 |
|
What's A Guy Gotta Do To Get Fired Around Here? - General
Posted by Jeff (Sunday May 11 2003 @ 11:31AM EDT)
|
UPSTAIRS AT JEFF'S HOUSE, MAY 11, 2003.
After issuing a string of lies and deceit, New York Times reporter Jayson Blair resigned in disgrace from that newspaper on May 2, 2003. Yesterday the extent of his deception was detailed by his former employer. Although concern of inaccruracies in Blair's reporting surfaced early in his tenure with the Times, serious scrutiny was not applied until April 30, 2003 when the San Antonio Express-News charged him with plagarism. Blair resigned under pressure.
The paper has thus far uncovered factual errors in 36 of the 73 articles Blair submitted since his promotion to the national desk. Despite expense reports which fail to account for airfare, hotel rooms and rental cars, Blair issued datelines from places he never visited. In most cases, Blair was googling information from his Brooklyn apartment and plagarizing reports from other news services. In several cases, Blair provided quotes and information from his own imagination.
In summary of its account of Blair's exploits, the Times quoted one of its own, A.M. Rosenthal, for a blue print on damage control. "When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do," he said. "And that is get right as fast as you can." The paper did exert significant effort to "get it right," but it failed to explain how Blair was able to rise in its ranks despite a history of generally sloppy practices. In January 2002, Blair's performance evaulation criticized his "extraordinarily high" correction rate. Three months later, an editor succinctly alerted newsroom administrators with a email message that read,"We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." But in October of that year Blair was promoted to the national desk.
One of the people responsible for Blair's rise from intern to national desk was Gerald Boyd, a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. That organization awarded him Journalist of the Year for 2001. Jayson Blair was the man who nominated him. Last week Boyd qualified his decision to promote a reporter with a documented history of sloppiness with an explicit statement that the promotion was not a matter of race. Yet when Boyd later recommended Blair for another promotion, he conceded he was not the best man for the job. Jonathon Landman, the editor who authored the aforementioned email message that recommended Blair stop writing for the Times, acknowledged the company's commitment to diversity when he recounted his decision not to further protest a promotion.
In response to the New York Times' itemization of Blair's deceit, the National Association of Black Journalists issued a statement with regard to skin pigmentation and the Times fiasco. "NABJ stands staunchly opposed to those who 'play the race card' in this unfortunate incident. While Jayson Blair is black, his race has nothing to do with allegations of misconduct."
But what role did race play in his rise from intern to national desk? It seems odd that Boyd felt compelled to explicitly state that race was not an issue in the promotions of a reporter that he himself conceded was not the best person for the job. It seems odd that Landman cited his company's commitment to diversity when he recounted his decision not to protest the promotion. Beyond commitment to diversity, the Times failed to explain Jason Blair's rise within its ranks. There is no indication that merit drove the decision.
At the 1993 Diversity Summit, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. declared diversity is "the single most important issue" his newspaper faces. In 1991 he told Boyd's National Association of Black Journalists that diversity was "our cause." Until he demonstrates otherwise, the Blair case appears to illustrate the implementation of what amounts to social policy at the expense of journalistic integrity. By New York Times management's own admission, Blair was "not the best candidate for the job." If a poorly evaluated reporter was indeed promoted on the basis of skin pigmentation rather than merit, then one is left to wonder what other social mandates the New York Times has implemented at the expense of truth and general journalistic integrity.
--
For more on Sulzberger on diversity.
|
|
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 06:52AM EDT)
|
You mean to tell me that the NY Times has writers that report non-truths?! That is only a news flash to Jeff.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Cher (Monday May 12 2003 @ 07:40AM EDT)
|
This is an interesting article coming on the heals of an excellent 60 Minutes segment on a writer for The New Republic magazine who did the same thing. Like the New Republic, there was little they could do with someone determined to cheat. However, for the Times, red flags were raised prior to May 2003. This incident reflects badly on their personnel policies that seemingly allowed this guy to advance. However, it is still one incident in a paper with thousands of employees and reporters that cover the globe. They are still the paper of record.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 09:54AM EDT)
|
Am I the only one that believes that there is no way this is an isolated incident? The fact that this guy was promoted shows that there is a breakdown in the infrastructure. I wonder what the masses would think if the same thing happened to the Lancaster New Era.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Cher (Monday May 12 2003 @ 10:18AM EDT)
|
I would say that someone blatantly lying and making up stories is probably an isolated incident. The chances of you being caught - as both he and S. Glass from TNR were - are too great. The problems with the promotions policy probably aren't isolated. There are too many levels to what happened - from advice from colleagues being ignored to someone getting a promotion when he/she "wasn't the most qualified candidate." WRT local rags, I'm sure if you have the correct last name, you're on the fast track to a corner office.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 10:40AM EDT)
|
But, we are not talking about someone who was not the best suited for a job, we are talking about someone who did not do their job and was promoted. Again if things were ignored then that makes the hole in the infrastructure appear larger.
I see the word "probably" appearing a lot in the last posting. My point is, the NY Times should not get the benefit of the doubt just because they are the NY Times.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 10:42AM EDT)
|
Where the hell is Matt?
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Matt (Monday May 12 2003 @ 10:57AM EDT)
|
"Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear." -Lou Reed
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Cher (Monday May 12 2003 @ 11:00AM EDT)
|
I say "probably" because I can't jump to the conclusion that all their reporters are making up stories. I can, however, agree with you that the hole in the infrastructure appears pretty large. Yet, people do get promoted despite incompetence. They get promoted for all kinds of stupid reasons from family connections to looks, personality, etc. None of this exempts the Times from cleaning up its own house. Where the hell is Matt anyway!?
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 11:07AM EDT)
|
Lou Reed - !?! This discussion cannot be allowed to continue, I am not sure where we are going with this.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Anonymous (Monday May 12 2003 @ 11:14AM EDT)
|
For a guy who's carried this thread, it seems odd that YOU don't know where it's going.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
By Jeff (Monday May 12 2003 @ 01:24PM EDT)
|
Mark is not playing with a full deck....
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 12:53PM EDT)
|
Lou Reed lyrics as advice, Come on.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 12:55PM EDT)
|
How come anonymous gets an indentation?
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Jeff (Monday May 12 2003 @ 01:24PM EDT)
|
Anonymous replied to your comment by clicking the "reply" link in YOUR message. This causes it to be indented below yours much like an email thread. Look above see my reply to anonymous....
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Mark (Monday May 12 2003 @ 01:38PM EDT)
|
I see. I see. Your all against me. All against me.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Jeff (Monday May 12 2003 @ 01:40PM EDT)
|
If you used the "reply" link, then we'd know what you were talking about...
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
By Matt (Monday May 12 2003 @ 01:43PM EDT)
|
My point is that the Times isn't immune from all of the vulgarities that arise when people with agendas are supposed to be reporting the truth. The best method for understanding truth is via the scientific method, which journalism does not practice, so I take all news articles with a grain of salt.
Am I more skeptical of the Times because of this? No, since I've always been skeptical of the Times....as well as every other newspaper....
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
|
By Matt (Tuesday May 13 2003 @ 06:56AM EDT)
|
This is Jeff's worldview false dichotomy: that if one doesn't blindly believe everything one reads in his beloved New York Times, then one is an Internet kook. I've never cited the link above; only, in a discussion of conspiracy theories, referred to another link that mentioned Jeff's link (I had never been to Jeff's link until today).
But Jeff is trolling to get blogdayafternoon in as many sites' logs as possible. So click away and enjoy the laugh, just understand why.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
By Jeff (Tuesday May 13 2003 @ 09:12AM EDT)
|
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography was the primary source of Matt's orignal reference. Since his cited reference relied heavily, and in some cases exclusively, on this material, he did in fact cite it in an email discussion whether he's read it or not is immaterial. And if he didn't click on it until today, then that means he took both me and the author of his original reference completely at our word when we cited this "book."
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
By Matt (Tuesday May 13 2003 @ 10:21AM EDT)
|
The point you seem to be missing was that I was not citing anything as truth. By your logic you believe the "book" since you cited it!
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
By Matt (Tuesday May 13 2003 @ 02:02PM EDT)
|
Who is blaming black folks for this one bad apple? Critiques of affirmative action aren't critiques of blacks, they are critiques of the white liberals who hold the racist view that blacks can't succeed on their own.
Maybe Jayson got his job through sheer managerial incompetence; Lord knows corporate America is full of white folks holding important jobs such that their stupidity and lack of ethics makes any sane person go "how the hell did they get *THAT* job?". If that is the cause in Jayson's case, the Black Commentator is right on. But that doesn't mean affirmative action isn't one of many causes of the 'wrong person in the right job' and shouldn't be critiqued.
The BC has also pointed out some other Times shortcomings, valid ones at that, especially the lie they told about the anti-war protest turnouts (good rule of thumb: the real turnout is exactly halfway between what the cops/mainstream media report and what the demonstration organizers report). I am also not surprised they ignored presidential candidates in an article; anyone who follows a third party knows that mainstream media goes out of their way to avoid anyone whose views do not reflect the media entity's paradigm of acceptable reality.
|
|
[ reply | parent ]
|
|
|
|
|
Enlighten me, Marge
|
The most formidable weapon against errors of any kind is reason.
-- Thomas Paine
|
|
We Did Our Job!
|
|
|
