# "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419 "2003-05-11T01:15:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/61 "2003-05-12T12:42:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > _“MANY ON the New York Times predicted a long war or a quagmire. This is true. Some of their regular op-ed columnists made such a prediction.”_ > > Oh, really? Is it “many” or “some”? OK, it’s “some”. I was wrong to say “many”. You are _almost_ correct in your assertion that **The Times actually favored the war but urged as much UN and other international support as possible.** In fact, they had two key editorials, which I remember quite well. The first one almost seemed to say that the _Times_ favored war with Iraq. However, the second one clarified that the _Times_ only supported a war on Iraq _if it was a UN endeavor_. They opposed the war as it was actually conducted – i.e., wiothout UN auspices. **Jackmannii** , I didn’t mean to imply that the sloppiness and errors carry over into editorials and op-ed pieces. A throwaway comment of mine led this thread into a long hijack. Getting back to the OP: One idea is that the _Times_ appoint an Ombudsman, as the _Washington Post_ has done. That would provide a central person to notify in case of alleged fraud. The ombudsman could also independently evaluate subtler problems, like alleged spin or bias. National Public Radio also has an ombudsman. The _Times’s_ explains why they don’t have an ombudsman: > [@](#): > > \*\*Does The New York Times have an ombudsman? \*\* > > The Times does not have an ombudsman because it believes that departmental and senior editors must be personally accountable to readers and the public. The Times also believes that a journalist’s work is most properly evaluated by an editor directly familiar with the assignment and the conditions under which it was carried out. [http://www.nytco.com/company-reader-faqs.html#h](http://www.nytco.com/company-reader-faqs.html#h) ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/62 "2003-05-12T13:20:35Z")
**december** : '_"OK, it’s “some”. I was wrong to say “many”._ Well how about coming up with evidence for _any_? The truth is, I don’t you think you will find any except possibly for Kristoff. As it stands you make an allegation about what “many on the New York Times” have said, and basically you can’t cite a single one. Is that appropriate for Great Debates or Great Waste of Time? As for the Times’s own editorial position–yes they were in favor of war but against acting unilaterally. But the reason was certainly _not_ because they thought the war wouldn’t be won without the UN! Rather, the importance of involvement with the UN was, as I said, all to do with long-term political and foreign policy effects, including the ultimate outcome of regime change in Iraq. So your assertion that the Times was wrong on the war and Bush right is utterly inaccurate–almost as spectacularly inaccurate as your statement about what “many” columnists wrote. All I can say at this point is that it’s too bad you’re not as good as covering up your up inaccuracies as was Blair 😉 Honestly, I feel as though you need to followed around by your own personal fact-checker. Could you possibly comport yourself with the dignity befitting someone who knows, our ought to know, the difference between a) **fact** (of which you have almost none with respect to the New York Times) b) **opinion** (of which your own tend to be pre-digested by the pundit of the moment, and that of others you regard as open season for your own faulty and partisan paraphrases) and c) **unfounded assertion** (which is your speciality at the present moment)? I am indeed aware that my entire participation in this thread has been tantamount to a hijack. But it’s a testimony to how irresponsible a poster you have become that you are more ready to spout false assertions without end than you are to adjust your claims or do the reasearch required for more accurate debate. A word on the rest of the thread: although I have nothing against the idea of an ombuds function for the Times, I don’t see how it would have helped this particular problem. Ombuds aren’t usually in a position to check factual accuracy unless they are alerted to a problem; and this kind of problem should be dealth with by editors not by an ombuds. (Oh and glad you’re now aware that NPR has an obuds 🙂 ). ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/63 "2003-05-12T13:42:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > Well how about coming up with evidence for _any_? It’s a bit difficult, since the pre-war op-ed pages are no longer available to me. Anyhow, this is a hijack, so I will let the point drop. I’m glad to see that you agree that possibly Kristoff did express such a position. Maybe we’re closer than it seems. > [@](#): > > As for the Times’s own editorial position–yes they were in favor of war but against acting unilaterally. Right, if by “unilaterally” you mean “without the UN,” rather than “without other allies”. However, the UN didn’t approve the war. (Given what we now know about France’s relationship with Iraq, perhaps they never would have.) So, the Times favored war only under hypothetical circumstances that didn’t exist – a “woulda, coulda, shoulda” excuse. > [@](#): > > But the reason was certainly _not_ because they thought the war wouldn’t be won without the UN! You must know that I never said that was the reason. Regardless of their reason, the war has been a successful endeavor, in the opinons of most. A number of war opponents have now admitted that they would have supported the war, had they known it would turn out so well. > [@](#): > > Could you possibly comport yourself with the dignity **Mandelstam** , please get off your high horse. You wrote in bold, “ **The Times actually favored the war but urged as much UN and other international support as possible.** ” That was incorrect, if by “the war” you mean “the war that was actually conducted.” The Times favored some other version of the war, which didn’t happen. They opposed the actual war. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/64 "2003-05-12T14:11:15Z")
Right, so in other words my statement was _not_ “incorrect”–though I have no problem at all with your having wanted to clarify a particular (and important) statement with respect to it. And, no, the specific editorial opinion articulated by the Times _isn’t_ well-expressed by any statement that says, simply, “They opposed the actual war.” They bought into the rationale of the war almost completely (with the exception of the alleged links between Iraq/Al Qaeda); but urged a different way of seeing it launched. France’s position is proof of nothing because had the Bush administration adopted a modified policy–say extending the deadline and working towards a compromise–and had France still objected, the NYT almost certainly would have considered circumstances to be altered. At no point did the NYT say, the United States must and should do whatever France is willing to do under any and all circumstances. (May I remind you, since you are so eager to invoke public opinion, that at the time of these editorials the majority of Americans agreed with the Times’s position, not Bush’s. As the Times also predicted, once the war began many Americans let go of their reservations and supported the war as most people do tend to do when their country is at war.) Bottom line: your saying Bush was right and the NYT wrong is absurd under the circumstances. The NYT never said that the war wouldn’t be won, never said that there weren’t decent odds that it would be won fast, and _certainly_ never said that a fast win wouldn’t be politically popular. On the contrary, it said the very reverse of all of those things. And your credibility with respect to the NYT is, as far as I’m concerned, non-existent. So, no, I will _not_ get off my high horse until you stop spouting unfounded assertions and then defending them. Up until the time that you do, you are, IMO, a blemish on this board and an obstacle to the whole idea of reasoned, educated debate. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/65 "2003-05-12T14:33:57Z")
Back to the OP: Some points that might be mentioned: Blair didn’t graduate from college. (The [cited article](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/11PAPE.html?pagewanted=10) says near the end, “Thomas Kunkel, dean of the journalism program at the University of Maryland, gently suggested that the former student might return to earn that college degree.”) Blair was close to the two top people on the Times, according to [Newsweek](http://www.msnbc.com/news/912116.asp). > [@](#): > > Blair’s close mentoring relationship with Times managing editor Gerald Boyd, who is also black, was not explored in depth in the paper. Blair wrote Boyd’s biographical sketch in the Times’s internal newsletter when Boyd was named managing editor. Blair was known to brag about his close personal relationships with both Boyd and Raines, and the young writer frequently took cigarette breaks with Boyd. Note also the quote from Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. > [@](#): > > The person who did this is Jayson Blair…Let’s not begin to demonize our executives. This position seems to contradict the Times’s stated reason for not having an ombudsman: > [@](#): > > The Times does not have an ombudsman because it believes that departmental and senior editors must be personally accountable to readers and the public. [Andrew Sullivan](http://andrewsullivan.com/), who has done a fair amount of writing for the Times, sees this as a top management f\*ckup. > [@](#): > > What seems obvious is that Blair wasn’t that enterprising or clever; his lies were easily checked; the travel receipts he submitted were proof enough of his deception; his own editors were aware of the problems and told management; there were plenty of complaints from readers; and so on. The scandal, in other words, isn’t what an overwhelmed, twenty-something young reporter succeeded in getting away with. The scandal is how he wasn’t stopped, and despite crystal-clear warnings, was actually promoted at the behest of the highest authorities in the place: Gerald Boyd and Howell Raines. They weren’t just AWOL for this calamity; they compounded and magnified it, by promoting Blair again and again, despite their own editors’ ferocious objections and a fast-accumulating record of inaccuracy and deception. If any executives are to be held responsible, these two would have to be at the top of the list. Sulzberger’s request not to “demonize executives”, didn’t mention any names, but these two may be the executives he had in mind. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/66 "2003-05-12T17:32:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Blair was close to the two top people on the Times, according to Newsweek. So, you are pointing to evidence that this was _not_ an example of horrors! Affirmative Action, but a simple case of old fashioned Good Ol’ Boy networking and favoritism in which the players are, coincidentally, (in this case), black. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/67 "2003-05-12T19:06:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*So, you are pointing to evidence that this was _not_ an example of horrors! Affirmative Action, but a simple case of old fashioned Good Ol’ Boy networking and favoritism in which the players are, coincidentally, (in this case), black. \*\* There’s something to what you say, **[tomndebb**, particularly with respect to Boyd. It’s not exactly “Good Ol’ Boy”, since Blair was in his 20’s and he didn’t know the Times management before he was hired. OTOH, he does seem to have charmed them. Still, it’s hard to separate his appeal from his race. According to the quote located by NPR, Raines boasted about Blair as an example of diversity at the Times. Part of his charm seems to be that he was an example of black success. Anyhow, it sure seems remarmable for the Times to hire a college graduate as a reporter, not to fire he when he’s caught filing fraudulent stories, and then to promote him soon afterwards. If Blair can generate that sort of treatment through charm alone, then he’s wasting himself as a mere New York Times reporter. He should set his sights on being elected President. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/68 "2003-05-12T20:51:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Andrew Sullivan, who has done a fair amount of writing for the Times, sees this as a top management f\*ckup. Then why not invite HIM to come over here and post his opinions, saving you the time and hassle? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/69 "2003-05-12T21:08:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > ISTM that for the National Press Club to award their prize to such a non-PC book, the book would need to be extra good. Conservatives must be twice as good and twice as smart to get half the respect. Conservatives: the new blacks. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Goo\_Fee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Doctor\_Goo\_Fee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Goo_Fee)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/70 "2003-05-12T21:10:27Z")
why do we all continue to respond to december when he continues to poke us in our eyes with the blunt stick of partisan nonsense? do we hope to change or enlighten him? do we feel better when we vent against such ignorance? is december, along with being a goose-stepping O’Reilly-ite, actually so good at posing pointed questions that we can’t resist answering (even though we should know better by now)? why? it never ends. why? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/71 "2003-05-12T22:37:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doctor Goo Fee \* > \*\*why do we all continue to respond to december when he continues to poke us in our eyes with the blunt stick of partisan nonsense? \*\* Maybe it’s because this is an important and interesting issue. America’s leading newspaper has been brought low by a scandal that they call the worst in their 152-year history. Was it entirely Blair’s fault? Did a desperate search for diversity lead the Times to lower its standards? Was it bad management? Favoritism? Bad luck? What will be the impact on the Times? Will other reporters commiting fraud be discovered? How will moral on the Times be affected? Will the scandal affect other media? And, what should be done about it? Is Blair’s resignation enough? Should the Executive Editor or Managing Editor be replaced? Does the Times need an ombudsman? Should there be some other structural change in management? Speaking of the Managing Editor, according to the Los Angeles Times, he was quite a supporter of Blair. > [@](#): > > By the Times’ account, Boyd was head of a committee that recommended Blair be hired, despite the reservations of other editors. Boyd, along with Raines, pushed the inexperienced reporter with a poor record onto the prestigious national staff. > > What the Times does not note is that in 2001 it was the tyro Blair who nominated Boyd for the National Assn. of Black Journalists’ journalist of the year award for his role in producing the Pulitzer Prize-winning series “How Race Is Lived in America.” When Boyd subsequently was promoted to managing editor, according to sources at the Times, Blair was selected to write the announcement for the paper’s in-house newsletter. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Goo\_Fee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Doctor\_Goo\_Fee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Goo_Fee)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/72 "2003-05-12T22:45:28Z")
It IS and interesting and important issue, december. But I was directing my questions toward your posts in general, not just this one. But of course it was a hijack. Sorry (for the hijack, anyway). ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/73 "2003-05-12T23:25:12Z")
Does anyone remember [Stephen Glass](http://www.msnbc.com/news/910393.asp)? Why was no one blaming race and “diversity” when his fictional reporting came to light? Blair is bad. He not only wronged his employer and his profession, but unfortunately he has screwed his black colleagues. If they didn’t operate under a microscope before this, they most certaintly will now. Inexperienced, incompetent people have always held top positions in business and industry. Sometimes the incompetency of these folks comes to light, sometimes it doesn’t. Why is everyone acting like nothing like the Blair scandal has ever happened before? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/74 "2003-05-13T00:58:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > Blair is bad. He not only wronged his employer and his profession, but unfortunately he has screwed his black colleagues. If they didn’t operate under a microscope before this, they most certaintly will now. You are right. Also, the Times management screwed Blair’s black colleagues by hiring Blair and then giving him so much leeway. There must have been many other black reporters who were more qualified. In fact, the Times may have even screwed Blair by giving him all the leeway. > [@](#): > > Why is everyone acting like nothing like the Blair scandal has ever happened before? I think it’s the shear magnitude of fraudulent stories – many on top news items, such as Jessica Lynch and the Washington D.C. sniper. Now that the story has come to light, the Times doesn’t have a good explanation of why Blair was retained and even promoted after his problems came to light a year ago. It occurs to me that the Blair story won’t have “legs.” There’s not much in the way of a potential follow-up story. There won’t be a Congressional investigation or class action lawsuit or any other dramatic, continuing news thread. So, this story will be gone. As a result, the Times may not suffer much damage to its reputation. The official Times position, as expressed by the Publisher, is that all the blame goes to Blair. They may well get away with that. It’s ironic, in a way. The Times’s product is accurate news. That product was corrupted over a period of several years. If some other corporation had been selling a corrupted product for years, and if they blamed it all on a single low-level employee, the Times would typically demand that senior management be held responsible. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/75 "2003-05-13T01:57:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, the Times management screwed Blair’s black colleagues by hiring Blair and then giving him so much leeway. There must have been many other black reporters who were more qualified. I don’t understand this. You’re once again assuming that Blair’s race was instrumental in his being hired. Surely you don’t think that the job would have gone necessarily to another black reporter if Blair hadn’t been hired. If Blair was as good as his reputation had suggested, then he deserved leeway. He had everyone bamboozled. It’s his incompetency–not the leeway–that was the problem. > [@](#): > > In fact, the Times may have even screwed Blair by giving him all the leeway. I agree. It’s obvious–from all the errors and sloppy reporting he had done through the years–that he was flailing and in WAY over his head. > [@](#): > > So, this story will be gone. Just like all the stories of lying reporters. Blair is not the first–or the last–journalist who’s sins will come to light. Too bad he won’t be asked to write a book like Stephen Glass was when his scandal broke. I would love to learn how it must feel living a life full of lies and deception. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/76 "2003-05-13T02:53:31Z")
This is a page 27 story, at best. It’ll be dead by next week, if not earlier, and won’t change one aspect of AA. Let’s resume this debate when the SCotUS rules on the U of M issue. That will have major consequences. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/77 "2003-05-13T03:06:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Anyhow, it sure seems remarmable for the Times to hire a college graduate as a reporter, not to fire he when he’s caught filing fraudulent stories, and then to promote him soon afterwards. SHOW US PROOF THAT THEY DID NOT FIRE BLAIR AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT, AND THEN SHOW US ADDITIONAL PROOF THAT THEY **PROMOTED** HIM AFTER THEY LEARNT HE WAS DECEIVING THEM!\* MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHOW US HOW THIS SINGLE INCIDENT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A SYSTEMATIC DECLINE IN THE QUALITY OF JOURNALISM AS A RESULT OF NYT’S POLICY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. THANKS FOR LISTENING… NOW YOU CAN PUT YOUR FINGERS BACK IN YOUR EAR. - Don’t weasel by quoting somebody’s comment as quoted by some blogger. The proof should simply be the fact that NYT’s editorial staff was aware of the lies and deception in Blair’s reports and kept quiet and in fact ended up promoting him ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/78 "2003-05-13T07:13:11Z")
For those interested: William Safire on the issue: > **[Opinion | 'Huge Black Eye' (Published 2003)](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/12/opinion/huge-black-eye.html)** > > William Safire Op-Ed column on finding that New York Times reporter Jayson Blair faked and plagiarized articles that have appeared in Times for last few years; addresses 375 disheartened members of Times newsroom; says fact is that they make up... First on the internal reaction: > [@](#): > > Just about everyone at this newspaper is sick at heart at the way one Times reporter betrayed our readers and all of us with his sustained deceit and plagiarism. > > … > > Apparently this 27-year-old was given too many second chances by editors eager for this ambitious black journalist to succeed. As he moved to more responsible assignments, some editors failed to pass along assessments of his past shortcomings while others felt the need to protect the confidentiality of his troubles. Result: the con artist gamed a system that celebrates diversity and opportunity. > > The Times’s executive editor, Howell Raines, is determined to get right with readers by letting the “terrible mistake” be examined in excruciating detail. In addition to this opposite of cover-up, he assigned another newsroom group to come up with ways to prevent another failure of communication among our editors, the most expert of communicators. Now on the reaction, in part addressed to discussions like this one > [@](#): > > … But now my right-wing friends are suddenly up to their hips in their own Schadenfreude. (That’s the German word for “the guilty pleasure one secretly takes in another’s suffering.”) > > First comes the culture war. Some of my ideological soulmates say: See? There goes the prestigious New York Times, … suckered for years by one cunning kid. … > > Then to the affirmative-action angle: See what happens, they taunt, when you treat a minority employee with kid gloves, promoting him when he deserves to be fired? … > > Here’s my reply to their Kulturkampf: For exactly 30 years, I have been supported handsomely for disagreeing with The Times’s editorial page, which is dovish on defense, leftist on economics and (with the exception of civil liberties) resolutely wrongheaded. Never have I been silenced, and conservative thinkers have an ever-fairer shake on the Op-Ed page. > > As for news coverage being influenced by editorial policy, I evoke the name of my predecessor: that’s a Krock. On occasion, a leftist slant on a story slips through the backfield, but with conservatives boring from within and fulminating from without, the news side soon straightens itself out. What is “fit to print” is the truth as straight as we can tell it, which is why Times people are so furious at this galling breach. > > Now about the supposed cost of diversity: A newspaper is free to come down on the side of giving black journalists a break if its owners and editors so choose. What’s more, this media world would also benefit from more Hispanics and Asians coming up faster. > … The ommitted sections are themselves of interest, so I would advise that although this quote is extensive, interested readers follow up. I believe we can see a difference between the fair minded critique and its opposite. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/79 "2003-05-13T11:13:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by litost \* > **SHOW US PROOF THAT THEY DID NOT FIRE BLAIR AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT, AND THEN SHOW US ADDITIONAL PROOF THAT THEY PROMOTED HIM AFTER THEY LEARNT HE WAS DECEIVING THEM!** _ Please read the cites already provided. It’s in there. **Collounsbury** , thanks for the Safire link. Three quibbles. It’s not actually Schadenfreude I feel, but just plain Freude. I am happy that the Times getting caught in this misfortune, but there is no guilt in my pleasure. I think this is a salutory event, that will lead the Times and other media to take more care and produce more accurate news. He said: “As for news coverage being influenced by editorial policy, … On occasion, a leftist slant on a story slips through the backfield, but with conservatives boring from within and fulminating from without, the news side soon straightens itself out.” However, he fails to address the problem of _story selection_. Media sometimes slant their coverage by selecting stories that favor one side and downplaying stories that favor the other side. His comment, “Now about the supposed cost of diversity: A newspaper is free to come down on the side of giving black journalists a break if its owners and editors so choose.” That’s an evasion. The question isn’t whether the Times is free to promote diversity in certain ways; the question is whether their approach is harming their quality, and, if so, how to improve the quality. Also, this point may be legally incorrect. If the Times systematically treats non-black employees less favorably than black employees, they might be violating civil rights law. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419/80 "2003-05-13T11:47:38Z")
Here’s an e-mail sent to the Times staff. [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jaysonblair1.html](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jaysonblair1.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception/174419.md?page=5)