Transcript: Howell Raines Interviewed By Charlie Rose (Admits He Was FIRED)

Charlie Rose: Tonight an exclusive conversation with Howell Raines, the former executive editor of "The New York Times." Several weeks ago Howell and Gerald Boyd, the managing editor of The Times, resigned following a crisis at the newspaper that arose from the actions of a young reporter named Jayson Blair. Blair acknowledged of making up stories he reported in The Times and was fired. After weeks of deep conflict at The Times Howell and Boyd resigned on June 5th. Howell Raines is a friend and has been on this program a number of times. We have talked about civil rights, fly-fishing, Politics, 9/11 and his editorship at The Times. He's connected to 13 Pulitzers at the paper. He is the central character in a great drama about a great institution. It is a story that has Shakespeare qualities to it. It is about arrogance and hubris, ambition and destiny, competition and jealously as is often the case with a group of men and women who care deeply for the same institution. It is about all of those things. Some have said the world's most famous newspaper has undergone its first coup de tat. Howell Raines has told his story to the Siegal Committee at the New York Times, but this is the first time he will publicly tell what happened as he saw it. Things he alone knew in the course of these events. It is his story. I thank you for being with us, my friend and to talk about this.

Howell Raines: Thank you, Charlie. I appreciate your inviting me. I'd like to say to your audience a word of explanation about why I'm here, beyond the rather Faulknerean introduction you gave, which is that I met with?one of my last acts as executive editor was to appoint a committee headed by Our distinguished assistant Managing editor Al Siegal to look into the question of how this young man was able to get fabrications into a newspaper that has a multi-layered and very good editing system. That - that committee has been meeting for several weeks. This morning I met with Lou Bacardi, Roger Wilkins and Joanne Byrd, the outside members, to tell them as much information as I could, and as they wanted about those events. I thanked them for their service to the newspaper, which I think is significant. It's still a newspaper, still my newspaper in the sense of my loyalties. I want to start by saying thank to you my colleagues there for 25 wonderful years and 21 exhilarating months as executive editor. And also I owe a word of thanks to Arthur Sulzburger, our publisher, for our great partnership and adventure we had as we planned the course of what is now an international news organization. I spoke to Arthur this morning, he is motorcycling in upstate New York. I urged him to drive carefully because I think his future is important to "The Times'" future.

Charlie Rose: Some have said it will be a difficult challenge for him and a test for him now. Because of, not only stewardship of the times, but because the times has coming off of a crisis it has undergone.

Charlie Rose: It is a test not only for the new editor, who will be announced soon, but also a test for him as the publisher.

Howell Raines: It's probably easy to overstate that. In the newspaper profession every day is a test. And clearly this is a staff and a paper that has been through a crisis. That said this is a hugely talented staff. Arthur has deep reserves of people from which -- from which to choose. The staff has and will rally, and Arthur has around him a management team, Janet Robinson, the president of the "New York Times" company, Russ Lewis the CEO, Michael Golden the vice Chairman; that is seasoned and steady and this was the team, that group of people on the business side, and Gail Collins and myself and Arthur on the editorial side who had been planning the future of "The Times." There's a clear path there. And I think that -- that as they move forward in that general direction with whatever alterations are needed, they'll do fine.

Howell Raines: But friend of the?anything that I'm asked to do I will do as I did today with The Siegal committee. But, I am not starting out now on a life as a professional Ex-Timesman. I'm turning a page and we'll talk more about that later.

Charlie Rose: We will. You talked about novels and other things that are really Your passion. Excuse my for my Faulknarian Introduction but this story has all of those elements it does. Arthur Gelb said "whatever mistakes were made, his fall from the heights of journalism glory must be reminded as a searing personal tragedy. If Eugene O'Neil or Arthur miller wrote the play, there would not be a dry eye in the place." And there were not?

Howell Raines: Arthur is a dear friend, also O'Neil's biographer. As a southerner I would have to say there would be a dry eye if Tennessee Williams wrote it. But, look, let's -- let's - let me be clear about one thing. I worked for 39 years, or 37 years to get what is regarded as the top job in American Journalism. I had it through 21 of the months of the most exciting news and recent history. 9/11 on my sixth day as editor, the afghan war, the war that is now still going on in Iraq, and other events such as SARS, Anthrax. It was a tremendously exciting time. It hurts to lose that. That said life is sometimes about loss. It's not just about struggle and triumph. And I had the -- my 21 months were so filled with wonderful journalism produced by the most talented staff in the country, that i'm able to leaf with some sense of completion, and Arthur sent me to the newsroom to be a change agent. To lead a talented staff that was settled into a kind of lethargic culture of complacency into being a performance culture. And much of the conflict that came to the surface post Jayson Blair was around the friction caused by that kind of cultural change that will cause friction in any -

Charlie Rose: But are you saying in order to create the change, you had to be as tough and demanding, some say autocratic, some say impervious to others, some say a small cadre of people on the masthead ran the paper, and that it was an atmosphere that created great fear in the news room?

Howell Raines:I heard all of that. Believe me, the word arrogance is one that I'm familiar with. And I don't want to be defensive about it. I do -- I want to respond broadly. I do want to say having known every person who has ever held the title of executive editor, starting with Turner Catledge and extending up to myself, that humility and modesty are not adjectives that leap to mind with anyone in that group.

Charlie Rose: You can not run the "New York Times" with a humble and modest demeanor.

Howell Raines: Well, we should all strive for inner-humility, but it's a job that draws assertive people, and it is also a job that by tradition has had highly concentrated power and decision-making authority in and around the office of the executive editor. One of the things that I did that caused some ripples in the staff, early on, was that I replaced a system where only the executive editor and the managing editor had real decision-making power with the masthead system bringing in the assistant managing editors into a broader decision-making circle, on the theory that the great resource at the "New York Times" has, the great advantage it has over any other news organization in the world is brain power. And that the more minds you bring to bear on a subject the better outcome you will be. That said, I'm a person who has a president bush shun for journalism, who believes in rushing forward to meet the news who was frustrated as i came up through the ranks when I would see the "New York Times" stand around waiting to get its back end kicked. I came up competing against a couple of guys named Ben Bradley and Bob Woodward, they did a lot of kicking. I made up my mind that if I got to a position of authority on the paper that I would change our competitive metabolism. Not simply energy for the sake of energy, Charlie, but because when you are the "New York Times" with the attitude of pride that comes with being on the Times and with the resources that come with being on the "Times," and with the fact that very few news organizations can compete on your level, your biggest enemy is complacency. And I told the staff when I came down, I don't remember us ever getting out thought, I have seen us get outworked. We set out to change that. Let me say one more sentence on that theme, and I'll let you move on to something else. Not change it for the sake of change. Not working harder and with more concentration and more energy for the sake of just working, but in the belief that the "Times" at 150 years old plus 153, is an irreplaceable national institution. And the only thing that can guarantee its continuation for another 153 years and this country and this world needs it, is to take a good and great newspaper and make it continually better across a broader range of areas so it can compete in the media environment that exists today.

Charlie Rose: when you say it was complacent, isn't that a direct criticism of your predecessor, Joe Lleyveld?

Charlie Rose: And the people who were running the paper that you inherited that it had lost or did not have the creative metabolism or the competitive metabolism that you thought was necessary to meet the challenges of the future?

Howell Raines: I frame it differently. And not in a way that is intended as a criticism of Joe or any of my predecessors. This is a very old culture it has entrenched folkways. It has a deep sense of pride, but also a deep sense of self-satisfaction. That's developed over generations. Arthur and I discussed, as we went through this period of crisis, that many of the management problems that we were dealing with were systemic. Each executive editor comes in with a different set of challenges. I felt that the challenge for me was to raise the energy level of the paper so that we were maximizing the resource advantage we had over most other papers. Different editors have different Challenges. Max's -- I'm sorry, Abe's Challenge -

Howell Raines:Abe Rosenthal's challenge was he was editor of a paper that was dying. He made the great break-through decision, controversial at the time to go to the four-section paper with a science section, house and home. Many people said it's no longer the Times lively. It saved the paper economically. Max in his turn faced a Challenge. Joe in his turn faced a Challenge. I felt my challenge, and Arthur's challenge was to figure out a way to make us truly a national paper of record, and a place that was in which performance was the highest value, and drew the highest rewards.

Charlie Rose: Do you look back then and say you know, I didn't -- Isee my management style, which seems to be at the core of what has happened in that explosion after Jayson Blair? You have no regrets about it and find no fault with it. It was necessary to do what you wanted to create for the "New York Times."

Howell Raines: I'm saying something more nuanced, I hope. But one thing I am saying, I have been criticized for using sport metaphors, I will use one now. I always believed if you are a fastball pitcher you have to throw heat. You have to do what you do well.

Charlie Rose: And that means, that metaphor means in terms of running The "times" what?

Howell Raines: That I have a certain management style which involves moving forward into the news, and answering the information needs of our readers, the most sophisticated readership in the world, I think, over a broader range of subjects than just Foreign Policy, than just Washington, than just New York, City hall. But over the range of high culture, over the range of popular culture, over the range of sports, over the range of business. I'm proud of the fact that after Glenn Kramon and I devised a new strategy for the Business Section, which was different than what had prevailed before, we moved from business section that didn't mind getting beaten by the wall street journal on Mergers and acquisitions from a Business Section that was written for consumers rather than for our downtown professional financial community, to a business section that was much more competitive and much more hard-edged in the business and financial content that it produced. As a result of that, Glenn took that department and his achievement, not mine, and dominated the Enron story, and to my knowledge that is the first business story in living memory where the "times" has been in the front or in the hunt Along with the Journal and Business Week and the other business publications. So that's what we were trying to do. Your question was so complicated I forget some of the other parts.

Charlie Rose: In a better way and understanding what you have just said about what you felt was necessary to do with the New York Times.

Howell Raines: All right. Thank you. That gives me the clue of where I wanted to go next. Charlie, three things happened in an amazingly compact time. I become Executive Editor on September 5th, 2001. Six days later the World Trade Center is attacked. Staff responded magnificently. We produced papers of which the Times, I think, will always be proud, editor and publisher said we raised the bar for the Newspaper industry in America by our coverage of 9/11 and the subsequent war. And we became something - we were already a national paper, we were already talked about as the paper of record. I think post-9/11 we became truly the national paper of record in a way that we had not been. And that brought new demands onto the staff and onto all of us. Then, a short time later, we -- Arthur and the business-side - we got the opportunity to publish in the National Herald Tribune and give the New York Times, I think what is a marvelous opportunity to become a global journalistic force the like of which the world right now does not contain. And thirdly, and this gets around to answering the personal part of this. I want to be very open about this. Thirdly, it came at a time when I, coming in as the change agent to raise the creative metabolism of the paper to make it more performance-oriented was increasing demands on the staff at the same time that for budgetary reasons we were not expanding the staff as fast as we should be and I should have been quicker to recognize that I was more and more putting tremendous work pressures on this staff, which responded wonderfully. I worked them too hard and didn't rest them enough. And also I moved in terms of the culture of the Times newsroom I moved the newsroom too far too fast. That was a mistake on my part.

Howell Raines: I don't know how to be much clearer than that. I mean, perhaps I can think of an example in a moment. I can. Let me demystify that a bit. I may have been accused of running a so-called star system.

Howell Raines: The star system is a pejorative term for a system that seeks out the talented people on a staff, matches them p with the big stories, demands hard work and gives them rewards. That's what the quote star system is. It replaced a system that was the buddy system. Where people were rewarded according to merit but also often got assignments or rewards based on who they knew, or how well plugged in they were to the old boy network around the current executive editor or some other sub editor. How did this manifest itself in ways that hurt the paper? When I became executive editor, John burns was sidelined as a Foreign correspondent. He won two Pulitzers, i think in the history of journalism he Will go down as one of the great Foreign correspondents in the Post-war era.

Howell Raines: And did a brilliant job in Baghdad. And when the Iraq -- when the Afghan war came along, I didn't know why john had been sidelined. I didn't know why he was frustrated. I knew he was. He told me he was. I knew he wasn't being used correctly. I said we have the best guy around, let's send him to the War. To me that's the star system, matching up --

Charlie Rose: you brought reporters over from Moscow, brought him into Washington, he's a guy you wanted to see on the best tours because he's a guy you had confidence in and believed the Times would get the best stories so that's what you did.

Howell Raines: yeah. I brought both at the time of the war I brought both Michael Gordon and Patrick back to Washington because I thought they were the two best national security minds on the paper, on anyone's paper.

Charlie Rose: all right. I asked this question, which is this staff; you were not done in by Jayson Blair, most people Believe. They believe that Jayson Blair, There was a kindling temperature At the New York Times, and Jayson blear was the match that set it on fire. And that there was revolt because you had lost the confidence of the staff for a variety of reasons that have to do with management.

Charlie Rose: Why were the troops in revolt against Howell Raines or do you believe that is not true?

Howell Raines: I believe that is not true in the stark formulation that you give it. Clearly, we were on a march that we had planned very carefully to have a paper that was as good as everything as we -- as the Times is at the things that traditionally does well. Foreign affairs, for example. In the course of that march, we stepped on a land mine. I stepped on a land mine named Jayson Blair.

Howell Raines: and that coalesced and brought to the surface a number of complains which are real, but which are not universal. I could show you a stack of hundreds of communications from people on the staff, editors and writers saying this is a terrible mistake. We know where you were going. It was the right place. We were with you.

Charlie Rose: what terrible mistake? Sorry. The fact that you left the paper Was a terrible mistake?

Howell Raines: yeah. That's a body of opinion. There was an ideological war or Battle, struggle going on in the Times if you will, between people who wanted to continue the status quo of the "times," in terms of how stories are selected, how -- how the news room is run, what the demand level is, and also the same Group of people is a group that in general wants the paper to remain more parochial, to be more a New York paper, and less a national paper, and an International paper. The problem with that approach is, one, that the publisher and the editorial leadership and the business leadership of the paper had all decided the paper's future is in the national and International arena. The other problem from my point of view is that there -- According to "times" statistics there are 80 million people in the country who have the intellectual appetite for a paper like The New York Times.

Howell Raines: The New York Times sells 1.2 million papers a day. That tells me something. That tells me that you have got to change the paper, not in its standards, not in its principles but in the breadth of its intellectual interests and in its vitality n graphics, in the way it's written, in the way stories are select sod that you get the other 78 million. That's your economic future, whether you will deliver it on the Internet or in television. Another factor that caused this discontent with me was that prior to my coming to the third floor, the news department had give what I call passive Cooperation to the "times" Television efforts and to its Internet efforts. I told Arthur when we were discussing my taking this job, Over two years ago, that if he gave it to me, I was going to shift gears to active cooperation. And because I thought our future was, and the future is taking me Out of the equation, the New York Times has to learn how to take its form of quality journalism, maintain the quality but extend it across the Internet table, television, and book platforms. So that when the day comes, when news does not travel on dead pine trees, we'll have other ways of getting that information.

Charlie Rose: that's clearly Arthur's ambition, he often stated it on this program and other places, that he doesn't care as much about how its distributed as much as he cares that the editorial product has a massive distribution. That's what you are signing on to when you say that. When you talk about this battle within the "times," are you talking about the Washington Bureau chief and the metropolitan editor who are frequently cited as your principle protagonists in this conflict that erupted and the two people who spearheaded the revolt?

Howell Raines: I don't think it's useful to personalize it. I didn't experience it as a personal battle. I -- I experienced the conflict I had with those editors or any others as a professional difference of opinion in which there was not a, for me a personalized component. It is true that I have a passion for newspapering that sometimes comes across as an aggressive or adversarial intensity. My wife and my sons and my former colleague Phil Boffey call it the look. Boffey says when I get focused on a news story I look like an angry hawk. I'm not mad about anything except I am -- but I am trying to figure out how to attack that story, how to run forward and meet the news. And I think those are the lines of friction that I was aware of.

Charlie Rose: What -- there was a story, you and I talked about this, on this show written by Ken Auletta in which he basically said there is tension at the "New York Times." Clearly you and Arthur got the message from that, you know, that there's some dissent out there. Some problems out there that was a notice that we got issues to take care of. Was it not?

Howell Raines: With all respect to ken, I don't think he's a flawless journalistic analyst. I'm not sure that -- but I don't want to debate his story. Let me respond in a Different --.

Charlie Rose: but before you do, let me make this point. The reason I cite that, there are those people who say, Arthur and Howell had no idea what was going on and how much resentment there was to the style and the change that they wanted. Others step forward and say how could they not have known because it was talked about in this article.

Howell Raines: Right. This was not my first rodeo, it wasn't Arthur's first rodeo.

Howell Raines: We knew what was going on. The -- the -- trying to describe a -- a gestalt here. When you set out to make changes in an organization, you know there's going to be resistance. When you set out to make changes in a journalistic organization, particularly a newspaper newsroom, you are dealing with one of the most conservative environments in the world. People have pitched battles over where a chair is located over who gets to sit near a window, and all change is regarded as threatening in most newsrooms. This is a truism of the profession. It's one of the things that drew me to it. I worked for six newspapers. Every newsroom I have been in has been a hot bed of dissent, misery and complaint. The -- the reason is that when you're looking for good newspaper people you are looking for -- for congenital Contrarians. So, there is never a friction-free environment.

Charlie Rose: Not everyone's story cannot be on the front page. The people who's story is not going to be on the front page will be unhappy. That's generally the way it works.

Howell Raines: My analysis is it would be naive to think if you come into a place as a change agent with a mandate for change from the publisher not to expect friction. That's where I think Ken's Analysis was unsophisticated. We knew it was going on. I knew as we moved through the past two years that it was gaining in intensity. The discomfort about change. This was going to be a year in which we were going to try to do two things. I wrote a policy paper about this early in the year. One is move aggressively to -- to heal some of the scratches and bruises that we had caused internally. To put in a system of management that would bring every section of the paper, the so-called back of the book, up to the level of quality of the front of the book. So that we would have uniform quality across the board. That -- we were well on that -- on that part of the road or the mission when the new sports editor, new culture editor both replacing worthy people but bringing a new style to it. And I believe given time we would have gotten around to the political part of the mission. And we stepped on a land mine -- I stepped on a land mine called Jayson Blair. I became a political liability and that's that story.

The seeds we planted will germinate. The path we set out, I think, the New York Times is likely to continue following.

Howell Raines: and -- and whoever replaces me as executive editor will take a talented staff, they'll work hard for him or her, and the paper will be fine.

Charlie Rose: I want to come back to this with Jayson Blair. We have to talk about Jayson Blair.

Charlie Rose: How could this happen? Do you simply say there's no way that a paper can protect itself from somebody who sets out to do this? Because in this case, you at least had a memo written that said don't let him write for the "New York Times."

Charlie Rose:You had people saying these stories in the sniper case were simply not true.

Charlie Rose: How do you -- what was your mistake? Your personal hands-on mistake with respect to Jayson blair?

Howell Raines: I'm going to have to answer the question in a more direct way. I mean a more elaborate way except to say in regard to what my mistake was, I was captain of the ship, the ship hit a rock under my watch. The details of how it happened are irrelevant to the fact that the responsibility was mine. Now, let me give you some information that will fill in ihe picture somewhat. I first learned that Jayson Blair had an accuracy problem on April 30th of this year.

Howell Raines: When there was an e-mail from San Antonio. I was on vacation, Gerald Boyd called me said we had a problem. Gerald and Jim Roberts began investigating it and did so effectively. By the 1st of may, we knew we had a big problem. Jayson had resigned rather than tell us the facts of the case. I came back to the paper on May 2nd, a Friday. There was an editor's group about to start investigating Jayson Blair. I said let's stop that effort because we know enough now to know that some of the people we have got looking into this problem were -- were managing Jayson and no -- no inquiry can have credibility if it's conducted by people who were -- who were looking into their own conduct even if it's honorable conduct. On that date, May 2nd, I sat down and read Jayson Blair's personnel file. For the first time saw that his core problem over a five-year period with ups and downs of success and less success had been a pattern of errors. I first saw at that time the memo that said Jayson Blair has got to quit -- got to be stopped writing for the paper immediately. That memo was addressed to two mid-level editors, addressed to one and copied to another. It never went anywhere else.

Howell Raines: That's a management problem. At the end of the day since I'm in charge of the management structure the buck stops with me on that. The fact is --

Charlie Rose: you did not know that John Lamben said don't let him write for the paper now. Stop it now.

Howell Raines: that's right. No reporter or editor on the "new york times" from september 5th, 2001, when I took over the job, to may 2nd when I sat down and read that personnel file, one of 400 reporters personnel files, was I informed verbally or in writing that this person's habitual problem is making mistakes. Obviously it -- if that had been Brought to me, I would have dealt with it. Glenn Kramen who we put in charge of reporting said after the story -- we published the story about it. Glenn said to me personally he could not imagine a memo of that sort being written by someones and not taking it to the executive editor level.

Charlie Rose: Let me make sure. I mean, it seems to me you are suggesting the man who wrote the memo should have brought it to the executive editor that would have been, if he was so concerned about that, something so grievously damaging to the "New York Times," it ought to have been brought to the attention of the executive editor. Is that what you're saying?

Howell Raines: No, that's not what Ii'm saying. I want to say what I'm saying. I'm saying what the person who ran the investigative project said. I'm saying it's a complex place where there are more realities than that. The Siegal committee is looking into that. There are other explanations in a vast bureaucracy someone can write a memo and assume that it's going to be worked through The system in a certain way, or they can -- or they can do what is more commonly done in a situation of this gravity which is to copy it around to make sure that the copy featured on e-mail it goes around. This memo, for whatever reason, went to two people. There's no evidence that anyone else other than two lawyers in the building who were called in to write a letter of reprimand to Jayson ever saw it. It went into that file on April the 1st, and it rested there Until May 2nd of the following year. Now, i assume the Siegal Committee has looked nto this. I'm -- you know, I will await their judgments. I want to make it clear to you and your audience and my friends at the "new york times" that as I told them at our town hall Meeting, the responsibility is Mine. Executive editor is responsible For news report and the Executive editor is also Responsible for the management Systems of the paper.

Charlie Rose: at that same town hall meeting you said would not resign Arthur said he would not accept your resignation. Why did you resign?

Howell Raines: After four weeks of working our way through these problems, Arthur asked me to step aside. I did.

Charlie Rose: You would not have done it if he didn't ask you. Everything you --.

Charlie Rose: Don't suppose. Bear with me. You don't suppose not, you know Would not have resigned. Everything in you, your hero Bear bryant, was you don't quit.

Howell Raines: okay. I'll concede that point. I wanted to say something slightly different.

Howell Raines: I had five more years in a normal term. I knew once the Jayson Blair Event took place, and this emotional -- this - this whirlwind of feelings of outrage About that and also other kinds Of animosities, and some ideas But more feelings than ideas began to whirl into a cyclone that it was going to be a huge management problem. That it would take one to two years of very careful internal bureaucratic work to get - to get back to the agenda that -- that i believe is needed to take the "times" where it needs to Go. So -

Charlie Rose: but you believed that you Were the best person to take the "times" where it needed to go.

Charlie Rose: here's the second question. There were a lot of people who Say the following "that he could Have -- first of all the "times" Engaged in too much self flagellation. Secondly, that the punishment, Asking for your resignation did Not fit the crime. The crime may have been some bad Management behavior, style, Style,.

Charlie Rose: crime may have been pushing too hard, as you said. The crime may have been whatever. Giving up the stewardship of the paper with your record at that Paper did not fit the crime. What do you think of that? It didn't fit.

Howell Raines: that's for others to judge. I'm in the business of living my life. It happened. People reacted in a way that they did. I was disappointed frankly that many people on the paper who shared my vision didn't speak up. I think there was a general lack of awareness of how much emotional velocity was building up. And some of it, I'll admit, though I said I knew things were going on, some of it surprised me. For example, one of the editors came in, one of our best editors came in and said the young reporters in his department felt that I had pushed the expectation level too high for Journalistic performance. That's probably my saddest Moment as executive editor. Because i can't imagine anyone Coming to work at the "new york Times" accepting a job unless They wanted to be measured Against the highest expectations Of the profession. Why join the new york yankees if You don't want to play on the Field where ruth an dimaggio and Mantle played? But that was clearly something That took me by surprise.

Charlie Rose: if, in fact, the issue is the Level of expectation and the Demand for change and Somebody -- and arthur said on This program he hired you Because he wanted to change the Paper. He thought it was important to Boost the paper.

Charlie Rose: creative metabolism is the Word you may have used. All these things that came out Of that meeting were having to Do with style, centralized power dismissive, sarcastic, people Felt devalued, all of that. That is not b it seems to me, people responding to, so they're saying the wrong thing, responding to being pushed to be Better than and setting the level of expectation too high.

Howell Raines: yeah, that's language that I Submit suggests a discomfort With the cultural change that Was going on inside the paper, And the movement from a very Comforting undemanding culture Of complacency to a performance Culture. Now, i don't know every person's Opinion and perception is - is Something that can't be argued With. What i do know is that for every Person who said those kinds of Things in that meeting, i got Ten or 20 letters and e-mails Saying i don't agree with that At all. We are on the right track. The newspapers that we have produced over the past 20 months Are the best in the history of The times. So, you know, there are two Bodies of opinion there.

Charlie Rose: I wanted to ask you did you regret making the decision that You did, but i hear from you it wasn't your decision to make. It was made for you. So you can't sit back now, having looked at this and thought of this, while you're out fishing the idea of leaving the "times." You didn't leave voluntarily.

Howell Raines: no, arthur said i don't think We can calm this place down. I'd like -- i'm having to ask you to step aside. It's a painful conversation, it's breaking my heart, and, look, you know, I'm a professional. I understand -- i understand the way this business works. The profession works. I understand the risk of it. And though i loved the "times," It's not my life. I have other things to do.

Howell Raines: march through. When i, at the age of 21 i set out to be a literary writer. And over the years I have published three books. And i thought i would go into newspapering to make a living while i pursued my lit area Career. My plan was, at the age of 65 to Go back to the book writing Life. This unexpected event, has given Me and Christina an adventure we didn't expect to have, which is five years of creative space to pursue a new kind of life that we didn't think that we were going to be able to have. That's why I'm going back to my Original dream of writing books. I leave with a sense of regret That i won't be able to play a Part in taking us on the journey Where I knew the paper needed to go.

Howell Raines: And I listened to the kind of criticism that you talked about. And I read things that are written about me. I've got more arrows in me than Custer's horse, Charlie. And the fact is I know who I am. I'm confident of my vision for the paper. I'm confident that I would have gotten us where we need to go, solving the problems that -that surfaced that are endemic in any newsroom. And an untoward event simply prevented it. Now, people can argue with that. That's my view. And at the end of the day I am who I am.

Charlie Rose: Some have said that this was not only a revolt it was a restoration and it was the New York Times going back to where it was not in the line that Howell dreamed for it. Change, different, built on the traditions that make it a more competitive, stronger paper.

Howell Raines: The people there are too good. I've done my bit. I believe the publisher and the people around him know the path that they're on and I believe that the next executive editor will have his or her own ideas to add to the blend. But I think that the paper is - is -- is going to get to the place it needs to be as the most important journalistic quality journalistic entity in -- in the world. The -- if you want to hear me say I made a mistake, I'll say that I made this mistake - I thought I could do it in seven years. And I think it may take several generations of executive editors to make it happen. But the New York Times is - and don't mishear me, it is a great newspaper today. It was a great newspaper before I got there. It'll be a great newspaper after I'm gone. But if greatness becomes static, if greatness is not progressive, it becomes regression. And the danger that the Times faces is not to broaden its range of interests in a way that appeals to something other than 1.2 million people over 40 years old. Now, and you don't do that by dumbing the paper down. I want to bring up something that's often cited as -- in -- in articles critical of me, the Britney Spears story on the front page.

Howell Raines: What no one has reported is what the story was actually about, which was I -- I wanted a story about the sociology of a -- that's going on in the country where we have an industry that picks a sexually precocious-looking young woman, lifts her out of obscurity, elevates her to a level of wealth and acclaim far in excess, perhaps, to her talents and then drops her like that. That says something about the sociology of the country. It says something about the business of this country. The record business, the entertainment business, and it speaks to -- it speaks a language, the language of style and culture that the people in this country under 35 are speaking. They know a world that -- that a sophisticated reader of the New York Times needs to be exposed to. So, the Britney Spears story was a sociological story and the -- my most distinct memory of that story is Martin Nisenholtz, who's our very intellectual New York Times digital president, has an exercise where his two teenage daughters every day at breakfast, he assigns them a story out of the New York Times on Sundays for the - for the family to discuss at dinner. And that Sunday they said he started in his pitch and told me they said, no, you don't need to make an assignment we already read the Britney Spears story and we want to discuss that at dinner. And they weren't - they weren't responding because it's a bubble gum story, they were responding because it was a social and cultural issue of interest to them.

Charlie Rose: Let me just make one point here. I'm not asking you to acknowledge any mistakes or not acknowledge mistakes what I'm interested in this conversation is have you tell me what you believed and what you saw and what you felt from the conversation. Yet at the same time making sure that on the table of those things that people are said that's part of the conventional wisdom about this story.

Charlie Rose: The -- do you believe that Arthur made this decision alone or that he was under tremendous influence from his father and other members of the board?

Howell Raines: I don't have any way of - of knowing that. And some of the other questions you're posing Charlie, I better leave to the Siegal committee to resolve. And, you know, Arthur is the Publisher and chairman of the board. If he wants to talk about the Board, that's fine. I -- look, I'm not going to spend my life speculating about that, worrying about that. I'm shifting gears. I've got one manuscript, a sequel to "Fly-fishing through the Mid-life Crisis" that is completed that I'm gonna go back to work on. After 39 years in the profession, after 25 years at the Times, I think I have probably one book in me about journalism that -- that needs to get written. Then, having -- having done a novel that was a vignette, a daguerre-type snapshot of Alabama during the depression, I want to move on to novels of a broader canvas, Civil War, civil rights era.

Howell Raines: I may. I'm saying, I think I will probably write a book about journalism, which would inevitably touch on these things. But that's part of what I'm doing. I'm in town, I'm talking to various people in the book trade. I've had very flattering offers from other newspapers. I'm not particularly interested in them. I think book writing is my future. I think travel, I think spending more time in Europe where Christina's family lives. But being, you know, Jung once had a patient who got fired and he said congratulations now, you can do something interesting. I have had a great run as executive editor, the New York Times has given me a life of adventure. Now for the first time, I have the wherewithal to build an entirely new chapter. And as a student of literature, as a young man I was always struck how American writers would have this burst, and then they would die creatively, ala Scott Fitzgerald and any other number. And when I began studying the life of William Butler Yeats I realized that he had done something quite extraordinary which is had this incredible burst of creativity after the age of 60 into his 70s. And into -- up until very old age, Picasso comes to mind in a different context, and the impressionist painters, many of whom did their great work in the later years. I think there's a model there that a person with aspiration of an artistic literary nature can be inspired by. I'm inspired by it and I'm gonna get on with it.

Charlie Rose: I want a couple more things, we have one minute. What's the most important - is the most important achievement at the Times for you the fact that you won under your stewardship the most number of Pulitzers ever won by a newspaper, 2001 for coverage of 9/11, seven?

Howell Raines: No. The most important accomplishment for me at the Times was one, to be able to lead the greatest staff in the world on big stories and also to have readers and my counterparts in the profession both tell me that they could see a new vitality in the paper and they thought the paper was better than it ever had been. That -- that was deeply satisfying to me. My successor will have his own or her own gifts to bring. I will help in any way I'm asked to. I expect them to surpass me as -- that's the history of the Times that we build on.

Howell Raines: And that's -- I have ever good wish for the paper. I've enjoyed it immensely. And now it's time to get on with the next chapter, which includes fishing in Montawk in September and Argentina in March and sitting in front of a typewriter.

Charlie Rose: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to have you here for this conversation, and to have you here to tell this story. Thanks.

Charlie Rose: at that same town hall meeting you said would not resign Arthur said he would not accept your resignation. Why did you resign?

Howell Raines: After four weeks of working our way through these problems, Arthur asked me to step aside. I did.

Charlie Rose: You would not have done it if he didn't ask you. Everything you --.

Howell Raines: I don't know the answer to that. I suppose not, Charlie, but -

So Raines didn't quit, he was FIRED. Good riddance!

Keep Free Republic Rockin' 'Round The Clock!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

Rose should be fired as well.

I couldn't read the damn piece. Far, far too much blah, blah, blah about how talented everyone is, how difficult the job is, how complicated and nuanced the investigations are, etc.

No wonder so much of journalism is verbose rather than informative.

And Rose really gets on my nerves. In my opinion there is nothing worse than a self appointed "expert" that has a mantle of superiority in every phrase. He really needs a good kick in the ass on occasion. Where is Will Rogers when we need him?

The real howler was Howell's claim that he knew nothing, nothing about Blair's reputation for error-prone reporting until April 30th of this year, two days before Blair's resignation, which is the day he says he first sat down and read Blair's personnel file.

I'm pretty sure the blogosphere will jump all over that one and disprove it by the end of the day.

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.