He'll gladly be a conservative for this. How does this creep sleep at night?
Posted on 05/12/2003 4:48:02 AM PDT by Liz
WASHINGTON Just about everyone at this newspaper is sick at heart at the way one Times reporter betrayed our readers and all of us with his sustained deceit and plagiarism.
The Times team investigating the lies of Jayson Blair — grimly front-paged and spread over four inside pages of yesterday's paper — found his phony interviews and faked articles "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper." The publisher called it "a huge black eye."
How could this happen at the most rigorously edited newspaper in the world? We had plenty of warning: his 50-plus corrections in less than four years as a reporter, his evasion of questions about his whereabouts, complaints from colleagues.
Apparently this 27-year-old was given too many second chances by editors eager for this ambitious black journalist to succeed. As he moved to more responsible assignments, some editors failed to pass along assessments of his past shortcomings while others felt the need to protect the confidentiality of his troubles. Result: the con artist gamed a system that celebrates diversity and opportunity.
The Times's executive editor, Howell Raines, is determined to get right with readers by letting the "terrible mistake" be examined in excruciating detail. In addition to this opposite of cover-up, he assigned another newsroom group to come up with ways to prevent another failure of communication among our editors, the most expert of communicators.
What's the reaction in Washington, where — we now know — the fraudulent reporter came down to stain The Times's coverage of last year's attacks by snipers?
Liberals down here, who only last week had been gleeful at the revelation of conservative Bill Bennett's high-rolling gambling habit, are rendered glum by this embarrassment of the newspaper whose editorial policy they favor. But now my right-wing friends are suddenly up to their hips in their own Schadenfreude. (That's the German word for "the guilty pleasure one secretly takes in another's suffering.")
First comes the culture war. Some of my ideological soulmates say: See? There goes the prestigious New York Times, world paragon of accuracy, newspaper of record, winner of far more Pulitzer prizes than anybody — suckered for years by one cunning kid. About time those snobby Eastern elitists, twisting the news to fit their prejudices, got their comeuppance.
Then to the affirmative-action angle: See what happens, they taunt, when you treat a minority employee with kid gloves, promoting him when he deserves to be fired? Oh, we know your editors insist that "diversity" had nothing to do with it. But remember what Senator Dale Bumpers said about our impeachment of Clinton: "When you hear somebody say, `This is not about sex' — it's about sex." This is about diversity backfiring.
Here's my reply to their Kulturkampf: For exactly 30 years, I have been supported handsomely for disagreeing with The Times's editorial page, which is dovish on defense, leftist on economics and (with the exception of civil liberties) resolutely wrongheaded. Never have I been silenced, and conservative thinkers have an ever-fairer shake on the Op-Ed page.
As for news coverage being influenced by editorial policy, I evoke the name of my predecessor: that's a Krock. On occasion, a leftist slant on a story slips through the backfield, but with conservatives boring from within and fulminating from without, the news side soon straightens itself out. What is "fit to print" is the truth as straight as we can tell it, which is why Times people are so furious at this galling breach.
Now about the supposed cost of diversity: A newspaper is free to come down on the side of giving black journalists a break if its owners and editors so choose. What's more, this media world would also benefit from more Hispanics and Asians coming up faster.
To the 375 Times reporters who make up the greatest assemblage of talent and enterprise in the field of gathering and writing the news, I submit this hard line:
Self-examination is healthy but self-absorption is not; self-correction is a winner but self-flagellation is a sure loser. Let us slap a metaphoric cold steak over our huge black eye and learn from this dismaying example — so that other journalists in the nation and around the world can continue to learn from ours.
E-mail: safire@nytimes.com
Pretending to be "conservative," recall that Safire admitted he voted voted for Clinton. Hah. Some conservative. Who pulls Safire's strings?
Who is your political master, Safire?
Waiting until your caught to self correct and self examinate might be the real sure looser Safire.
Becuase most of their "rigorous" editing is to ensure it slants properly to the left...
The point of the matter is that people deserve to be advanced because of the work they do not because of the color of their skin. If it is wrong to deny a position because of skin color it is just as equally wrong to promote because of same. I wonder how many better writers were denied promotions because of the affirmative action practiced with Blair? And I wonder how many more - black, white, male, female, whatever - like him are out there. If you have no morals, all you have to do is write to what the editors want to read and hear.
Yes, but none of this is relevant to the central issue: Nobody cares what the Times thinks or opines on its editorial page -- it's what it does to the so-called "straight news" that's got everybody upset. They spin facts to grind ideological axes. They claim that they don't. They do. That's why they're hated by most conservatives.
Except those in their pay. Understandable, if regrettable.
There are even people on FR that in my opinion are better writers than Safire - the guy who does mytwocents to name one though I now forget his name
JohnHuang2
Really!!!!! I wonder if a newspaper (or any entity) is free to give white employees a break because they're white. This attitude is degrading to hard working journalist of any color.
That is why there will be no to nil accountability.
A few of the recent fabricated stories in the Boston Globe include the following:
BOSTON GLOBE IGNORES IRAQI TORTURE CHAMBERS + PRISONERS [4/16/03]
BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES FRONT-PAGE POLL [4/9/03]
BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES FRONT-PAGE SLUR AGAINST US MILITARY [4/8/03]
C'mon, Bill. Please spare us the ongoing lies about your worthless bird-cage liner!
He'll gladly be a conservative for this. How does this creep sleep at night?
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.