An editor of great influence at The New York Times during the newspaper’s golden age, Robert H. Phelps helped shape coverage of some of the most formative stories of modern American journalism.

Phelps got his start in 1941, earning $20 per week as a reporter for the now defunct Citizen in Ambridge, Penn. After a stint with the United Press wire service, he joined the Navy where he served as an enlisted combat correspondent based out of Okinawa during World War II. Following the war, he worked at The Providence Journal before landing a job as a copyeditor for the Times, where he was promoted several times.

As the news editor of the Times’ Washington Bureau from 1965-1974, Phelps coordinated the paper’s reporting on such seminal moments as the riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Pentagon Papers, and Watergate.

In 1974, Phelps left the Times for the Boston Globe, where he supervised the Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of school desegregation.

Phelps recently sat down with the Burlington (MA) Union to reflect upon his career and share his insights on the past, present and future of newspapers.

Q: What makes a good reporter versus a good editor?

A: With me, it was the fact that I was socially incompetent. In the job I had with United Press covering politicians, I saw the ones who got the good scoops were the ones who hung around in bars – and I didn’t even drink!

I realized that I had to get stories in a different way and then I tried to outthink the other reporters through simple things like reading the trade press. The lobbyists know what’s going on, like the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Association. I just signed up for everything they had. They sent me everything and they talked very freely because nobody else was even talking to them. So you would get advanced tips on stories. And even if the trade press had used it, I beat the regular press.

I got more satisfaction out of setting up the coverage. There’s also this contrarian sense — when something is going one way, you say, ‘What about the other?’ If everybody hates Nixon, try to look at it a contrary way that maybe he’s not all wrong. And that’s needed in an editor if you want to get balanced coverage.

Q: When did you start to see the decline in newspapers?

A: It came pretty fast. I can’t say I foresaw it by any means.

The Internet is primarily responsible. But that’s not going to last. I think the print press is going to come back.

Look at the Internet. What you have there now is almost an unedited cacophony, a Tower of Babel, with everybody saying what they want. They get they’re reporting from where? Because they read the newspapers mostly.

I think that the public will realize eventually — they’re going to zero in on things they can trust. And the advertisers will learn that. There’s a lot of advertising that when the economy improves will go back to newspapers. It won’t be as much. There’s no question about the Internet reach. I’m sure newspapers won’t be the way they were.

I think they’ll discover that the missing ingredient on the Internet is the lack of editing. It’s a tough thing to fight because people want something for nothing.

Q: Have newspapers lost some of their ethics and standards?

A: I think they’ve gotten a lot better. Most newspapers, I’m talking about, even tabloids. I think that’s the effect of journalism schools.

Hate displacing disagreement;

Hyperbole replacing assessment;

Fear trumping understanding;

Ignorance overwhelming knowledge;

Nationalism dominating discourse;

Quantitative superseding qualitative;

Shouting dismissing talking.

Hard to beat Nick Kristof and his drumbeat via Facebook.  "Engage the world."  What a concept!

 

I love the quote from Mike Waller at the Baltimore Sun about his new bosses at Tribune:  "Tribune management confuses innovation with idiocy," he says.  "I could wear my underwear over my trousers and Tribune would think that's innovation.  Everybody else would think I was wacko."

 

Couldn't help writing in to Shoptalk again ... on the irony of it lead item for two straight days being the latest affair of the LA mayor with a local TV anchor ... at the same time audiences dwindle.  Not that running international news would bring them back, lord knows, but it remains disheartening to see no variety: just everybody competing for the same dummies.  Some of us at  network news used to think that the atomization of audience would lead to increased specialization ... a couple of stations would feature trash, another sports, another "real" news, others business, etc.  Oh well.

 

Tough teaching journalism these days.  The challenge is how to describe the beliefs I've held in my work to eager, elite students from 30 nations, most former Communist/Soviet states, who are trying to chart a future they can believe in, but have never been allowed to believe in things.  Should I tell them to trust that journalism will light their way to freedom?  Won't I choke on my own spit? 

Don't miss Larry Wilmore of The Daily Show on "Black Liberal Guilt!"  (I can't make the below hyperlink work to anything but the basic Daily Show site.  So, please cut & paste it into your browser.  It's worth it.)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?title=black-liberal-guilt&videoId=209423