Friday, May 16, 2003
‘Times must come clean’: Here it is. The Spiked Column. Brian McGrory basically shoves Raines’ own words back in his face (see Raines’ remarks five years ago about the Mike Barnicle affair over at Andrew Sullivan). From Brian’s column:
“I say this because I, too, am haunted by something I know in my bones. Jayson Blair is young and, notably, black. He was prolific and, in Raines's own word, ‘hungry.’
“He was also, as I saw firsthand when he interned in the Globe's Washington bureau, an obsequious manipulator as devoted to office gossip as he was to his work. But because of his ambition and his potential, he represented a prized catch in a profession always striving for diversity.
“What troubles me is my belief that the Times didn't just give Blair the benefit of repeated doubts because of his color, but that in its pursuit of talented minority reporters, they assigned to him an entirely different standard of journalism - a substandard. If a white reporter, male or female, had as many corrections as Blair, had his history, he or she would have been swiftly kicked out the door.
“But as the paper confesses so many sins, it has avoided this most obvious point, making Raines's lightning-fast turn of the race card five years ago seem entirely disingenuous now." ...
Hub Blog's response: There are other good lines, digs and points. Read it. ... I still think the affirmative-action angle is being overplayed. But what’s amazing is this: By initially denying affirmative action played any role in the scandal, Raines managed to make it the central issue in the scandal -- when it isn’t the central issue if you’ve ever been in a newsroom with a serial plagiarist or general all around nut case of any color or gender. ... Raines could have defused the entire situation by saying, yes, definitely, Blair’s race was a factor but ... ‘Entirely disingenuous.’ So true. ... Through his actions, Raines has done more damage to affirmative action than any right-wing yahoo talk-show meister could have accomplished in a thousand broadcast rants. Doubt Raines understands this. ... Raines’ comments about the Barnicle affair still boggle the mind, knowing what we now know. ... To the Globe: Was it worth the spike? Answer: No. Consequence: Yet another unnecessary embarrassment caused by a bad decision that was later reversed. ...
What's worse: It wasn't that great of a column. I mean, Brian could have used these lines from Raines' patronizing lecture to the Globe five years ago:
"Public respect for newspapering is wounded when rules that would be enforced with doctrinal ferocity among the mass of journalists are lightened for a star who has great value to the paper. The damage is internal as well. It says to young journalists that the contract of trust that we ask them to sign -- about what they write and what they tell their editors -- is not really absolute or equally enforced."
As I said: "... knowing what we now know."
Update -- Daniel Schorr is going out on a limb: “As full disclosure, if that is needed, let me acknowledge a bias against journalists and media organizations that practice to deceive.” ... More innocuous snooze material: It’s the little mistakes that count. ... The average panelist on Washington Week in Review would probably titter and pretend this is hilarious: “The scandal over fabricated stories by New York Times reporter Jayson Blair continues to develop. Media critics who called for the resignation of Mr. Blair's senior editors were stunned to learn yesterday that the Times has no senior editors.” ... Thank goodness This Week in Journalism is over.
“I say this because I, too, am haunted by something I know in my bones. Jayson Blair is young and, notably, black. He was prolific and, in Raines's own word, ‘hungry.’
“He was also, as I saw firsthand when he interned in the Globe's Washington bureau, an obsequious manipulator as devoted to office gossip as he was to his work. But because of his ambition and his potential, he represented a prized catch in a profession always striving for diversity.
“What troubles me is my belief that the Times didn't just give Blair the benefit of repeated doubts because of his color, but that in its pursuit of talented minority reporters, they assigned to him an entirely different standard of journalism - a substandard. If a white reporter, male or female, had as many corrections as Blair, had his history, he or she would have been swiftly kicked out the door.
“But as the paper confesses so many sins, it has avoided this most obvious point, making Raines's lightning-fast turn of the race card five years ago seem entirely disingenuous now." ...
Hub Blog's response: There are other good lines, digs and points. Read it. ... I still think the affirmative-action angle is being overplayed. But what’s amazing is this: By initially denying affirmative action played any role in the scandal, Raines managed to make it the central issue in the scandal -- when it isn’t the central issue if you’ve ever been in a newsroom with a serial plagiarist or general all around nut case of any color or gender. ... Raines could have defused the entire situation by saying, yes, definitely, Blair’s race was a factor but ... ‘Entirely disingenuous.’ So true. ... Through his actions, Raines has done more damage to affirmative action than any right-wing yahoo talk-show meister could have accomplished in a thousand broadcast rants. Doubt Raines understands this. ... Raines’ comments about the Barnicle affair still boggle the mind, knowing what we now know. ... To the Globe: Was it worth the spike? Answer: No. Consequence: Yet another unnecessary embarrassment caused by a bad decision that was later reversed. ...
What's worse: It wasn't that great of a column. I mean, Brian could have used these lines from Raines' patronizing lecture to the Globe five years ago:
"Public respect for newspapering is wounded when rules that would be enforced with doctrinal ferocity among the mass of journalists are lightened for a star who has great value to the paper. The damage is internal as well. It says to young journalists that the contract of trust that we ask them to sign -- about what they write and what they tell their editors -- is not really absolute or equally enforced."
As I said: "... knowing what we now know."
Update -- Daniel Schorr is going out on a limb: “As full disclosure, if that is needed, let me acknowledge a bias against journalists and media organizations that practice to deceive.” ... More innocuous snooze material: It’s the little mistakes that count. ... The average panelist on Washington Week in Review would probably titter and pretend this is hilarious: “The scandal over fabricated stories by New York Times reporter Jayson Blair continues to develop. Media critics who called for the resignation of Mr. Blair's senior editors were stunned to learn yesterday that the Times has no senior editors.” ... Thank goodness This Week in Journalism is over.
