OFF TARGET (How NY Times Reporter Blair Fabricated Stories While Protected By Bosses)

Washington City Paper ^ | May 9-15, 2003 | Erik Wemple and Josh Levin

[PJ-Comix]

During his time in New York, Blair managed to seduce not only his fellow beat reporters but also masthead titans. "He was always having drinks with the right editors," recalls a former Times writer.

"Seduce?" Hmmm.... I wonder if the authors of this article are hinting at something.

[Texas Eagle]

"Seduce?" Hmmm.... I wonder if the authors of this article are hinting at something.

Could be. I've heard it said that 3/4ths of the NYT editorial board are homosexuals.

[PJ-Comix]

Maybe now we know why the NY Times publisher is nicknamed "Pinch."

[garbanzo]

What's of broader concern to me is that we'd had recently a number of cases in variety of different fields of young "superstars" who turn out to be frauds and have seriously embarrassed venerable institutions. The pattern with the Blair case is familar - the long mounting suspicion, the weak reprimands, the increasingly implausible denials by the accused, the willing suspensions of disbelief on behalf of the superiors, and the final fall.

I'm wondering if we have generation of youth entering the workplace who are more concerned with being famous than being right.

[leilani]

"Could be. I've heard it said that 3/4ths of the NYT editorial board are homosexuals." Well, the rest of us have heard that the editorial board is headed by a sociopath who couldn't be bothered to care whether or not his paper prints factual truth or not, or whether or not he deceives or defrauds his paper's readers, or whether or not he destroys the reputation of the NYT. His sexuality seems so incredibly off point, given the pressing reality of the situation, dontchathink? I mean, my goodness, let's at least start TRYING to see the forest for the trees, huh?

[Texas Eagle]

Sheesh....okay, okay.....

[Tacis]

I haven't read the entire article but believe that it is clear that someone needs to defend the New York Times. It is grossly unfair, let me repeat that, it is grossly unfair to be critical of the New York Times.

Now, as always, the New York Times has a political agenda to advance. It is UNFAIR to expect them to be factual or objective at the same time. Sure, they can try, they can claim to do so, but they can't be 100% accurate. They are only human, after all.

And, to expect an African-American employee of the NYT to be held to the same standards as a non-minority employee is, well, frankly, racist. So, too, is the NYT firing a black employee for doing just what NYT employees have always done, distort the facts and truth to comply with the paper's political agenda.

This fine young man, a young journalist, learning his trade was fired solely because he is black. I hope he will take his solid claim to the courts. There, I hope, he will be allowed to present his evidence before one of the fine judges endorsed over the years by the NYT. Alas, none of the judges opposed by the NYT are available to hear this brave African-American's claim of racial bigotry and discrimination. But, the judges in NYC appointed by Willie will certainly decide properly.

[dennisw]

My prediction is it will come out he on drugs. Anything from marijuana on up.

[garbanzo]

And it begins...race wasn't even an issue until a picture was published and it's too tempting a bait for some people to pass up. Why did it take so long to get rid of Stephen Glass? The issue here isn't race though some on the right will find it irresistable to make it so - the issue is why his superiors suspended disbelief - and the broader issue of whether or not institutions that depend on the native integrity of its workers can depend on that anymore and what does that say about modern society.

[garbanzo]

What about alcohol?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I'm wondering if we have generation of youth entering the workplace who are more concerned with being famous than being right.

That's my take on things . . .

[Jesse]

"I'm wondering if we have a generation of youth entering the workplace who are more concerned with being famous feeling good about themselves than being right."

Inevitable outcome of outcome-based education. But it gets worse.

Remember, the next surgeon who operates on you may be a similar product of outcome-based education. The next pilot of your jet...the OBE generation is coming of age.

Thanks once again to the NEA and the dumbing down of the public education system to produce automatons who believe the liberal line. Nice to see the Times, a big proponent of such hogwash policies, get bit in the ass over this one, and just hilarious to listen to that pompous hypocrite Raines in full damage control spin mode.

[SFConservative]

I'm wondering if we have generation of youth entering the workplace who are more concerned with being famous than being right.

There is a growing notion that truth and actual facts are nowhere near as important as winning or getting ahead. Democrats in Congress practice this daily; they do it while looking straight into cameras and while knowing that their words will be captured in the Congressional Record. They don't care, because nobody calls them on it. The media no longer see themselves as fact-checkers; they just report the game. The clinton era steepened the slippery slope: OK, so the president lied under oath, but it was about "unimportant" things so it's fine.

[garbanzo]

Inevitable outcome of outcome-based education.

I think that probably a big part of it - I don't think people simply start faking results once you get into professional life. From school through university, they've probably gotten away with similar capers but just didn't get caught and were encouraged more by teachers who in all likelyhood were more interested in making sure that students knew the "correct" take on something rather than true scholarship.

[dennisw]

It's just my theory that he was drinking or doing drugs and this lead to flaky and erratic behavior. I don't see him as lying to further his career in any kind of malicious and well thought out way. He was just a flake.

Prolly also a nice and charming guy.

[garbanzo]

If this were somewhat more isolated then that'd probably be closer to the truth. But this but one of recent string of incidents involving high profile publications with egg on their faces from fraudulent contributors in their younger years. It may not be enough to establish a pattern but it is cause for some concern.

[Just mythoughts]

Considering how tainted the NYTimes is on most of its reporting, this seducing business has been going on a long time, maybe Blair was seduced first.

[jackbill]

Now that the NY Times has "outed" Blair, how long must we wait for them to out Walter Duranty and his Pulitzer "for reporting from Russia"?

In case you are unaware, Walter Duranty covered up the deaths of millions in the "state induced" famine in Ukraine during the 1930's. He was awarded a Pulitzer Prize and the NY Times has maintained it on the "wall" of Pulitzer winners.

Duranty was a Communist sympathizer and the NY Times knows it. Yet they refuse to return the Pulitzer. I've known individuals who operate like that. They are generally called prostitutes.

[Jesse]

Agree with your comments on Durant, except for one.

Prostitutes are generally much more honest than the NY Times, providing a known service in exchange for money.

You meant to say liberals, right?