 |
 Schadenfreude  |
This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Posted on 05/17/2003 1:38:03 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
Denver Post
al knight
The Times forgives itself
By AL Knight
Denver Post columnist
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - The difference between an explanation and an excuse, it is said, is normally several hundred words.
The New York Times, a publication that is not accustomed to being outdone, used up 7,200 words last Sunday in offering its excuse for having hired and promoted the now-discredited Jayson Blair as part of its racial-diversity program.
Blair, it turns out, was not only prone to writing fiction but was also just too clever for The Times' editors. The newspaper now claims Blair hid a poor record for accuracy as well as a bundle of personal problems. Despite these flaws, he was promoted to the national desk and given plum assignments right up to his forced resignation.
While The Times attempts to save face, it is, in fact, the way in which the newspaper handled the Blair correction that hurts its reputation as much as Blair ever did.
The correction is substandard journalism if one assumes stories are still supposed to answer obvious questions like who, what, where, when and why.
While The Times dealt with Blair's failings pretty well, it was awfully skimpy when it came to explaining why its editors ignored so many early signs of trouble.
A key section of the article illustrates that fact: Jonathan Landman, the metropolitan editor, had urged The Times to dump Blair more than a year ago. Within months of that recommendation, the newspaper's two top editors nevertheless promoted Blair to the national desk.
That sequence of events is obviously crucial, yet the newspaper dealt with it as follows:
"After taking a leave for personal problems and being sternly warned, both orally and in writing, that his job was in peril, Mr. Blair improved his performance. By last October, the newspaper's top two editors - who said they believed that Mr. Blair had turned his life and work around - had guided him to the understaffed national desk, where he was assigned to help cover the Washington sniper case."
Note the artful phrasing of that passage. Blair had been "sternly" warned. Blair "improved." The top editors "believed." The editors "guided him" to the "understaffed" national desk. The common-sense translation using Timesspeak is as follows: The top editors of The New York Times ignored the warning of a key department head and promoted Blair to assignments that would have thrilled most of the newspaper's staff. One of those top editors, Gerald M. Boyd, is - like Blair - an African-American. He is the same man, incidentally, who headed the committee that promoted Blair to full-time reporter over the recommendation of other editors. When Boyd was asked about the influence of race in this series of decisions, he replied (unhelpfully): "To say now that his promotion was about diversity in my view doesn't begin to capture what was going on."
Do the writers of The Times' correction follow up this evasive comment by asking Boyd the obvious follow-up questions? Of course not. The newspaper lets Boyd off the hook with his comment that plenty of young white reporters have also been swiftly promoted.
Wait just a minute! Is Boyd saying that the white reporters also were promoted because they were white? If not, why mention race? If he is saying that, does that justify Blair's promotion because he is black?
Boyd, and The Times, would have the world believe that race played no factor in the Jayson Blair matter. Most readers won't buy it. The Times' letters to the editor yesterday (although carefully chosen, no doubt) demonstrate as much.
The truth is that The Times' treatment of this episode does a great disservice to the other minority reporters at The Times who may have been unfairly tarnished by the hint of a double employment standard.
As for Blair, it wouldn't be too surprising if he sued The Times. After all, by the newspaper's own account, it assumed some of the risk when it ignored repeated signs of journalistic trouble and pushed him up the employment ladder only to abandon him after another newspaper raised questions about his plagiarism. Given the sordid facts of the case, Blair just might have a solid wrongful discharge claim.
Al Knight (alknight@mindspring.com) is a member of the Denver Post editorial board. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday.
Not until he "inks" the book deal, only in America, ugh.
OXYMORON ALERT!
Framing this story in the context of affirmative action helps the Times by moving affirmative action proponents on their side.
The proper way to frame the issue is: The Times hired a liar to serve as a reporter. Management within the Times determined that the man was a liar. Rather than fire him, they promoted him. Why did this happen? Why should the public trust the Times in the future?
I personally think that the fact that Blair was a liberal had more to do with it than his skin color. Would this have happened to a lying conservative black man? No, not a chance! Would this have happened to a lying liberal white man? It probably already has!
Do I think the Times distorts on a regular basis to promote liberal ideology? You bet. There is no good reason for a news organization to lie. If they will for one reason, they will for another. One thing is certain, the corporate media wields too much unchecked power over politics.
Coming soon..........The New York Times has "learned a valuable lesson" about journalistic integrity. We have "improved". All we need is for people to "believe" in us again. We will soon be "restaffing" the national desk.
Restaffing the desk with the same leftist goons writing the same liberal, commie prop.
In short, "we'll be there on Election Day, subverting the United States as we always do".
It is good to see a major editor for a major metropolitan newspaper breaking ranks with the Times, and pointing out the obvious. The Times did not bother to research and report the management side of Jaysongate. It only covered the Jayson side, to a fare-thee-well. The press itself needs to keep the heat on Howell Raines, until his towering, brass-palted ego is toppled into Times Square in New York.
Congressman Billybob
You're right, Raines is my target... The press loves a good story, so far so good. I'll bet there's some investigative journalists out there combing over every thing he ever wrote. I wish someone would go to work on the LA Times. Matt Drudge is on the story, that should help, eh.
|
Schadenfreude |
"I am a good person!"
"I am a good person!"
"I am a good Person!"
Mr. Sulzberger, you're an arse and your "newspaper" is garbage.
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.