The New York Times & reality

From: [Short Round]

Subject: "Darjeeling" to Be Paired with a Short

Date: October 22, 2007 10:22:12 PM EDT

To: letters@nytimes.com

To the editor:

Lia Miller's article on Wes Anderson's short film "Hotel Chevalier" is marked by an error... Natalie [Hershlag*] does appear in "The Darjeeling Limited": she has a very brief, nonspeaking cameo appearance...

[Short Round]

From: [nice person at the Times]

Subject: Fwd: Cxn? BIZ/10.23 – "Darjeeling" to Be Paired with a short

Date: October 23, 2007 3:56:59 PM EDT

To: [Short Round]

Dear Mr. [Round],

Thanks for your note about "The Darjeeling Express." It was forwarded to me, as I handle corrections for the business desk.

Natalie [Hershlag] is indeed listed as a cast member on the IMDB.com entry for the film, but the publicist for the movie says that the studio considers Ms. [Hershlag]'s appearance in a brief still shot "a reference" and that she "doesn't appear as a character." The studio has declined a correction...

Thanks again for writing.

Best regards,

[nice person at the Times]

From: [Short Round]

Subject: Re: Cxn? BIZ/10.23 – "Darjeeling" to Be Paired with a Short

Date: October 23, 2007 4:33:50 PM EDT

To: [nice person at the Times]

Thanks for your response. But the studio gets to make the call? I'm not referring to the IMDb: the actress Natalie [Hershlag] is on screen, alone and identifiable, for at least a couple of seconds, and the article says that "she does not appear in the movie." I suppose I understand why Fox Searchlight might choose to be narrow in their definition of the word "appear," but do they really get to dictate your paper's usage? Do they get to determine reality?

[Nice person at the Times] never replied.

Analysis: So how big a deal is this? Depends how you look at it. The New York Times, in this capacity, appears to be doing PR for the studio. If the Bush administration said, "No, waterboarding isn't torture," the Times wouldn't just accept that as fact and modify its content accordingly: if the content were political—were important, sure, fine—then this kind of deference to the source's sensibilities would be incredibly damning, would mean the paper was a mouthpiece. My point isn't that The Darjeeling Limited and waterboarding belong in the same category of importance,** just that a newspaper's job shouldn't be to report what interested parties want them to report. It's a matter of principle and ought to apply at all levels, high and low. Imagine if a corporation fed the paper some news, and then the fact-checkers turned to that same company for verification! Oh, wait, you don't have to imagine it: apparently that's exactly what they do.

[Because I couldn't find a halfway decent screenshot of the relevant scene in Darjeeling, I opted instead to illustrate this post with images of Natalie Hershlag brushing her teeth in "Chevalier." I hope you've enjoyed them—the girl does brush a mean tooth.]

* Portman. Much as I enjoy writing "Fæcebook," I often prefer to speak of Natalie Hershlag, Winona Horowitz, Robert Zimmerman, Allen Konigsberg, et al. It's just one of the many things I do to keep myself amused in these troubled times.

** I shouldn't have to say this, but I think I do, cuz peoples is DUM.