Bill Keller’s blind spots

By Felix Salmon
May 19, 2011
passing her a pipe of crystal meth, has responded to my last post about him in an email to Steve Myers:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Bill Keller, who proposes that Twitter makes you stupid and says that allowing a 13-year-old onto Facebook is like passing her a pipe of crystal meth, has responded to my last post about him in an email to Steve Myers:

Felix Salmon simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The Times takes care of its family — including our drivers, fixers and translators. We do not discuss the details of compensation (for anyone, including staff correspondents) but we fulfill our obligation to employees, including local hires, who are hurt or killed in the line of duty, and to their families in the case of death. (Yes, this includes Mohamed Shaglouf.)”

Keller’s latest column, with its nostalgia for a time before slide rules and even the printing press, is an indication that he’s utterly incapable of leading a 21st-Century news organization into the future. But his email to Myers is an indication that he can’t even read.

Let me try again, since I obviously failed to make my point the first time around: there is a huge debate raging in various social-media channels about the way that the NYT and other news organizations treat the local fixers who work for international reporters and photographers; Myers does a great job reporting on that debate. Keller wrote a column on the subject of wartime photographers right as the debate was raging. And in that column, he didn’t mention the debate at all; didn’t address any of the issues surrounding it; and didn’t even name a single one of those drivers, fixers and translators.

The NYT is being accused of acting as though the local fixers are less important than its flown-in superstars; Keller, in this column, acted as though they simply didn’t exist.

Shaglouf is the perfect case in point. He was with two NYT photographers — Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario — who were abducted in Libya; they were released, while he is assumed killed. Their names appear in Keller’s column; Shaglouf’s does not.

When “the Times takes care of its family”, in Keller’s words, part of that care is seen in public columns like Keller’s, or Mike Kamber’s eulogy to Chris Hondros and Tim Hetherington — another article which mentioned zero local fixers, living or dead. A simple blog post, like Tim McGirk’s heartfelt remembrance of Raza Khan on, can mean a huge amount to a grieving family. Khan was killed while driving Addario. Here’s what Keller had to say about Khan to Myers:

Keller said that case was “sad but considerably different” from Shaglouf and the three local hires killed working for the Times. “He was a short-term hire retained to take journalists to a refugee camp and back. It was not a dangerous assignment.”

Keller put it this way: “If something like that happened to a driver you hired in New York, you would feel terrible, but would you believe you had an obligation to compensate his family? I doubt it. Even so, the Times raised a few thousand dollars for his family in Pakistan.”

Somehow I doubt that these words will provide the succor, back in Pakistan, that McGirk’s did. And note too, that just after saying that he never discusses the details of compensation for anyone, Keller goes right ahead and says the the NYT raised a few thousand dollars for Khan’s family. Rules are made to be broken, I guess.

In any case, my point was never that the NYT didn’t compensate the families of local fixers injured or killed in the line of duty. I’m sure that the NYT lives up to whatever it considers its obligation to be in such cases. But I’m equally sure that local fixers are not treated the same way as foreign reporters and photographers.

But what’s undeniable is that Keller, when writing about the human cost of war reporting in the NYT Magazine, completely ignored those fixers. That’s what I was talking about. And all I needed to do to know it was read his column.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

You did not fail to make your point the first time around. The problem is that Billy cannot read.

Just as you mentioned in your article about the value of aggregators, the ability to read and grasp the meaning of diverse discussion is a valuable skill. Keller simply does not have this skill.

Re-writing your point to a second grade comprehension level certainly puts it within his technical grasp, but now it becomes an issue of whether he WANTS to acknowledge your point. I suspect his ego will prevent him from acknowledging it, since to do so would be an implicit admission of deficiency in this area.

Posted by Retrogrouch | Report as abusive

Thanks for your post, Felix. I really don’t understand the NYT anymore. Newspapers are in big trouble economically. In that situation, shouldn’t they be interested in keeping whatever friends they have left? Instead, the NYT is run by a man who seems to be intent on throwing away whatever goodwill and reputation they have left. First the torture equivocation, then picking a useless p*ssing contest with the Huffington Post, and now this mess.

Dear New York Times, get rid of this man. Now.

Posted by TSTS | Report as abusive


I don’t know about the fixer issue, but based on this post I went and read Bill Keller’s column “The Twitter Trap”. Maybe his crystal meth comment was over the top, but his argument was completely level-headed. He didn’t make any rash statements about social media. He merely wondered about the cost of some technological advancements. McLuhan did the same in Understanding Media, using the analogy of amputation, IE he noticed that we are becoming more cybernetic. The car is our cybernetic feet, the printed word is our cybernetic speech, the screen is our cybernetic eyes, etc. Wondering about the cost of replacing our modes of communication is a completely legitimate line of thought.

Posted by nedofbaker | Report as abusive

I’m just an occasional reader of the Times and follow stories about the paper because bad as it is, it’s still one of America’s two best papers and is, at the end of the day, still one of the premier news gathering operations in the world. (I qualify all this because the level of competence has been sinking across the board for the last couple of decades, so the best now can actually be fairly bad.)

But as to Keller: I genuinely think he and young Schulzberger are just too stupid and/or detached and/or disinterested in anything like publishing journalistic excellence with any regularity. The Times, also helped pioneer the newish trend of having the reporters stick their opinions into stories, all while failing to, you know, report.

And yes, I do believe it is exactly that simply. Keller’s just s***, which wouldn’t be so awful but for the fact the publisher is as well.

Posted by MitchellS | Report as abusive