not as bad as the tweets. But it still
allows the city’s claims that its response to the tragedy improved the system to
go unrebutted.
In fact, many
advocates argue that the city’s response has made
the system worse, and made another tragedy like the death of Zymere Perkins
more likely. That’s partly because the
overwhelming majority of cases seen by the city’s Administration for Children’s
Services don’t involve torture and murder – far more often they involve the
confusion of poverty with neglect, as the Times itself has documented well in recent years.
The story is not just
harmful to the city’s most vulnerable children. It’s also an insult to Palmer’s
colleagues at the Times who have done
careful, finely-nuanced reporting like
this on child welfare in recent
years. I hope this story is not a signal
by Levy that he is moving Times coverage
of child welfare backwards.
Here is the email
NCCPR sent to Levy yesterday:
Your forthcoming story on the Zymere Perkins case trial
Dear Mr. Levy:
This
morning one of your reporters, Emily Palmer, posted this tweet
about a story she will be writing concerning the trial in the death of Zymere
Perkins:
This
a.m. the judge is instructing the jury on the law ahead of deliberations in a
child abuse and death case. The case of
Zymere Perkins, a 6-year-old who died in Harlem in 2016, did much to improve
the city’s child welfare system. Story coming soon! [Emphasis added.]
As I said in a tweet thread
about this, I know Ms. Palmer has a deep and abiding passion for protecting
children and I admire that. But I, and
other family advocates, also believe that passion has led to some serious
misjudgments, most notably in her recent package of stories as a Boston Globe Spotlight Fellow. Those stories, of course, are not your
concern. But similar problems appear to
affect her approach to the trial in the Perkins case. There is also a matter of
conflict-of-interest which I’ll get to below.
There are advocacy groups and
scholars all over New York City who believe the Perkins case made New York City
child welfare worse. We believe it undermined
reforms that were making children safer, set off a foster-care panic – a sharp
sudden spike in needless removals of children from their homes – and vastly
increased needless surveillance of impoverished families of color. Indeed, the response to the Perkins case
worsened the very problems documented so well by the Times in
its story about foster care as the new “Jane Crow.”
My point
here is not to try to convince you that we are right and those who say the
Perkins case made the system better are wrong (though I would greatly
appreciate the chance to try in the future at the time and place of your
choosing). At this point, I am asking simply that a story written by a reporter
who’s already taken a clear editorial stand both in today’s tweet and earlier
receive extra editing to ensure that well-informed viewpoints from all
perspectives are well-represented.
For the
record, in response to my tweets about this, Ms. Palmer said that she was “alluding
to data-oriented improvements.” Frankly,
I’m not sure what she means by this, but I do know that there are serious
questions about whether ACS has been misleading in its use of data. I
discuss some of those issues here More generally, there is documentation
for our concerns about the system getting worse here
and here.
But second,
Ms. Palmer has editorialized about this trial before. In another
tweet, she records a video about this case in which she declares at the end
that “there is one man on trial, but there’s an entire agency at fault.”
Really?
Every single caseworker? Every supervisor? Every manager? This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that
makes everyone in the system run scared and rush to take away more children
needlessly, doing those children enormous harm – and overloading the system
making it even less likely that the next Zymere Perkins will be found. An editorial writer or a columnist is free to
do this, of course. Although I realize there have been vast changes in the
industry since I was a reporter, I thought the news side was still supposed to
refrain from this, even on Twitter.
So now we
have a reporter about to write a news story concerning a trial about which
she’s taken a clear editorial position.
These concerns are reinforced by the fact that, even as she covered
child welfare as a Boston Globe
Spotlight Fellow she also moderated a panel discussion and wrote a fact sheet
for Children’s Rights, an advocacy group that is active concerning these same
issues. In fact, in the past, they’ve
sued the Administration for Children’s Services and its various predecessor
agencies.
Re the fact-sheet: I led a panel discussion
that brought together a diverse group of voices on all sides. Parent advocacy
groups attended and asked excellent questions.
In response
I tweeted this:
(1/2) I saw a tape of
that discussion. All sides were *not* represented. Family defenders were in the
audience; they literally did not have a place at the table. But more important,
you did this for an advocacy group.
[2/2] Would it be OK
to moderate a panel and do a factsheet for the NRA *or* for Everytown for Gun
Safety and also cover gun control?
I would add
one thing more. This
link goes to a flyer about the panel Ms. Palmer moderated. Take a look at
who is on the panel, and, especially who is not: Separately, on its website,
Children’s Rights has this link inviting readers to Download this fact sheet on Opioids and Foster Care,
produced by reporter Emily Palmer.
I am sure
Ms. Palmer is sincere when she said this group represented “all sides.” And that’s precisely the problem with the way
she has approached child welfare reporting. Who is missing? The Bronx
Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, Neighborhood Defender Services of
Harlem, the Center for Family Representation, the writers from Rise, the magazine written by parents
who’ve “caught a case” and so on. Of
course they didn’t all need to be on the panel – but surely if you want to
present all sides you’d fit in one of them.
Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
As noted above, New York Times
reporter Emily Palmer, who covers child welfare, moderated a panel discussion
arranged and sponsored by the group that calls itself “Children’s Rights.” That
group works hard to influence public policy on child welfare issues. It also regularly sues child welfare agencies
across the country. Ms. Palmer also
wrote a “Fact Sheet” for Children’s Rights, linked to the event.
What does the Times Code of Ethics say about all this?
Here are the relevant sections of the New
York Times Code of Ethics:
The Times freely acknowledges that outside appearances can enhance the reputation of its bylines and serve the paper’s interests. Nevertheless, no staff member may appear before an outside group if the appearance could reasonably create an actual or apparent conflict of interest or undermine public trust in the paper’s impartiality. …
Staff members should be especially sensitive to the appearance of partiality when they address groups that might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise, especially if the setting might suggest a close relationship to the sponsoring group. Before accepting such an invitation, a staff member must consult with the standards editor or the deputy editorial page editor. Generally, a reporter recently returned from the Middle East might comfortably address a suburban synagogue or mosque but should not appear before a group that lobbies for Israel or the Arab states. A reporter who writes about the environment could appropriately speak to a garden club but not to conservation groups known for their efforts to influence public policy. ...
Staff members may not collaborate in ventures involving individuals or organizations that figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. Among other things, this prohibition applies to collaborating in writing books, pamphlets, reports, scripts, scores or any other material and in making photographs or creating artwork of any sort.
And for those wondering about the references to Ms. Palmer’s work as a
Spotlight Fellow: Watch this space on Monday.
