Past Holds Little Explanation for The Meteoric Fall Of Jayson Blair

The Washington Post ^ | Thursday, May 15, 2003; Page C01 | Paul Farhi, Washington Post Staff Writer

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

Read this garbage and tell me if his past "holds little explanation" for his current behavior? The guy's been a liar, manipulator, an ingratiator, a fraud dating back to his high school days (notice how he used another's byline to escape criticism for an article he wasn't pleased with)!! "little explanation"?? Here's the explanation: why work hard, have integrity, and be honest when you can have a meteroric rise by kiss-a$$ing and using other people's work. That's the explanation, duh.

[aristeides]

Obviously the writer of the article was not the author of the headline. This piece has undergone editing to tone down the original author's point (that Blair has a long history of being a con man,) but nevertheless I think that point comes through loud and clear.

[Grampa Dave]

You need to contact the Admin Moderator to get this Post article down to the maximum # of lines allowed by the court agreement. I think that you are over the # of lines.

[ken5050]

The WP is obviously having a ball piling on the NY Times....wonder if the two papers play each other in a softball game this summer?...

The one question that the Times ignored is how editors could publish a story ( the sniper one) with FIVE unnamed sources in it, without verifying them. SDome sources will on;y speak on background, I understand that, but the eds have to verify that they are true.

[CedarDave]

I didn't know the court order specified a maximum number of lines -- thought it prohibited full text articles and FR has been keeping it to a minimum to avoid any charges by the Compost of violating the agreement.

[CedarDave]

No one put all the pieces together. There were hints, certainly.

What bull. They knew, but didn't have the balls to call him on it until it got so bad they could no longer ignore it. Just like a cheating husband, the wife knows but would rather avoid comfronting it in the hope that the behavior would stop by itself.

[MEG33]

My degree in armchair psychology made me notice one of his father's jobs at the Smithsonian is to detect fraud. Blair seems to live to manipulate.

[the_Watchman]

It's an interesting observation that the author of the headline had a different point of view. I think you are correct. Everyone else is asking why and how Jayson Blair could have a "meteoric rise". Of course, questioning the "rise" focuses on the lack of integrity of the Times while focusing on the "fall" focuses on Blair. Perhaps the headline author wanted to cover for the Times.

[OldFriend]

Sorry but his fellow students at the University of Maryland stated that they never believed a word Blair said about anything.

The Washington comPost is making excuses for the inexcusable.

[Mia T]

 

"No one put all the pieces together."

Past Holds Little Explanation for The Meteoric Fall Of Jayson Blair
The Washington Post | Thursday, May 15, 2003; Page C01 | Paul Farhi, Washington Post Staff Writer

Q ERTY8 _Pinch NYT's habitual failure to connect the dots^BUMP

My question for Pinch (him, he's dreaming) Sulzberger:

Mr. Sulzberger... Shortly after 9/11, you admitted to Brian Lamb (C-SPAN, Washington Journal, 11.30.01) that The Times' endorsement of clinton was based on clinton "policies, not achievements."

When you made that admission, were you following Abe Rosenthal's sage advice, ("When you're wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do. And that is get right as fast as you can."), mindful of both the clintons' utter failure to protect us from terrorism, and The Times' prior "failure to connect the dots during the Holocaust,"... or were you merely covering your own corrupt, nepotistically-enabled, feckless rear?

 

 

 

CNNs of Commission, Rapist Demagogues and 9/11

the movie

The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime

Personal Agitprop-and-Money-Laundering Machine, Cozy-clintonoid-Interviews-of-the-Colmes-Kind-Scheme
Bury REAL "Living History"

Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent
 

Mrs. clinton's REAL virtual office update

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

Oh gosh, i don't want to violate copyright laws. What's the max# of lines to post? Is there an easy way to count the lines when pasting into the field? And how do I contact the Admin Moderator? This is venturing into new ground for me--thanks

[Wright is right!]

Have you noticed the parallels in the type of fraud Blair used with that employed by X-42(i)? Needless and easily-disproved lies, cover stories and self-aggrandizements? X-42(i) was in office the entire time of Blair's acsendancy. It appears that Blair had him as a role model.

Michael

[Grampa Dave]

Just hit the abuse line on your first post. Then ask the Admin Moderator to help you trim it down to the number of lines as allowed by the court agreement.

We have all done this. It is a learning experience.

[BFM]

"I remain truly sorry for my lapses in journalistic integrity. . . .

How about ABSENCE of journalistic integrity!?!

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

thanks for the directions! I've done as you suggested. much appreciated.

[palmer]

The WP is obviously having a ball piling on the NY Times

No, this story is a whitewash. Every phrase in it is designed to trivialize evil. It is in indictment of the cultures of both papers so it is in both their interests to make it sound harmless.

[Grampa Dave]

The Compost is as deeply ingrained in the culture of lying and having phantom/unidentified sources.

Deepthroat by Woodward and his partner is the classic of using the unidentified source to get a story out.

The Post is no more believable than the NY Slimes.

[7thson]

He certainly could be petty, competitive, mean-spirited, sloppy and a tad flaky.

Kind of reminds you a certain President! As a side note, when Woodward and Bernstein made up DeepThroat, did Ben Bradlee demand to know who the source was? I don't think so.

[Mo1]

Certainly, Blair was not above concocting stories about himself. Among his personal deceptions was telling his New York Times editors that one of his cousins died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

The Times knew all about his problem in telling the truth and choose to ignore it ..

Why??? ... Because they liked the way he reported his lies .. it fit their agenda and they never thought the Times would be called to the mat for it

It would seem that Jayson Blair manage to tick off a backstab everyone that got in his way, and I'm sure there are several reporters at the Times that have made complaints to this fact.

[thegreatbeast]

When Blair decided to plagiarize from a woman (now reporting for a TX newspaper) he interned with at the Times, what do you suspect he was doing? No one caught J. Blair- he gave himself up.