New York Times editor calls for 'systemic change' after botched San Bernardino story

Copies of the New York Times July 23, 2008 edition.

(Image credit: Getty Images)

published 18 December 2015

Less than 24 hours after The New York Times added a three-paragraph editor's note to an anonymously sourced article on San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik, The New York Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan condemned the paper's lack of skepticism.

Sullivan charges that the story's incorrect allegation that Malik "talked openly on social media" about radicalism stems from a "failure of sufficient skepticism at every level of the reporting and editing process" and too heavy a reliance on anonymous government sources — a sign, Sullivan says, that "systemic change" is necessary:

The Times needs to fix its overuse of unnamed government sources. And it needs to slow down the reporting and editing process, especially in the fever-pitch atmosphere surrounding a major news event. Those are procedural changes, and they are needed. But most of all, and more fundamental, the paper needs to show far more skepticism — a kind of prosecutorial scrutiny — at every level of the process. [The New York Times]