by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 15, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

ielding questions about renegade 27-year-old reporter Jayson Blair, whose perfidy rocked the venerable NY Times, Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., Managing Editor Gerald Boyd and Executive Editor Howell Raines profusely apologized for the scandal, bringing disgrace to the nation's most prestigious newspaper. Blair loomed tall tales, frequently embellishing, fabricating and outright plagiarizing material for many stories appearing on the paper's front page. Giving The Times a black eye, Blair spun some wild yarn, much like The New Republic's Stephen Glass in 1998, whose recklessness earned him a much-deserved early retirement—and eventual book deal. "I've received a lot of advice on what to say to you today, all of it well-intended," said Raines, admitting he was coached on some pretty fancy damage control. Acknowledging, "our institution has been damaged," he reluctantly accepted responsibility but refused to resign.

     As executive editor, Raines bears responsibility for the work of reporters under his wing. Upper management was warned several times about Blair's fast and loose style finally leading to his dismissal. Reporting on the beltway sniper, Blair misled readers—and indeed law enforcement—feverishly engaged in cracking one of the most vicious killing sprees in the nation's history. Even the U.S. Attorney's Office is busy determining whether Blair's indiscretions violated any known laws. Raines ignored warnings by Times' Metropolitan Editor Jonathan Landman that Blair showed "unprofessional" conduct, urging the paper to end Blair's employment. Both Raines and Boyd strongly supported Blair, promoting him from the sports beat to national news. While at the national desk, Blair committed his most egregious abuses. All the while, Blair, who happens to be African American, falsified his stories.

     For a glamorous newspaper boasting "all the news that's fit to print," Sulzberger refused to go along with calls for Raine's resignation. Though warned by Landman, upper management turned a blind eye, giving the impression, at least to some, that Blair was coddled because he was African American. Regardless of the reason, it's clear that politics kept Blair on the job. Registering complaints, a sizable contingent of reporters and editors expressed concerns about journalistic practices, communication, diversity, staffing hierarchy, advancement, leadership and equal treatment. Blair became a lightening rod not because he's a scapegoat but precisely because of upper management's heavy-handed style. Newspapers like the NY Times are supposed to be the guardian of the First Amendment, not oppressive corporate structures. Watching Sulzberger, Raines and Boyd making excuses gives little reassurance.

     Reading between the lines, Blair's misdeeds remind disinterested parties that guardians of the free press sometimes allow politics to infect the newsroom. Not only do reporters spin the news but editors decide which stories "are fit to print." Take NY Times health reporter Jane E. Brody, for instance, whose meticulously detailed report in 1992 touted Botox for treating spasmodic dysphonia, using the best-known cheerleader, Dr. Mitchell Brin, who introduced Botox for treating "the strangled voice." Brin is currently a VP of Allergan, the maker of Botox. Brody decided unilaterally that the other side of the story, namely, Dr. Morton Cooper's non-medical cure of spasmodic dysphonia, was "unfit to print." Compromising journalistic ethics occurs not only by overly zealous reporters but by the corporate elite picking headlines and stories. Pointing fingers at reporters excuses upper management for dismantling the First Amendment.

     Blair's reckless approach reflects growing pressure to get stories out in record time. With news happening fast and furious and with wire services, especially on the Internet, beating newspapers to the punch, there's no longer time to check sources. While Blair got caught in the vice, countless others face the same dilemma. Executive editors must take the heat, but Sulzberger knows he can't have his entire staff resign in the process. Today's deregulation and fierce competition places greater emphasis on shareholders than ethical standards. "He needs to show that he [Raines] can effectively lead them now, because this is an anguished time, a very painful time at the New York Times," said Alex Jones, director of Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, concerned that prestigious newspapers are now run like Wall Street investment firms.

     Throwing the NY Times for a loop, Jayson Blair exposed the dark side of American journalism, now consumed by fast times and expediency. While no fluke, Blair's failings reflect a system gone haywire, far too obsessed with advertising dollars over old fashioned journalism. Modern skepticism over government might have begun with Watergate, but today's cynicism reflects a system marred by too much pressure and too little quality. Whether Blair was coddled because of race is anyone's guess. But it's clear he was in over his head, forced to survive in unscrupulous ways. Bernard Goldberg's eye-popping book Bias reminds healthy skeptics that corporate boards set political agendas in network news. Fox's cable news channel proves beyond any doubt that party politics permeate the newsroom. Blair's indiscretions turn stomachs but are just the tip of the iceberg.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.