John Ellis, a cousin of George W. Bush who participated in the election-night coverage on Fox News Channel, was criticized in two New York Times columns over the weekend. Mr. Ellis has responded here:
Dear Editor:
Two op-ed columnists, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, took detours in their columns this weekend to attack me for allegedly "setting off an avalanche" of network projections declaring my cousin George W. Bush the winner of the presidential election. Some points of fact might better inform your readers:
1. My "inappropriate role" as head of the Fox News ChannelÕs decision desk team was well known to New York Times Company management and editorial/news staff. Upon joining the Boston Globe as an op-ed columnist in 1998, I was required to get approval of "outside consulting work" from Benjamin Taylor, then the publisher of The Boston Globe, a wholly owned subsidiary of The New York Times. Taylor personally approved my consulting arrangement with Fox News Channel. In March of 2000, Times reporter Peter Marks interviewed me regarding my role as head of the Decision Desk team and thought it so unremarkable, he filed no story. Also in March, reporter and columnist Mark Jurkowitz wrote an article regarding my role. The article appeared in The Boston Globe. It should also be noted that New York Times Company reporters and editors who called me on primary and general election nights desperate for the latest information made no mention of my "inappropriate" role with the network.
2. Mr. Krugman asserts that I gave Governor Bush "confidential poll information." I categorically deny this charge. It is based on a report in The New Yorker magazine that I regard as reckless and malicious. It should be noted, since we are talking journalistic ethics here, that Mr. Krugman made no effort to contact me prior to publication.
3. Mr. Krugman and Mr. Rich both assert that I somehow "engineered" a network stampede to project Mr. Bush the winner of the presidential election. This will come as news to the presidents of the other network news divisions, as well as to the other members of the Fox News ChannelÕs Decision Desk Team. I suspect it was not the policy of the other networks to "just do whatever John Ellis tells you to do." It was Fox News Channel policy that all members of the Decision Desk team had to agree to a call prior to its broadcast. It was also Fox News Channel policy that no call could get on the air without the approval of John Moody, executive vice president for news. The three other members of the Fox News Channel Decision Desk team are, just for the record, Democrats. All three concurred with the "Bush wins Florida/Presidency" call.
Sincerely;
John Ellis
Gore's Pecs: For those of you wondering why the New York Times has been so tilted toward Al Gore, an article on the fashion page of today's Times is suggestive. The article refers to the vice president appearing in "a dark, cable-knit turtleneck sweater that accentuated Mr. Gore's attractive pectoral mass." Oh, so the Times finds Mr. Gore's pectoral mass attractive, does it? That explains a lot.
The Queen and Utah: The "Tunnel Vision" column in the metro section of today's Times discusses a Web site for riders of the London tube. The column concludes with what is presented as a proclamation written by a London commuter, indicating that in light of America's failure to decide a winner in the presidential election, "Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy." Well, it's nice of the New York Times to finally share this knee-slapper with its readers. The joke appeared in the Washington Wire column on Page One of the Wall Street Journal on Friday, November 17, and it appeared in the Times of India on November 19. It may be that the joke originated on the Web site for London tube riders, but it seems unlikely.
Guillible on Israel: The Times treatment of Israel reaches new lows today. The front-page news story refers to Israel's shelling of "the headquarters of the Palestinian preventive security forces," and it refers to "Israeli peace groups" that have called for Israel to evacuate settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If the Times wants to call the Palestinian army or Yasser Arafat's goons "preventive security forces," and it wants to call the Israeli appeasement camp "peace groups," fine. But why doesn't it also take the Israeli government at its word when it releases a report on Palestinian Arab violations of their commitments in signed agreements? A news story in the international section today refers to those violations as "alleged" and as Israeli "accusations." Why do we never hear about "alleged" peace groups and the "alleged" preventive security forces?
The inside story also refers to "the proposition that Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are now in breach of agreements signed in Oslo in 1993, in Washington in 1994, in Maryland in 1998 and in Egypt last month." This gets at least two details wrong. The Oslo II agreement was signed in Washington in 1995, not 1994. And there was no agreement "signed" in Egypt last month. After failing to get the sides to sign an agreement, President Clinton went out and read a statement claiming there was an agreement. No one signed anything.
The Times editorial on the Middle East today is even worse than the news coverage: a model of moral equivalence. "With the horror of the bus blast, which left two adults dead and several children mutilated, and the Israeli missile attacks against Palestinian targets in Gaza, there is a strong potential for the spiral of violence to resume," the Times writes. "It is imperative for both sides to try to find their way back to the paths of restraint they were exploring." Only the Times -- or the State Department -- could put a terrorist attack against a bus of schoolchildren in the same category as retaliatory strikes by Israel against military and command and control targets in the Palestinian Authority. In the eyes of the Times, both are "disheartening" examples of "violence." There seems to be no recognition by the Times that an attack on innocent schoolchildren is different than an attack on the terrorists themselves.