The NYT and the peril of manufactured news

Three months ago, when I was working on a major story about the future of the National Gallery of Art, the NGA's cursory attention to contemporary art was a major point of discussion between the NGA's curators and me. In both on-the-record conversations I had with an NGA spokesperson present and in on background chats I had with a range of sources, curators and staff pointed to an upcoming Leo Villareal project as proof of the NGA's commitment to contemporary art. Except no one was allowed to point to it publicly -- the NGA's spokesperson forbade it. Rarely has a more open secret been treated as something to cover up.

What was happening was clear: Regardless of how it impacted the museum and the presentation of the museum's interest in contemporary art (in the first major magazine story on the NGA in years), the NGA's chief spokesperson wanted the Villareal item to debut in the NYT. This week, as NYT reporter Carol Vogel returned from her annual August sabbatical, all kinds of news suddenly, magically appeared in the Times: Ann Temkin's promotion and a Braque acquisition at MoMA, the NGA Villareal. (Collusion made obvious: Even after MoMA and the NYT announced the news on NYT.com, MoMA refused to send a writer a press release on the Temkin appointment.)

It was a week in which the implicit bargain between the NYT and arts institutions was made clear: In return for receiving stories first, the NYT provides coverage. The obverse of the rule is also abundantly clear: If the NYT doesn't discover major arts news stories first, it doesn't report on them. (The subtext to this unofficial deal is even more unfortunate: Cooperate with us, the NYT tells the institutions it's supposed to cover, and we may take it easy on you if anything untoward happens...)

Accordingly, the NYT has completely failed to report on the two major visual arts news stories of the summer: The University of Iowa regents' interest in assessing the University of Iowa Museum of Art's great Jackson Pollock Mural for possible flood recovery-related sale, and the Denver Art Museum's deaccessioning scandal, the most questionable art museum sale in half a decade (and the first time in the same period that the museum industry association has investigated same). Both stories have been extensively covered by major national news outlets such as Time and the Wall Street Journal, by regional media, and by industry press.

(The NYT ran an unreported 'roundup' item on the DAM affair, and later a correction on the faulty roundup item. The end result was the NYT crediting the proper outlet with breaking the story, while getting the rest of it precisely wrong.) 

I can't imagine a week in which the NYT's approach to cultural coverage could be clearer: Either they get the press release first, or they don't cover the story at all, no matter the import or newsworthiness. That's beyond shameful and that's beyond un-journalistic. It's negligence with a side of cronyism.