Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bad News Blair saga at Times
New York Daily News ^ | 5/13/03 | PAUL D. COLFORD

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



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: jaysonblair; nyt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 05/13/2003 1:45:57 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; ...

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.


2 posted on 05/13/2003 2:06:58 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Liberals like to say accountability should begin at the top. Not at the New York Times.
3 posted on 05/13/2003 2:08:15 AM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Raines said through a spokeswoman last night that he never socialized with Blair.

"Sure, I'll HIRE 'em if I have to, but TALK to them? Don't be absurd."

4 posted on 05/13/2003 2:08:16 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The question I ask is, can the NYT now officially be called a tabloid now?
5 posted on 05/13/2003 2:18:33 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (LIBERTY or DEATH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"Bad News Blair"! Gotta love those Tabs.
6 posted on 05/13/2003 2:32:59 AM PDT by martin_fierro (A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Oh, they're falling all over themselves now, paying lip service to "responsibility". It just doesn't mean a damn thing (nor can they spell "bears repeating").


7 posted on 05/13/2003 2:40:43 AM PDT by martin_fierro (A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Howell Raines and Morris Dees are the two sorriest men ever produced by the state of Alabama. Notice the hypocracy of these two.
8 posted on 05/13/2003 2:53:32 AM PDT by GaConfed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd said they accepted responsibility for a lapse in "organizational safeguards"...

Just like Janet Reno accepts responsibility for Waco.

9 posted on 05/13/2003 4:08:42 AM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
The question I ask is, can the NYT now officially be called a tabloid now?

Excellent question! Any way we could push that?

10 posted on 05/13/2003 4:40:32 AM PDT by Tamzee (A half-truth is a whole lie .......Yiddish Proverb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte; PJ-Comix; Timesink
On another thread, you asked, "Why?" I think the final paragraphs of this Daily News story may also help to explain why:

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.

11 posted on 05/13/2003 4:42:00 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Andrew Sullivan specifies persuasively when this scandal metastatized:

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.

12 posted on 05/13/2003 4:46:32 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
In the Times letter to it's staff, the last paragraph begins "It bares repeating..."

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...

13 posted on 05/13/2003 4:53:59 AM PDT by TontoKowalski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Email of the day is a great one. Thanks for posting it.
14 posted on 05/13/2003 5:05:53 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TontoKowalski
Of the writers on that e-mail, the only one that I have noticed commenting on that misspelling is Andrew Sullivan.
15 posted on 05/13/2003 5:11:44 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Hah!

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

16 posted on 05/13/2003 5:37:32 AM PDT by MinuteGal (THIS JUST IN ! Astonishing fare reduction for FReeps Ahoy Cruise! Check it out, pronto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
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.

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.

17 posted on 05/13/2003 8:29:42 AM PDT by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TontoKowalski
You're right! They're wrong. Howell Raines is a pinhead.
18 posted on 05/13/2003 8:40:51 AM PDT by martin_fierro (A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey; Arthur Wildfire! March
I'm afraid that, at least technically speaking, the NY Times cannot be classified as a tabloid. The term 'tabloid' actually refers to the size of the sheet on which a paper is printed, the NY Post and Daily News being examples of tabloids. Printed on larger paper, the Times is a broadsheet.

Of course 'tabloid' has become something of a synonym for an opinionated, trashy paper with dubious journalistic standards. But at this point, to call the Times a tabloid would be an insult to the NY Post!
19 posted on 05/13/2003 9:40:50 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
You're probably very close to one of the truths in your # 17. If our theory eventually plays into the story and it's not covered up, remember, everyone read it on FR first!

(:>)

Leni

20 posted on 05/13/2003 9:42:11 AM PDT by MinuteGal (THIS JUST IN ! Astonishing fare reduction for FReeps Ahoy Cruise! Check it out, pronto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson