Print | 
SendPosted on 05/22/2003 11:53:24 PM PDT by cgk
L'affaire Blair and the Times
Mona Charen (archive)
The Jayson Blair scandal has most of the elements of the modern American classic. There's a celebrity angle, a race dimension, a drug and alcohol excuse, and hypocrisy in high places. The only missing element so far is sex. No doubt when the TV movie of the story is done, it will add a curvaceous girlfriend to round out the plot.
Let's start at the end. Here's a little quiz: After plunging himself and his newspaper into a major credibility crisis, 27-year-old Jayson Blair met with a) his pastor, b) his parents, c) a defense attorney or d) a literary agent.
The correct answer is, of course, "d." According to Canada's National Post, Blair, a cocaine and alcohol abuser, has signed on with David Vigliano, who also represents Britney Spears, to negotiate book and movie deals. Ah America, where there is no shame and being a nasty, lying creep gets you a lucrative afterlife in books and movies.
So that's the celebrity bit. Now for race. Here is where a tiny morsel of poetic justice is to be found. It is not altogether unpleasant to see the pompous, bombastic and self-righteous New York Times accused of racism by a clearly disreputable young man. This is, after all, the paper that denounced, among many others, Texaco Oil Co. for supposed racism in its personnel policies. The Times ran a front-page story in 1996 that relied on a plaintiff attorney's tapes purporting to show that Texaco executives used the word "nigger" in private conversations and referred to black employees disparagingly as "black jelly beans."
The national response to that story was fast and ferocious. The NAACP called it "the functional equivalent of the Rodney King video," and The Washington Post editorialized that "bias in corporate America was alive and well." Except that the tape turned out to be quite innocent. The word "nigger" was never uttered, the speaker was actually talking of "St. Nicholas," and the reference to "black jelly beans" came right out of the special "diversity management" training sessions all employees were urged to attend. (For a comprehensive examination of the effects of political correctness in the press, read William McGowan's Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity has Corrupted American Journalism.)
The Times did correct itself in that case, but the editors' over-eagerness to believe the worst about other Americans' racial attitudes is always on display. Now they themselves stand accused of racism. Blair, an admitted liar and plagiarist, says that being black at the Times "is something that hurts you as much as it helps you. Anyone that tells you that my race didn't play a role in my career at The New York Times is lying to you. Both racial preferences and racism played a role, and I would argue that they didn't balance each other out. Racism had much more of an impact."
Now I don't believe for a minute that The New York Times is populated by racists making life bitter for black journalists. But if the accusation were lodged against the Bush administration or Citibank or Fox News, who doubts that The New York Times would believe it and broadcast it to the world? So how do you like them apples, Mr. Raines?
Much ink has been spilled over the question of whether Blair got special treatment because he was black. Columnist William Raspberry, among many others, has argued that many white journalists have committed similar transgressions. Very true. But there has never, to my knowledge, been a case in which a white reporter was repeatedly reprimanded for errors and mistakes but nonetheless promoted and given plum assignments. You needn't be a mind reader to guess that editor Howell Raines is determined to see black reporters succeed -- no matter what.
I hate the condescension inherent in that liberal pose. There are hundreds of black journalists at the top of their field -- Thomas Sowell, Gwen Ifill, Keith Richburg -- to name just three. Black journalists (doctors, lawyers, accountants, educators, etc.) require nothing more than that we ignore their race. To treat them as hothouse flowers is so insulting. It is also unjust to others.
Though The New York Times will be the last institution to understand this, the moral of the Jayson Blair story is simple: You do not put an end to racial injustice by reversing it.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Contact Mona Charen | Read Charen's biography
But it is so useful to those on the left to do so!
"When a reputable newspaper lies, it poisons the community. Every other newspaper story becomes suspect. Anyone stung by a newspaper story feels emboldened to call it a lie. Facts are not only impugned but made impotent. . . . The lie--the fabricated event, the made-up quote, the fictitious source--is the nightmare of any respected newsroom. It is intolerable not only because it discredits publications but because it debases communication, and democracy."
NY Slimes Editorial, The New York Slimes - April 17, 1981
New York Slimes editorial, when the Washington Compost didn't check the sources re the Pulitzer Scam of reporter Janet Cooke, a female Jayson Blair.
What does it mean when a newspaper demands--and by dint of its own self-hype and by going along and getting along with its "competitors gets--a reputation as "the gray lady" which cannot be questioned? Only that the people have been tranquilized with assurances that they have "a right to the truth."We have the right to listen to/read the opinions others publish. And we have the right to make up our own minds--and to speak and print, or to keep our own counsel according to our own desires and according to our purses.Anything else is eyewash. Especially the "facts" which are so vaunted in the above editorial by the Times.
How to detect lies in your newspaper re Anonymous Sources! (USA TODAY OWNER PUBLISHER/23 MAY 2003)
* The anonymous source, if in fact one exists, generally is a coward who tells more than he or she knows.
* The reporter permitted to use such sources often writes more than he or she hears.
The only sure way to separate fact from fiction is to ban all anonymous sources. If your newspaper uses them, be very, very skeptical. -----------------------------------------------------------
I just emailed this from the Publisher and Editor of our local Fish Wrap. I cited their practice of accepting any trash about global warming from the NY Slimes as gospel, and their use of local Rat leaders to write OPEDs based on Rat Mantras slamming Republicans instead of real news.
If only we could make that so. Breathless Rita 'My Sources' Cosby would pretty soon have nothing to heave about!
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.