"Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception"

[holmes]

It’s conceivable that the managers’ inaction might have been encouraaged by a perception that they could be getting themselves in trouble by getting involved in a contentious issue involving an minority.

There you go…again. It’s equally conceivable that there was simply a communication breakdown or that inaction was caused because no one wanted to be the one to ‘blow the whistle’ Neither of which has ANYTHING to do with there being a minority involved.

I’m sorry but when every discussion and every scenario from you ends with ‘minority’, ‘diversity’ or any of the other buzzwords as being the cause, one must question your motives.

Especially when you admit that you are assuming. Why not try assuming that race wasn’t an issue? Give us some reasons, why this could have happened, without pulling the race card.

[december]

*Originally posted by holmes *
I’m sorry but when every discussion and every scenario from you ends with ‘minority’, ‘diversity’ or any of the other buzzwords as being the cause, one must question your motives.

It’s not just me who thinks the quest for diversity is an issue. Here’s an explanation from nationally syndicated liberal columnist Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post.

Blind Spot at the N.Y. Times

…It was rather that the paper should have known it had a liar on its hands and, despite obvious warnings, did little about it.

Several times Blair was reprimanded for his blatant inaccuracies. He was deemed so serious a threat to the paper’s well-earned reputation for accuracy that in April 2002 the Times’ metropolitan editor, Jonathan Landman, wrote an e-mail message to newsroom administrators saying, “We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now.” Yet not only was Blair not stopped, he was promoted to the national staff and ultimately given more responsibilities. Why?

The answer appears to be precisely what the Times denies: favoritism based on race. Blair is black, and the Times, like other media organizations, is intent on achieving diversity. Sometimes this noble and essential goal comes down to a parody of affirmative action. That seems to be the case with Blair. Supposedly a University of Maryland graduate (he never graduated), he was “offered . . . a slot in an internship program that was then being used in large part to help the paper diversify the newsroom,” the paper said.

The young reporter did well – he clearly has talent – and also not so well. But the not-so-well part was both serious and ominous – sloppy work habits and erratic behavior. That should have been enough to halt Blair’s career in its tracks. That it didn’t testifies to a newsroom culture, imposed from above, that cherished diversity – not more than accuracy, but so much so that journalistic standards were bent.

The Times’ senior editors defensively say that wasn’t the case. But the rigorous reporting the paper is noted for is absent here. Assertions that race played no role are made – and then left at that. Both the editor, Howell Raines, and the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., are quoted, but neither gives the slightest indication that he is aware of the culture they have imposed on the newsroom. Careful readers of the paper have long discerned such a culture in the news coverage. Now we know it existed in personnel policies as well – what Landman has characterized as top management’s commitment to diversity.

You may not agree with Cohen’s opinion, but holding such an opinion is nothing to be ashamed of.

[december]

Here’s an alternative explanation.

One Times veteran suggests Blair received excess favor not so much because he was black, but because he was green. According to this source, Blair is typical of the latest crop of reporters anointed by the Raines administration. “They’re young, they’re energetic, they say the right things, they kiss ass—but they don’t have the skills to do the jobs they’re handed,” says the source. “This kind of favoritism is repulsive to people who have been there awhile.”

Other insiders say the Blair case is symptomatic of a deeper issue: The Times newsroom does not operate as a meritocracy. Instead, sources say, Raines and Boyd pick their favorites for whatever reasons and become so invested in showcasing these reporters that they turn a blind eye to their flaws, which are said to range variously from inexperience and laziness to intellectual dishonesty and a high volume of factual errors.

Of course, several factors may have contributed to the Times’s managerial negligence. Whatever the causes, one solution would seem to lie in doing more checks of reporters’ accuracy and in treating lack of accuracy more severely.

[holmes]

December,
I don’t think anyone is saying that Race
couldn’t have played a part in this. What i’m saying, is unlike you and cohen, I don’t think it’s as simple as “let’s not fire this black guy, it’ll look bad.”

I’m saying is that there are plenty of other reasons why this happened and the fact that you seem unwilling to even entertain the idea of a different scenario, tells volumes.

[holmes]

I’m saying is that there are plenty of other reasons why this happened and the fact that you seem unwilling to even entertain the idea of a different scenario, tells volumes.

i stand corrected…good show…even if you don’t believe it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by december *
**You may not agree with Cohen’s opinion, but holding such an opinion is nothing to be ashamed of. **

I disagree. It’s not shameful to wonder whether race was a significant factor in this case; it IS shameful to assume that it was.

I won’t be surprised if some evidence comes out that it was a significant factor. I’ve not seen that evidence so far. The internship slot is the closest I’ve seen to providing any such smoking gun, but even that’s not particularly impressive: if the internship merely got Blair through the Times’s doors, that’s a far cry from getting him a regular job and then keeping him in the job after he’s shown incompetence.

I find the explanation that the newsroom’s bosses play favorites to be far likelier.

Daniel

[december]

Here’s another analyst who has seen a pattern, and who actually predicted this type of disaster.

Nearly seven years ago, the editor of The Washington Post Book World phoned to ask if I knew how 12 paragraphs from my June 2, 1996, Post review … had wound up a few weeks later in the San Francisco Chronicle under another reviewer’s byline…

When I called the “author” of the Chronicle review for his account, he stunned me: “As an African American, I would never `lift’ a story, because we are already under the cloud of Janet Cooke,” he said, referring to The Washington Post reporter who had fabricated her Pulitzer Prize-winning tale of a young boy on heroin. Recovering my voice, I said simply, “I really don’t care what race you are.” He insisted that his editor’s story of a mix-up was true and promised to send me his original version. It never came. And he remained at his post for several more years.

Years ago, in a chapter of my book “Liberal Racism,” I told of how signals from the top of the Times were setting the stage for just such a disaster. “Diversity is the most important issue facing this paper,” Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. claimed, crusading nationally for color- and surname-coded “diversity”-driven hiring, training and news coverage. It was a moral mission, he said, but a business one, too.

But newspapers risk caricaturing individuals and the subcultures to which they may or may not belong when well-meaning editors try to make the paper “look like America.”…

If people like Jayson Blair and the Chronicle’s reviewer weren’t hired or kept on to assuage white managers’ moralistic enthusiasm and guilt, there would still be many fine black journalists in American newsrooms. But too many newspapers are driven by corporate policy to finesse the heavy lifting that should have been done for more black kids much earlier in life, at home and in school.

Professionals can’t indulge double standards for the sake of appearances or moral relief. The harsh reality that the soft bigotry of low expectations only worsens is that for every legitimate complaint a black reporter can make about the glass ceiling that blocks promotion, there arises another legitimate complaint by a reporter or manager - black or white - about having gone the extra mile (or two) for a young black reporter with insurmountable skill deficiencies or demons.

*Jim Sleeper, a former columnist at The New York Daily News and author of “Liberal Racism” (Viking Press, 1997), is a lecturer in political science at Yale University. *

[Jello]

I’m fairly certain the World Socialist Review is the only publication in the world that feels Blair didn’t get what he deserved.

The New York Times’ extraordinary public denunciation Sunday of one of its junior reporters, Jayson Blair, is a serious episode that warrants close examination. It is a signal of deep crisis, demoralization, panic and cowardice at an institution that has long referred to itself as the “newspaper of record”.
…
The article produced by the Times is itself a parody of objective journalism. Veering erratically between an unconvincing presentation of the timeline of Blair’s transgression and wildly subjective editorializing, the Times describes Blair’s actions as “a betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.” It refers to the reporters’ laptop and cell phone as “his tools of deceit,” and goes so far as to release personal details, stating that he had “considerable personal problems,” suggesting that he suffered from alcoholism and revealing that he had been referred to a company counseling program.

Panic and hysteria reign at the New York Times

Personally, I think they should have started the story on the front page and continued it on the obits.

[december]

The US Attorney’s Office is investigating the possibility of a criminal prosecution against Blair. See: Prosecutor Seeks Information on Resigned Times Reporter

There’s supposedly pressure within the Times staff to replace Howell Raines as Executive Editor.

But from what I’m hearing about the mood among Times reporters and editors, Raines is on the brink of being unable to effectively continue. Yesterday afternoon, as the backlash grew, the ruling triumvirate of Boyd, Raines and Sulzberger, abruptly canceled small meetings and announced a big “town hall meeting” to address the crisis for today at 2.30 pm. There are whispers of a work slowdown to force Raines out.

I find the idea of a criminal prosecution a bit bizarre. OTOH I can well understand the resentment of Raines. To the degree that his management style contributed to the problem, he may have shown himself as not the right person to be Executive Editor. Also, if the Times discovers other similar cases (as Drudge claims), then one cannot put all the blame on Blair.

At least two more NY TIMES reporters are being investigated for possible journalistic irregularities, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned… MORE…

Reporters and editors, furious at executive editor Howell Raines, have quietly started a ‘work slow-down’…

[Bricker]

I believe there are two issues here.

A agree that the likely cause of this problem was the “culture of favoritism” that apparently reigned in Raines’ newsroom.

But I also think there’s a revealing look at the Times’ diversity program to be had.

The Times has claimed that race played no factor in Blair’s employment. But they have also claimed he was hired as part of a diversity program.

Now, the first claim seems false. If it’s true, then their diveristy program was pretty worthless.

I suspect they are making that first claim in order to distance their hiring from this debacle. I’m not sure that’s necessary. It seems to me that Blair was hired in part because he was black. He then kept his job not through his skin color, but his apparent ability to schmooze and network. And it appears that Raines was particularly susceptible to this sort of Eddie Haskell approach. In other words, Blair’s hiring was race-based; his retention was the result of poor management that had nothing to do with his race.

That’s my theory, anyway.

[Belowjob2.0]

So we can also assume that the guys at Enron and Worldcom, not to mention Arthur Andersen, got away with fraud and other malfeasance because they were white?

[Belowjob2.0]

Since I’m on a roll, I’ll answer my own question: Yes.

At least in the circles I run in - black managerial and professional types, friends, family and colleagues - there was a widespread conviction that only white guys could get away with the kind of fraud and incompetence exhibited at Enron, Worldcom, and other corporate disaster areas. The reasoning goes as follows: they were white, they looked and acted the part, so everyone believed what they were saying, and didn’t check the facts.

Do people in my circle have a biased POV? You bet. The average corporate white guy could never get away with the kind of crap that went down at Enron. The bad behavior had relatively little to do with the executives being white, and everything to do with power, greed, and exemption from the normal level of scrutiny.

Jayson Blair strikes me as the type of corporate black person that so many of my friends and family complain about. He’s charming, not particularly competent, and most importantly, non threatening. He could never challenge any of his white bosses for their jobs - he could scarcely do his own. They liked him. They really, really liked him. He was, up until the time that he was caught, a useful idiot.

[december]

Interesting article from the Washington Post.

Lisa Suhay, a contract writer for the New York Times, was stunned when she saw what Jayson Blair had done with her work.

It was the summer of 2000, and Blair had asked her to interview some people about the recently announced Firestone tire recall. Suhay discovered a neighborhood man named Michael Matha in his New Jersey driveway who said he had just gotten replacement tires from Firestone for his Ford Explorer. She e-mailed his comments to Blair.

The next day’s story opened with Matha having been transported to “a Firestone tire and service center.” In Blair’s version, the man had not yet gotten his tires. “I’ve heard that they’re putting people off because there’s a shortage of replacement tires, but I’m not taking no for an answer,” Matha was quoted as saying.

Note that Blair turned this little interview into an anti-Firestone talking point. This example suggests that Blair twistee the truth in a direction that tended to support the world view of Sulzberger and Raines. He would not have lasted very long if he had fabricated stories that were unfairly critical of liberal organizations.

A suck-up AND a bully

Another interesting point is that while Blair sucked up to those above him, he bullied those below him.

She said she complained to editors on the Times metro desk, and clerks on the business desk, but they brushed her off. Blair refused to run a correction, she said, and at one point threatened her.

“Jayson told me that if I was tired of working for the Times, he would make sure my name was taken off the assignment list,” Suhay said. “He made it clear that he was in the office every day while I was just a voice on the phone. Who would editorial listen to if he told them not to use me because I was difficult to work with? I backed off.”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by december *
Interesting article from the Washington Post.Note that Blair turned this little interview into an anti-Firestone talking point. This example suggests that Blair twistee the truth in a direction that tended to support the world view of Sulzberger and Raines. He would not have lasted very long if he had fabricated stories that were unfairly critical of liberal organizations.

Absolutely, and this is why I consider him a con-artist: he found out what his bosses wanted to hear, and told them just that. If he’d been working at WSJ, he’d have fabricated stories about welfare moms buying lobster and caviar.

Daniel