The columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has done some extraordinary journalistic work in recent years, like drawing back the veil on the atrocities in Darfur and raising the public’s consciousness about human sex trafficking worldwide.
But a column closer to home - although it raised important questions about the effectiveness of government-financed programs for the poor and disabled â€" would have benefited from more rigorous reporting.
In December, Mr. Kristof wrote about children and poverty programs in Appalachian Kentucky, where there is a high poverty and illiteracy rate. One of his assertions, and certainly the most startling, was that some parents were removing their children from literacy programs for fear that they would no longer be eligible for federal aid in theform of Supplemental Security Income.
The column began: “This is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability.â€
He suggests that some S.S.I. funding should be redirected, since the current setup may help trap children in poverty at an early age.
Since the column appeared, many advocates for the poor and disabled have criticized it harshly, questioning its statistics, sourcing and conclusions. I met with one of those advocates, Jonathan Stein, in December and asked him for a memo summarizing his objections.
After I brought this memo to Mr. Kristof’s attention, he offered to address the responses to his column in a post on his On t! he Ground blog,. and did so last week. He linked to various pieces of criticism; he published Mr. Stein’s lengthy memo in full and responded to it, point by point. (That memo was written with Rebecca Vallas, also with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, where Mr. Stein is counsel.) Mr. Kristof then refuted the criticisms and defended his own reporting, characterizing it as thorough.
Mr. Kristof does plenty of shoe-leather reporting for his columns. He travels widely - to some of the most dangerous parts of the world â€" and talks with many sources.
But in this case, he did not talk to the primary sources, the parents of poor and developmentally disabled children. Given the provocative nature of his opening statement and its importance in setting up the column’s thesis, it should have been completely solid.
One reader, in the comments under last week’s follow-up blog, addressed Mr. Kristof: “You do not seem to have talked to an of the accused parent(s) or their children directly. This is like writing ‘Half the Sky’ without interviewing any poor world women.†(The reference is to Mr. Kristof’s 2010 book, written with his wife, the former Times reporter Sheryl WuDunn, about the global oppression of women.)
Given Mr. Kristof’s high profile as a two-time Pulitzer winner and the influence of The Times’s opinion pages, a column like this can have far-reaching effects - influencing government financing and legislation. (Full disclosure: I was the chairwoman of the Pulitzer commentary jury in 2006 when Mr. Kristof deservedly won that award, largely for his work in Africa.)
Until this point, I have not commented on the column or the reaction, as it played out in letters to the editor, M! r. Kristo! f’s blog and critical pieces outside The Times.
But now, having read all the material - points and counterpoints, objections and defenses â€" I believe that some of the column’s assertions were based on too little direct evidence or used statistical information that is, at the very least, open to interpretation.
I’m glad to see attention paid to poverty in America, a topic ignored during the presidential campaign. And Mr. Kristof, who has earned so much trust among thoughtful readers who care about the underprivileged, may be the ideal columnist to ask if existing programs to help them are the right ones.
That’s all the more reason that what he says should be nailed down tight.
