After sometime NYT freelancer Natasha Lennard appeared on a panel praising Occupy Wall Street, the Timesunderstandablydropped her.
Lennard now says in a piece for Salon that it was totally worth it.
In my view, it now makes little sense to be objective about Occupy Wall Street and its various, amorphous iterations across the country….
If the diffuse and experimental disruptions, discussions, assemblies, occupations, strikes, marches, chants and more that constitute OWS are primarily coherent only in so far as they agree that the current status quo, rife with inequity and cruelty, is wrong — I cannot but consider myself in agreement. As such, it would be disingenuous to play the “objective reporter.”
I am incredibly lucky to have interned and worked for institutions like the New York Times and Politico; the training, exposure and practice that these publications offer are in many ways unparalleled. But it is also with some pride that I have stopped writing for publications that aim for journalistic objectivity.
“I have found too many problems with what does or does not get to be a fact — or what rises to the level of a fact they believe to be worth reporting — to be part of such a machine,” she added.
The Times statement praised (or at least didn’t bash) Lennard’s reporting, saying “We have reviewed the past stories to which she contributed and have not found any reasons for concern over that reporting.” But even still, that’s the price you pay for having opinions. In 2011.