 |
 Schadenfreude  |
Posted on 05/13/2003 1:45:57 AM PDT by kattracks
The publisher and top editors of The New York Times issued two new statements yesterday about the fabrications of ex-reporter Jayson Blair even as new questions arose about how Blair was able to slip so many lies into print.Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd said they accepted responsibility for a lapse in "organizational safeguards" designed to protect "the trust of our readers and the general public."
Beyond a four-page chronicle of Blair's deceptions that ran Sunday, they promised "a management analysis that will lead to recommendations for improvement" at the battered broadsheet.
In a separate staff memo, Raines said he reviewed files on Blair's career, "and I have absorbed most of that information, along with an awareness that much of it remained in our records rather than in the foreground of our editing process."
The statements followed widespread criticism of The Times, with many commentators saying the top editors got off easy in Sunday's opus.
Ken Auletta, whose media stories in The New Yorker magazine include a 21-page profile of Raines in June, said that although he was impressed by The Times' detailed case against Blair, he still wanted to know more.
In April 2002, for example, Times metropolitan editor Jonathan Landman, aware of Blair's many errors and unprofessional behavior, sent a blunt message to newsroom administrators saying, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now."
Auletta said: "What happened to that message, and why didn't anyone act on it? I want to know that."
Asked by the Daily News whether Raines, Boyd or any other staffer involved with Blair offered to resign because of the scandal, Sulzberger said no.
"The person who did this is Jayson Blair," he said.
Meanwhile, staffers buzzed about whether Blair's relationship with a woman who is a friend of Raines' wife helped win him favored treatment.
Sources said the woman, Zuza Glowacka, has worked in The Times' photo department.
The Times reported Sunday that Blair, when confronted with a charge of plagiarizing a story about a Texas family, was able to describe their house in detail, possibly because he had seen the paper's "computerized photo archives."
Glowacka, 23, a Polish emigre who could not be reached yesterday, is said to be a friend of Raines' Polish-born wife, Krystyna Stachowiak, whom the editor married in March.
Stachowiak, a former journalist who later worked in public relations, and Glowacka's mother, journalist Ewa Zadrzynska, were among three people who set up "Poland on the Front Page, 1979-1989," a media exhibit in Warsaw last fall.
Raines said through a spokeswoman last night that he never socialized with Blair.
Originally published on May 13, 2003
|
Schadenfreude |
"Sure, I'll HIRE 'em if I have to, but TALK to them? Don't be absurd."
Just like Janet Reno accepts responsibility for Waco.
Excellent question! Any way we could push that?
Meanwhile, staffers buzzed about whether Blair's relationship with a woman who is a friend of Raines' wife helped win him favored treatment.
Sources said the woman, Zuza Glowacka, has worked in The Times' photo department.
The Times reported Sunday that Blair, when confronted with a charge of plagiarizing a story about a Texas family, was able to describe their house in detail, possibly because he had seen the paper's "computerized photo archives."
Glowacka, 23, a Polish emigre who could not be reached yesterday, is said to be a friend of Raines' Polish-born wife, Krystyna Stachowiak, whom the editor married in March.
Stachowiak, a former journalist who later worked in public relations, and Glowacka's mother, journalist Ewa Zadrzynska, were among three people who set up "Poland on the Front Page, 1979-1989," a media exhibit in Warsaw last fall.
Raines said through a spokeswoman last night that he never socialized with Blair.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I think the direct case against Raines in the Jayson Blair episode is even stronger than the one you make. This isn't about an abstract system failure. I don't even think motivations are the issue. It's about specific, arrogant, arbitrary acts by Times executives that defied the Times' own internal controls. Up to the moment Blair was transferred to the National Desk, it looks like all the normal Times internal systems were working - problems with the otherwise-promising Blair had been identified, he had been counseled and kept on a short leash, and having completed "probation" he was being transferred to the Sports desk where he could at least do no harm.
Then suddenly - and even the Times' self-examination makes this seem like a kind of immaculate conception - Blair is lifted out of the Sports desk and thrust into the sniper story. You've got the money quote in your post: It's Raines' decision to be the angel for Blair's career, and it's Raines' decision, scandalously, to deceive his staff and not tell Blair's new editor, Roberts, about his past problems. That's not a "contributing factor," that's the unambiguous cause of the problem.
I almost don't care what Raines' policies or intentions were. There's no reason why affirmative action can't coexist with performance accountability, and in fact exactly that seemed to be the "normal" system at the Times. What happened was a product of Raines' personality and decisionmaking style - arbitrary, unaccountable, with a dose of almost feudal personal favoritism. It's classic, dysfunctional, management-by-whim. This is squarely Raines' screw up as an executive." That nails it, I think. I think we can measure the future credibility of the Times by whether Howell Raines remains as executive editor.
When Blair was transferred to the sniper story may well be when the Stachowiak-Glowacka connection could have helped him.
Shouldn't it be "It bears repeating?"
Maybe I have it wrong, but I don't think so... Wouldn't that be an interesting gaffe from the Editors...
Cherchez la femme, oui?
I had a feeling from the beginnning of this saga that while "diversity" and "affirmative action" played a role at least at the beginning, there was more to it than that as time went by.
My theory was that Jayson had some personal blackmail dirt on one or more of the higher-ups in the NYT pecking order, giving him a "protector(s)". After all, by all accounts, he was indefatigable, a workaholic, always on the move in places he shouldn't be or wasn't thought to be and he was constantly flitting around the newsroom chatting it up and worming his way in with editors and co-workers alike. To me, this seemed vaguely unprofessional, strange and a little too gregarious for a semi-unqualified, questionable reporter at a rather staid, prestigious, professional company. But he got away with it and remained.
The above-mentioned connections between Blair and the women connected with Howell Raines which are now being revealed is very intriguing and may provide further clues as to how Blair was kept on despite his absymal four-year professional track record.
Among other things, he may have been an insidious dirt-collector as he schmoozed and con-artisted the folks at the Times.
I believe that there's a lot more than "diversity" to be found under the rocks at the Old Grey Lady, namely sex, lies and personal intrigue.
And come out it will. They will all rat on each other eventually.
Leni
He was probably having an affair with Raines' wife's best friend's daughter. A Polish girl alone in the US.
She was white, he was black, they were so cute together!! This connection probably got him invited to all sorts of social outings with the powers that be.
That alone would intimidate the rank and file. No wonder his immediate superiors couldn't control him.
(:>)
Leni
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.