Replies

No, the problem is that the reporter was simply incompetant. He never finished his jounalism degree, was constantly being corrected, and was known to be submitting erroneous and even false reporting. The simple fact is that he was incompetant.

The problem is that he was being brought along using the "Dilbert Principle," which pretty much states that the more incompetant you are, the higher you'll go in an organization. In this case, the driving factor was "affirmative action."

The "sin" wasn't the reporter's. The sin belongs to the NY Times. They should have never have hired him. Then, they should have done what all newspapers do with new reporters or writers. Bring them along slowly. Writing obituaries or ad copy. Then give them one or two small stories to see how they do. Give them time to mature and become a good reporter, or at least see if they might be capable of becoming one.

Because of affirmative action, the reporter was thrown into an environment that he clearly wasn't prepared for. Now, whether the innacuracies, lies, and shoddy reporting were just his way of trying to keep up with his position, or if it was simply because he has no morals or values, the primary blame for this belongs to the NY Times. This in no way excuses the reporter for what he did, but it was the Times that put him in the position to be able to get published. And the fact that management and the editorial staff was aware of the problem but ignored it proves that the Times wasn't concerned about truth in reporting. Of course, anyone who's the slightest bit conservative, or cares about "the truth" has known that for years.

Mark