Kitty Genovese and continuing silence!


The “story” about her death: In this morning’s New York Times, Leslie Kaufman writes a fascinating piece about journalism and novels.

On its face, Kaufman discusses the brutal, once-famous murder of Kitty Genovese, a 24-year-old New York City woman who lost her life in 1964. But at its heart, this fascinating news report is about something quite different.

The Genovese murder became nationally famous because of what it supposedly showed about deteriorating civic culture. According to the standard story—a story which came from the New York Times—38 people saw or heard Genovese being murdered. But none of the 38 witnesses intervened, or even called the police.

At the time, we were in high school in California; this was a gigantic story out there. But uh-oh! As Kaufman explains, the original reporting by the Times seems to have been massively wrong. Here’s how Kaufman sketches it:
KAUFMAN (1/31/13): But over time the basic facts were called into question. As early as 1984 The Daily News published an article pointing to flaws in the reporting. In 2004 The Times did its own summation of the critical research, showing that since Ms. Genovese crawled around to the back of the building after she was stabbed the first time (her assailant fled and returned) very few people would have seen anything.

The article quoted among others Charles E. Skoller, the former Queens assistant district attorney who helped prosecute the case and who also has written a book on it. “I don’t think 38 people witnessed it,” said Mr. Skoller, who had retired by the time of the interview. “I don’t know where that came from, the 38. I didn’t count 38. We only found half a dozen that saw what was going on, that we could use.” There were other mitigating factors as well; it was a cold night, and most people had their windows closed.

“Maybe only five people were in the position to hear her calls, if even that,” said Kevin Cook, an author who is currently researching the case for a book of his own and trying to determine exactly who knew what.
Kaufman doesn’t say if any of those (maybe) five people actually did call police. But to appearances, the original report—38 silent witnesses!—seems to have been grossly wrong.

That’s the background. What’s interesting in today’s report is the way people in the publishing world view the reissue of the book which helped make the bogus claim famous.

That hurry-up 1964 book was called Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case. And uh-oh! The book written by A. M. Rosenthal, who went on to be a very big honcho at the New York Times.

Rosenthal’s book is being reissued in digital form by the publisher Melville House. In her report, Kaufman asks if Melville should have included some sort of notice about the questions which have arisen concerning the book’s basic claims.

It would have been easy to include an introductory essay. No such essay appears.

We were very much struck by the reactions Kaufman records. Let’s start with the reaction from Melville House itself, and from a second observer in the publishing world:
KAUFMAN: Dennis Johnson, the publisher of Melville House, said he knew about the controversy but decided to stand behind Mr. Rosenthal’s account. “There are, notably, works of fraud where revising or withdrawing the book is possible or even recommended, but this is not one of those cases,” he said. “This is a matter of historical record. This is a reprint of reporting done for The New York Times by one the great journalists of the 20th century. We understand there are people taking issue with it, but this is not something we think needs to be corrected.”

But others say there was a way to tip at the controversy without correcting the book. “If you are taking a piece of iconic journalism and reissuing it, it is probably in the interest of the reader of today to place it into a context that makes sense,” said Peter Osnos, the founder and editor at large of PublicAffairs Books, which handles numerous works by journalists. “That doesn’t change the value of the literature.”
In fairness, the various parties Kaufman quotes may still believe that Rosenthal’s work is basically accurate. But as is true with others who get quoted, Johnson takes a weirdly casual approach to the question of basic accuracy.

“This is a reprint of reporting done for The New York Times by one the great journalists of the 20th century,” Johnson says, failing to note that the great man’s reporting may have been grossly inaccurate.

Osnos adopts a much more sensible view. But we’ll admit that we were struck by his use of the term “literature,” for reasons which may become clearer below.

Later, as Kaufman speaks with others, they seem to have a very weak sense of the basic notions of accuracy, truth and fact. In all honesty, some of these parties speak as if they think they’re discussing a novel rather than a piece of journalism about a deeply serious subject.

In the following passage, Kaufman quotes the person who pushed to get the book digitized, and a contemporary New York Times journalist. To our ear, they seem to think they’re discussing a novel. And they seems to care more about Rosenthal’s reputation than about issues of truth:
KAUFMAN: Mr. Rosenthal’s book was digitized in large part because of a campaign by Andrew Blauner, a literary agent whose clients included Mr. Rosenthal and who has long had an interest in the Genovese case.

Mr. Blauner would not address the criticism of the book’s assertions but said he thought that, details aside, Mr. Rosenthal’s work was about humanity and thus more relevant than ever.

“I don’t think that there’s any question that the story of Kitty Genovese is iconic and important, timely and timeless and transcendent, on so many levels,” he said. “There is, in my view, great intrinsic value and virtue in Abe’s book being made available to as many people as possible, in as many formats as possible.”

Mr. Blauner argued that when Melville first brought the book back into print in 2008, it contained a new preface by Samuel G. Freedman, a journalism professor who also writes a religion column for The Times. The preface, Mr. Blauner said, acknowledged that “myths” had built up around the book. But that introduction talks only about myths about Mr. Rosenthal’s role in the story, not the story itself.

Mr. Freedman said that Mr. Rosenthal was a mentor and that he had been honored to be asked to write the introduction. “The post-facto controversy about Abe’s book is certainly available with a few simply online searches to anyone who wants to find it,” he said. “But I chose not to disparage the book in an introduction to it, and I live serenely with that decision.”
Blauner’s comments would make perfect sense—if Thirty-Eight Witnesses was a novel. He says the book “was about humanity and [is] thus more relevant than ever.” It sounds like he thinks he’s discussing The Bridge of San Luis Rey.

As presented, Blauner doesn’t ask if the book is factually accurate in what it says “about humanity.” As he continues, he says “the story of Kitty Genovese is iconic and important, timely and timeless and transcendent.”

He doesn’t seem to care if “the story,” however timeless, happens to be a true story.

Freedman adds to the general air of fantasy amd fawning. If readers wonder if the book’s claims are true, they can conduct online searches! And inevitably, when he wrote that earlier introduction, he protected the reputation of the great Times journalist.

Myths had developed, Freedman told readers, without acknowledging that the myths seem to begin right in the book’s title. He doesn't want to “disparage” a book which may have its facts grossly wrong.

All through this report, we see excessive deference to the reputation of a Big Famous Journalist. We also see a puzzling sense that the book is question is some sort of novel. It tells a timeless tale!

Stories came early in human history; the concept of accurate facts came much later. Jesus conveyed his ideas in parables. He didn’t use charts of graphs. His parables didn’t have footnotes.

“Tell me a story!” Children still say it. Journalists try to help out.

For fourteen years, we’ve discovered what follows:

Journalists often seem to live in a pre-factual realm, in the realm of the “story.” Five witnesses turn into thirty-eight. Slightly clumsy offhand remarks get transformed into damning “quotations” or paraphrases. All scribes agree to recite them.

Is this story still “too good to check?” A very, very peculiar world view emerges from Kaufman’s report.


  1. Quaker in a BasementJanuary 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM

    Still too good to check? You quoted and bolded your answer:

    “I don’t think that there’s any question that the story of Kitty Genovese is iconic and important, timely and timeless and transcendent, on so many levels,” he said.

    "Transcendent." That's journalese for "Doesn't matter whether it's true. It's a great story!"

  2. I susupect that some of Woodward's "Deep Throat" encounters were also embellished for drama. In fact, didn't Brantlee state that he suspects as much, but didn't want to soil the supposed reputation of Woodward and Bernstein?

  3. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

  4. The blurb on the publisher page for the re-issue perpetuates the myth:

    Make your way to Amazon and read the kindle version preview - it's equally troubling, especially:

    "A certain myth has grown up around Rosenthal's coverage of the Genovese case. Like many myths, it contains both truths and falsehoods. In this version of events, which Rosenthal neither created nor disputed, he was alone in seizing upon the passivity and apathy of the neighbors as the most salient part of the crime."

    My take:

    "Myths" is the wrong word. Debunking, scepticism, questions about the veracity of the reporting have grown up, not myths.

    Sorry, in reporting without confirming then Rosenthal had a hand in the creation.

    Last, the most salient part of the crime was the man with the knife and the death of the woman.

    Bob's written about scripts and narratives which take on a life of their own, independent of the facts; this appears to be one of those cases.

  5. I remember the incident.

    Entire new schools of sociology and social psychology sprang up after it, all explaining the how and why of 38 silent witnesses.

    Now we know why. City dwellers are degenerates.

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

    Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
    Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
    Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

    Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was
    Mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

    Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income
    Tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

    Gee, is there a hidden message in there somewhere?

    BTW. Olson didn't do it.

  6. This is a scary story. We have violated too many facts. A desecration and revision of history is what they want, like a Stalin.

  7. This was also a huge international story. On a train from Prague to Berlin in 1973, two East Berlin kids wondered if it was true that if you are attacked on the street in America, nobody will even call the police. The story had been used for propaganda purpose. Did the propaganda delay the crumbling of The Wall? That's ridiculous on its face, but these perpetrators of journalistic myths in blatant disregard for the truth can have consequences.

  8. A.M. Rosenthal was absorbed into editorial management at NYT, and was notorious for getting rid of journalists whose reporting was in conflict with his ideology. Raymond Bonner's Latin American work, which documented massacres of civilians by U.S.-supported militaries, being the most obvious example, but hardly the only one.

    Rosenthal also killed the Iran-Contra story -- the Times had it long before it actually broke -- apparently out of admiration for the Reagan administration (his love for Ronnie & Co. was well known). And his social prejudices were notorious in the news room. Reporters openly speculated on how best to circumvent them, to get important stories printed.

    And yet, for some reason, you're still not allowed to say anything unkind about old Abe.

  9. Hey – fantastic blog, befitting looking near some blogs, appears a very charming ledge you are wearing. I’m currently wearing WordPress for a few of my blogs however looking to mutate alone of them above to a pallet alike to yours as a experiment operate. Anything in individual you would suggest about it?

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.