This guy's crime was that he was using other people's material. If this guy had stuck to making up headlines and proving his points through creative writing, he would have been just fine. That's how the media does business. He wrote over 600 articles. The Times looked the other way for this guy until they just couldn't anymore.
Wonder if Arthur and Howell will blame this on the vast, right wing controlled, media cabal.
Go to the above website. This cartoon was printed in The Diamondback, the University of Maryland’s newspaper. This clown Blair used to work there before he dropped out of UMD and went to making up stories for the NYT. Below is what I wrote to The Diamondback, hoping they would print it as a guest column. I suppose it was too scathing. Anyway, my point, is if this is what college newspapers allow, and papers like the NYT hire these clowns, then we should not be shocked or surprised when guys like Blair finally get caught.
To the Editors:
A friend directed my attention to the Editorial Cartoon in the latest edition of The Diamondback. I do not know whether to be angry or amused, perhaps just sadly disappointed. I will confess to being shocked, being forty-five years old and a career veteran of the United States Navy, at my naiveté.
Why am I naïve? Because I was under the impression that the University of Maryland, or any university for that matter, was in the business of educating children to become functioning adults in our society. The cartoon by Mr. Friedman indicates otherwise, shows not only a total lack of respect for Governor Ehrlich, it implies a juvenile mentality not only on his part but also on the editors of The Diamondback. I can see Mr. Friedman impressing editors using this cartoon in future employment interviews. Perhaps he can find work at the New York Times, as did Jayson Blair, another fine example of fair and professional journalism from the ranks of The Diamondback.
Would the editors allow Mr. Friedman to print the words the hand symbol represents in the paper? I think not. I learned years ago that an individual who resorts to cursing has run out of things to say. It is obvious that Mr. Friedman has nothing original to say and it is sad that the editors allow the ranting of a child. It makes one wonder on the teaching methods at the university that allows for a shocking lack of _expression, but also the low standards of The Diamondback. Considering the recent news of Jayson Blair and his connection with The Diamondback, perhaps one should not wonder at all.
I am sure that Mr. Friedman’s intention was to shock and I will confess that he did. I am equally positive that my letter will not be the only one you receive negatively commenting on Mr. Friedman’s freedom of speech. I am not suggesting that Mr. Friedman should not exercise his God given right of free speech. However, like a child that utters the profanity it hears at home in the open market, Mr. Friedman must learn that there is a time and place for vulgarisms. The time and place is not in a venue which sole purpose is the _expression of ideas and the reporting of items of interest to the UMD campus.
One question I have for the young Mr. Friedman – when you drew this cartoon – an amateurish attempt by the way – did you take into consideration how this will make Governor Ehrlich’s wife and children feel? For the editors – is that what you consider responsible journalism? If so, than I am not surprised that you allowed Mr. Friedman’s socialistic shock cartoon. Considering the attention Jayson Blair brings to The Diamondback, this seems to be the quality of people you obviously like to attract and work on your paper.
In the interest of fairness, would you allow the printing of a rebuttal cartoon featuring former Governor Glendening? Considering that Governor Ehrlich has not yet signed a budget and not responsible for the fiscal woes the state and university now encounter, by using your artistic logic, a cartoon representing what former Governor Glendening accomplished would probably be fit for a magazine such as Hustler. Right up your alley, so to speak.
In conclusion, I want to be as blunt as possible so that there is no misunderstanding. The cartoon was not funny, was disrespectful to the Governors family, indicated a severe lack of knowledge of how government works by young Mr. Friedman, and the artistic quality – well, let us just say it is somewhat lacking. Your editorial control, with Mr. Friedman and Jayson Blair as examples, is also lacking. However, I will continue to pick up the Diamondback. I have three cats at home and they find great use of the paper. Besides, it is free.
The First Amendment stricture,". . . no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."means that the government forbidden to require a standard of reliabiliy on books, magazines, or newspapers. The writers are not under oath, and are not subject to penalties for perjury.That is essential for freedom of thought and opinion to flourish. It does now occur to me, however, that there could be an analog to the "super marriage" concept being tried in, I believe, Louisiana. That concept being, that the "super marriage" vows are more binding, more respected by the state and divorce more difficult than in "regular" marriage.
The incentive to enter a "super marriage" is, simply, that refusal to enter into it is much like insisting on a prenuptial agreement--it implies a limitation of trust which both partners should have in each other before marriage in any event.
Perhaps there should be a "super journalism" entered into voluntarily by a news organization, and by its reporters individually as a condition of employment. That "super jouralism" would subject its practitioners to the penalties of perjury for knowingly false publication, including the insinuation that you know something when you do not in fact know it. The incentive to enter "super journalism" would be, simply, that refusal to do so would be denial of your proud boasts of "journalistic ethics"--a refusal to put your money where your mouth is.
Theoretically, FCC-licensed broadcasters already are subject to that sort of standard; the FCC certifies by law that the licensees are "broadcasting in the public interest as a public trustee"--and is charged with enforcing a prohibition on the transmission of false signals. We saw in the aftermath of the "Gore Wins Florida" announcement, tho, how seriously that law is taken. The discussion on Wednesday morning was not about the error broadcast Tuesday night at 7:50, but about the blood relation between GWB and the analyst who first correctly called "Bush wins Florida."
So my "super journalism" proposal is unserious, meant to dramatize the contrast between the claims of journalistic "objectivity" and the reality of journalistic cowardice/herd mentality. And to illustrate Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate