Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Blair Watch Project - 14 Unanswered Questions in 'NY Times' Jayson Blair Probe
editorandpublisher.com ^ | May 12, 2003 | Greg Mitchell

Posted on 05/12/2003 12:04:52 PM PDT by newgeezer

While thorough and, some might say, courageous, the mammoth report in yesterday's New York Times on the Jayson Blair scandal left many questions unanswered, most notably: How did he really get away with his evil ways for so long? But there were at least 14 other issues, big and small, left unresolved by the Times' investigators, to whit:

Size matters? As a student journalist and intern "the short and ubiquitous Mr. Blair stood out," according to the Times' report. This begs the question, how "short" does one have to be to stand out?

Race matters?Times' supervisors emphasized that Blair earned an internship at the paper in 1998 "because of glowing recommendations and a remarkable work history, not because he is black." But then, in the very next sentence, we learn: "The Times offered him a slot in an internship program that was then being used in large part to help the paper diversify its newsroom."

Who knew the Times was that wacky? "There are many eccentric people here, but they've earned it," Jerry Gray, an editor, informed Blair in 1999.

Maybe he should try the "Cheez Doodle Defense"? Another editor, Charles Strum, said, "I told him [Blair] that he needed to find a different way to nourish himself than drinking scotch, smoking cigarettes and buying Cheez Doodles from the vending machine."

A surefire way to get promoted at the Times? "Mr. Blair continued to make mistakes, requiring more corrections, more explanations, more lectures about the importance of accuracy. Many newsroom colleagues say he also did brazen things, including delighting in showing around copies of confidential Times documents, running up company expenses from a bar around the corner, and taking company cars for extended periods, racking up parking tickets. ...In January 2001, Mr. Blair was promoted to full-time reporter...."

Maybe they want to correct that? About midway through the Times' opus we are told, "When considered overall, Mr. Blair's correction rate at The Times was within acceptable limits." However, a few sentences later, the report quotes a January 2002 evaluation of Blair by Jonathan Landman, metropolitan editor, noting that his correction rate was "extraordinarily high by the standards of the paper."

Does stop mean go at the Times? In April 2002, we learn, Landman sent a two-sentence e-mail to newsroom administrators: "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." This plea would go unheeded for more than a year.

Stop him before he kills again. A few months later, when Blair got briefly shuttled to the sports department, Landman recalls warning the sports editor, "If you take Jayson, be careful." Maybe the sports editor thought Landman meant "be careful to stock the vending machine in the sports department with Cheez Doodles." In any case, Blair was soon promoted to covering the top U.S. story of the time -- the D.C. area sniper shootings.

Sock it to him? After weeks of corrections and complaints about Blair's coverage of the sniper shootings, Jim Roberts, national editor, was finally warned about his "record of inaccuracy" and that he needed to be watched. Roberts, of course, did not pass this warning on to his deputies. "It got socked in the back of my head," he explained last week.

License to thrill. By this time, other Times editors had managed to form their own assessments of Mr. Blair's work. Apparently they considered him "a sloppy writer who was often difficult to track down and at times even elusive about his whereabouts." On a more positive note, "he seemed eager and energetic." Did it occur to anyone that eagerness and energy might be precisely the two qualities you would NOT want in a sloppy writer who no one can ever find?

Blanket pardon? On an expense report filed this past Janaury, Blair said he bought blankets at a Marshalls store in Washington. A check of the receipt (much) later showed that the purchase was made at a Marshalls in Brooklyn. Forget the geographic obfuscation -- does Times policy allow employees to put in for household items?

Overstatement of the year? "Man, you really get around," a fellow reporter e-mailed Blair this spring.

Why wouldn't they card him? "Mr. Blair did not have a company credit card," the Times report revealed, but "the reasons are unclear." Wait a minute, the Times investigators can trace the purchase of blankets to a store in Brooklyn but can't explain why Blair did not have a company credit card?

And who, disguised as Clark Kent... Between October and April, Blair filed articles from 20 cities in six states but did not submit a single receipt for a hotel room, rental car or airplane tickets.

Source: Editor & Publisher Online


Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is the editor of E&P.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: New York
KEYWORDS: howellraines; jaysonblair; mediafraud; newyorktimes; plagiarism; thenewyorktimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2003 12:04:52 PM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
ping
2 posted on 05/12/2003 12:05:17 PM PDT by newgeezer (Admit it; Amendment XIX is very much to blame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
He crossed the line of outright plagiarism, and chiseled on his expense account.

In short he embarrassed and stole from his boss.

Had he just stuck with making up stories, he would have never been brought to account.

3 posted on 05/12/2003 12:10:46 PM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Thanks for posting this!
4 posted on 05/12/2003 12:12:00 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
FYI
5 posted on 05/12/2003 12:12:31 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
It would appear that the NYT wants to portray Jayson Blair as a loose cannon who just happened to be rolling around their decks for years, even in lead stories, and it certainly wasn't his managers' fault that nobody worried enough about his known blunders. Nothing to see here, Jayson's been fired and totally discredited, there's no one else to discredit, move along.
6 posted on 05/12/2003 12:20:19 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
BTW, in reading my #6, please understand that Jayson is a total fraud, but he should have been tossed, or at least marginalized years ago. Why the self-vaunted NYT didn't do so is the real problem, and I'm glad to see them getting nailed by many for it.
7 posted on 05/12/2003 12:23:37 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xJones
Yep, Blair was just an abnormal and unusual loose canyon roaming around lying for years.

What got him fired was his plagerizing not his lying. He was dumb enough to plagerize and get caught.

You and I know that if the Slimes fired every lying reporter, editor, publisher and oped writer at the NY Slimes, they would only have blank paper with a few ads, no stories.
8 posted on 05/12/2003 12:26:19 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xJones
I understood where you were coming from.
9 posted on 05/12/2003 12:27:00 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
I'm not "outraged" because I suspect many journalists do not much different than this guy.

What struck me was the great space and ardor given by the NY Times to this guy. Even gave his picture so everybody will know him by face. I've read about such incidents before, usually they're treated with an apology and retraction.

This guy was "exposed" with trumpets blaring. I thought it was distasteful and was wondering if there are ulterior motives or emotions involved.

10 posted on 05/12/2003 12:31:43 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Why didn't the people in charge do something before now on his Blair? Landman pointed out problems with Blair and his work but no one believed him. In fact Blair received promotions instead when his work was already substandard. Since Blair's supervisor was black, as was Blair, why didn't the supervisor do something about the problem early one? Was it because of the "racial diversity" issue that Blair was given free rein for so long?
11 posted on 05/12/2003 12:32:22 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
How does someone who drops out of college in his senior year become someone who 'stands out'? Could it be that the only thing that stood out was the color of his skin, and merit or qualifications never entered into the equation?
12 posted on 05/12/2003 12:35:20 PM PDT by OldFriend (without the brave, there would be no land of the free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
You and I know that if the Slimes fired every lying reporter, editor, publisher and oped writer at the NY Slimes, they would only have blank paper with a few ads, no stories.

I agree with you Grampa. Is anyone really surprised by this paper?

13 posted on 05/12/2003 12:45:48 PM PDT by WellsFargo94
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WellsFargo94
Since their out rageous articles, opeds and editorials helped to elect the Clintoon twice and to keep him in office, nothing from the Slimes suprises me.

What does surprise me is how they get by their lies and DNC news letters and hate GW articles posing as news.
14 posted on 05/12/2003 12:48:09 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xJones
Why would Jayson drop out of journalism school during his senior year?
15 posted on 05/12/2003 1:17:00 PM PDT by uncitizen (Beware fertilizer salesmen and lawyers: they'll both try to sell you a load of crap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

The Blair Witch Hunt Project


16 posted on 05/12/2003 1:20:50 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
If you look at a newspaper as a manufacturing operation (which a it is), then the NYT has a serious problem with quality control. If they manufactured widgets instead of newspapers there would be a swarm of lawyers surrounding the place with fists full of product liability lawsuits.
17 posted on 05/12/2003 1:35:20 PM PDT by randog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
No one did anything because the word was out that Raines & Sulzberger were backing "the kid."

My favorite passage in the Times article was the admission that all the restaurants he went to when he was "covering" the D.C. sniper case were actually in Brooklyn. According to the Times, an "administrative assistant" was the only one who checked his expense form. That's right! It was the secretary's fault! I'm sorry, I've worked in corporate office for over 30 years, and all expense reports are signed off by the employee's supervisor. The Times is still lying.
18 posted on 05/12/2003 1:45:48 PM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
There are definatley ulterior motives involved. This, while true, was essentially a hit piece. The object, to make him, the ultimate loose cannon, who can only lie, and thus anything he says, can not be believed. The Times just took a huge shot on credibility, they have to make it look like they are saints, and just had one sinner, who they tried to help. If he turns around and sues them, for any other reason, or talks about why he managed to keep his job, or how he was hired, or even the fact, that his qualifications were not up to par, but he beneffited from the affirmative action programs there, no one will believe him, and hopefully, after the way the Times wacked him, he'll never work in media again. If he sues, the jury pool is poisioned, if he wants to work somewhere else, its next to impossible, if he says other writers were lying too, you can't be sure if he's lying again, or speaking the truth. This article was good in destroying this guy, the Times kind of went for over kill here, and came after him with both guns blazing, and they're still getting ready to reload.
19 posted on 05/12/2003 1:48:02 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen
Why would Jayson drop out of journalism school during his senior year?

I don't know, and net searching numerous sites only turns up the fact that he did leave in his senior year. The "why" isn't stated, and only a liar and/or a NYT reporter could give you "facts". :)

20 posted on 05/12/2003 2:01:27 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson