Sunderland Echo wrong to demand an apology from the New York Times
|
Version 0 of 1. Following the EU referendum result, the New York Times decided to take a closer look at Sunderland because 61% of its voters backed Brexit. So reporter Kimiko De Freytas-Tamura paid it a visit and wrote an article about “the once-proud working class city” where “citizens seem to have voted against their own interests.” After all, as the home of the Nissan car factory, Sunderland had “been a big recipient of European [Union] money”. She argued that the result was also a vote against the Labour party, which is “no longer seen by many voters in Sunderland as a champion of the working class” who “are increasingly moving right over the issue of immigration, switching to the anti-Brussels, anti-immigrant UK Independence party.” The working class “feels it has lost out from globalisation, and a more mobile, educated class of people who have prospered from free trade and movement.” Deindustrialization had hollowed out “what was once a manufacturing stronghold” and “the region has struggled to catch up with its wealthier southern neighbours.” De Freytas-Tamura also described the appearance of shops in the “run-down neighborhood” of Washington “as if out of a time warp”. One of the people she interviewed, forklift operator Michael Wake, was quoted as saying the referendum had been an opportunity to “poke the eye” of David Cameron and the London establishment (providing the paper with its headline). The Sunderland Echo was outraged. It called on the New York Times to apologise for its “biased, patronising and grossly distorted picture” of the city. It reported that civic and business leaders had united in condemning the newspaper’s article and, in a front page appeal, urged its readers to set the Times straight about the reality of life in Sunderland. The Echo’s managing editor, Gavin Foster, said: “We don’t recognise this image of Sunderland. “Yes, we have our problems, but this article doesn’t reflect the Sunderland of the 21st century and the astonishing progress we have made as a city over the past 30 years.” Come back and take a second look, he suggested, to “see all the amazing things on offer.” Although the New York Times didn’t respond, De Freytas-Tamura did. She told the Echo that she had written the article in good faith. She said: “My intention was not to upset residents of Sunderland nor to paint it in bad light; it was to understand why people overwhelmingly voted leave when its economy seems to be tied to Nissan, the largest employer in the region, and EU funding. What I discovered was there were a lot of people who felt, despite those benefits, that they were being left behind by globalisation, by mainstream political parties, and a city still feeling the effects of [Margaret] Thatcher’s policies. They had nothing to lose by voting out because they had nothing to gain from globalisation in the first place – that was the sentiment I was aiming to capture.” Foster responded that his paper’s objection to her piece “was the selective and biased way the city was portrayed and the type of language and vocabulary which made it appear we lived in Victorian Britain.” Comment: At the risk of incurring the wrath of Foster and the people of Sunderland, I have to say that I thought De Freytas-Tamura’s article was fine. I couldn’t see anything objectionable about it. It was not, in any sense, an attack on the city or its citizens. Nor was there any question of inaccuracy. It was simply one reporter’s thoughtful take on the situation. If it was partial in any way, then surely it was reflecting the fact that the Brexit vote was itself overwhelming partial. So I’m afraid I found the Echo’s (and Foster’s) response to be an overreaction. And to ask the New York Times to apologise was, quite frankly, ridiculous. Given the circumstances (the margin of the city’s vote for leave), the article was a reasonable assessment by a reporter who, despite the relative shortness of her visit, compiled a valid account. In her explanation, De Freytas-Tamura also offered a coherent rationale for her approach. She and her paper have no need to apologise. |