The Case of The Disappearing NYT.com Decoder Post

At 5:38pm today the New York Times Media Decoder blog posted an item ostensibly revealing the identity of the anonymous blogger behind the NYTPicker blog, which covers the Times to be David Blum (former editor of the Village Voice, New York Press, among others). Now it appears the post has since been removed. We’ve contacted the NYT to find out why.

The post mentions that Blum declined to comment for the story when contacted, and that the NYT source requested anonymity, was there some sort of confusion on this point? Was the NYT.com too quick to hit the publish button? In the meantime, here’s a screen grab of the post we managed to get before our browser crashed (instant karma?).

UPDATE: Did they peg the wrong guy? @nytpicker Twitters: “NYTPicker to NYT: Nice try, but Blum’s not one of us! Keep guessing.” If that is, in fact, the case, the NYT.com is going to have some explaining to do regarding their posting of the item without confirming the source. But perhaps even more explaining as to why, if there was a mistake, they decided to pull it instead of just adding a correction (which is obviously what would have happened were it a print story).

UPDATE 2: Media Decoder has posted a correction, sort of.

Earlier, we posted that David Blum, a veteran of New York media circles and a former editor of The Village Voice, The New York Press and an editor at New York magazine, was behind NYTPick.com, an anonymous commentary blog, according to a person with close ties to the site who also requested anonymity.

We also noted that Mr. Blum declined to comment. Mr. Blum contacted us shortly after the post went up to say that he hadn’t intended to decline comment and, furthermore, he denied he had any involvement with NYTPick.com. He added that he was flattered — he reads the blog — but that the source was incorrect

Um, yes, except how did the post get up there in the first place? And once it was up who okay’d its removal? These are not small questions — removing a post in its entirety, particularly if it’s because of faulty sourcing on the writer’s part, is shady business indeed. And the cutesy closer is even more off-putting: “What will NYTPick.com say about using anonymous sources to out anonymous bloggers? We may find out.” Not funny. Nor should the NYT.com be looking to anonymous bloggers (even those as good as the people behind NYTPicker) to play managing editor for them. Someone screwed up here, and at this stage of the game the NYT.com should know that transparency is as important as getting the facts straight.

.

share this post

filed under