The spectacle of a publishing institution in crisis moved to a second act yesterday after the bitter departure of a star writer from the New York Times.

Rick Bragg, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his evocative features from the southern US, resigned on Wednesday night, days after the newspaper suspended him (with pay) and admitted that an unpaid assistant had done virtually all of the reporting for a story on oyster fishers in Florida for which Bragg took full credit.

Bragg's descriptive opening paragraph, with its mention of egrets gliding through the skies and grey mullet flopping in the water, had strongly suggested that he had visited the scene.

The downfall of one of the paper's most prized journalists deepened a crisis of credibility at the New York Times caused by the discovery that a young reporter on the fast track had plagiarised or concocted dozens of stories.

The angry and self-pitying nature of Bragg's farewell ensured his exit will prolong the internal agony at the paper, which has been consumed by recriminations and rivalries for weeks. In an interview with the Washington Post, Bragg said he was being made the scapegoat for the earlier scandal involving Jayson Blair, which caused huge embarrassment to the paper and which inflamed old grudges and slights.

Some of the feuding has been conducted in other media outlets - such as last week's leaked exchange of emails between two of the paper's senior writers over a story on Iraq.

The exchange inadvertently raised other questions about newsgathering at the New York Times when the paper's bioterrorism expert, Judith Miller, admitted her main source on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme had been the Pentagon's favoured Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi. That in turn suggested that the Pentagon and Mr Chalabi had used the paper to help create justification for war.

Many have also pointed to resentment of the paper's executive editor, Howell Raines, and speculated about his future.

Bragg, who was said to be a favourite of Raines', said he was being punished for what was common practice at the Times, where journalists made regular use of teams of helpers without assigning them credit.

His colleagues disagreed. Peter Kilborn, a New York Times reporter, wrote in an email posted on the internet yesterday: "Bragg's comments in defence of his reportorial routines are outrageous."

Media websites carried accounts from several other journalists yesterday whose work had appeared uncredited in the New York Times, including Lisa Shuhay, who wrote: "Since the Bragg story broke I have been contacted by writers who have provided vast amounts of description, ambience, the dateline and interviews for Times news pieces and never seen a byline or tag."

Other reports complained of a hierarchy at the Times which allowed Bragg to use a huge network of sources and impose a ban on the editing of his stories.

That response provoked Bragg to conduct a number of further interviews in which he complained of a poisoned workplace atmosphere. But, he told the Washington Post: "I'm too mad to whine about it."

He told reporters from other organisations that he had a $1m book contract waiting for him.

It was this last admission that influenced yesterday's reaction to Bragg's departure from the New York Times on media websites.

Despite the voluminous traffic on websites, the general public has remained largely unaffected by the crisis at the Times. But the newspaper has been under intense observation from its peers following the Jayson Blair scandal.

There is also interest in the results of an internal investigation established by the Times in the wake of the scandal.

Bragg was one of the first journalists at the paper to come under investigation. The work of three others is believed to have come before the panel.

The self-destruction at the Times has been watched avidly and with a large dose of schadenfreude at newsrooms across the US. But it has also led to uncomfortable reflection.

In the wake of the scandal, the Chicago Tribune, the Buffalo News, and other newspapers have called staff meetings to examine their own working practices.

Media websites carried accounts from several other journalists yesterday whose work had appeared uncredited in the New York Times, including Lisa Shuhay, who wrote...

BZZT. Another Guardian screwup: It's Suhay:

"I'm tired of cowering and rubbing my forehead"

5/29/2003 11:02:18 AM
Posted By:Jim Romenesko

From LISA SUHAY:
I can understand the upset felt by New York Times staff writers who feel their image has been tarnished by Rick Bragg's use of an intern's material and the resulting presumption that staffers do not do their own work.

I can understand it only if they are able to cast this stone in the firm knowledge that they themselves have never once used the work of another who did not receive credit.

It is interesting that the people I know who actually do the invisible reporting (stringing/legs work) have a completely different take on this issue, from the in-office people who get the bylines.

Since the Bragg story broke I have been contacted by writers who have provided vast amounts of description, ambiance, the dateline and interviews for Times news pieces and never seen a byline or tag. They are all plainly confused by all the high moral hats being donned.

I was told by management it is partly a bulk issue. This is difficult to fathom because I imagine if a famous Times writer had contributed so much as a line, their name would appear somewhere on the piece.

Still, many I know have indeed provided the bulk of a news piece and remained anonymous. As freelance or stringer you tend not to complain because keeping an editor happy, being available at all hours and pleasing them in every little way you can devise is how you continue to get work. Stringers particularly must let go of ego and pride in order to continue working.

Why do that? The answer has been, "Because it's the New York Times." That was my answer because I am a native New Yorker, a believer, an acolyte. The pride of simply holding the Gray Lady's hemline was so immense that for me it eclipsed ego.

Friends who know I have had well over 100 bylines in a weekly section of the Times have urged me to stay low and under the radar on this issue and on Jayson Blair. They feel I should be grateful and silent.

But in four years I have never had so much as a tagline for work I have provided to the main paper. I know a number of writers who have never had a byline in any section and who have worked tirelessly to provide copy with no respect given in the form of credit.

Furthermore, I suspect that one of the reasons Jayson Blair was so comfortable twisting the material I provided to him was the fact that my name would not be on it. As he said to me at one point when I was pressing him for a correction, "quit worrying about something that doesn't even have your name on it." That remark stuck with me. It was the first time I felt devalued instead of proud about my contribution.

True, Blair was one bad apple. But does the rest of the barrel have this ingrained assumption that the stringer, intern or freelancer providing copy is not as invested in their work or as important as the copy itself? Copy which the desk deems vital enough to send us out to get in dead of night, through storm or police barricade.

I have also been told by editors at the Times that the choice to give credit or not is also a matter of urgency. Breaking news vs. feature story. We just don't have time to do the right thing? That doesn't sound right.

Next I expect to hear it is a space issue, so many people "flooding the zone" the names won't fit on the page.

If the issue is giving credit where it it due, then it should be due in every case.

The excuse here appears to be that newspapers don't have to worry about it when they're in a hurry, competing for the story (all's fair in love and news war) or the writer in question isn't on staff or working for a star.

I realize that writing this letter will probably kill my freelance career in newspapers. So be it. I am tired of cowering and rubbing my forehead after the koto. That's not what good reporters do. In that culture Jayson Blairs breed.

The question is who will take my place? Will it be one who manages to retain pride in their work despite the disrespect of anonymity, or one who will work this invisibility to their advantage and further discredit of our profession?

I hope the Gray Lady chooses well and balances the scales of justice, despite the blindfold and the deafening noise all around her.

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.

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

I'm copying as fast as I can!!

"I'm tired of cowering and rubbing my forehead"