Posted on 06/03/2003 12:06:37 PM PDT by tvn
When it Raines,it pours (buckets)-- Times scandal gaining more attention by the day
Does anyone remember the name Jayson Blair?
How about Howell Raines?
Both in their way have disgraced The New York Times, but at this point at least one seems to have been forgotten. That's Jayson Blair, the plagiarist, who's now out peddling a book idea.
The other, Raines, seems to grow in national importance by the day, but not in the importance the Times is used to or particularly relishes.
The Blair plagiarism scandal may not yet have made Raines into a household name in, say, the manner of Monica Lewinsky. But it has made Raines and The Times Topic A in a lot of forums it would prefer not to be in, such as the right-leaning cable talk shows, where Times-bashing is quickly assuming role once served by Clinton-bashing.
No wonder. The harder Raines works to bring the Times newsroom back under control, the more it appears to move beyond his control.
In the episode's latest development, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the Times' publisher, is headed down to Washington today in what looks like a mission to avert a potential mutiny. Even before the Times dispatched Blair to the capital to cover last fall's sniper spree, the D.C. bureau was said to be unhappy over the way Raines had undercut its traditional independence from New York.
Back at headquarters, another revolt is afoot. A number of Times staffers who have been called in for questioning by the so-called Siegal committee have reportedly defied the summons.
The 23-person committee, headed by assistant managing editor Al Siegal, is charged with investigating the chain of events in the Blair fiasco and making recommendations for reform. It is expected to issue a full report on its findings sometime next month.
The holdouts apparently agree with Nancy Sharkey, the training and development editor who quit the panel last week, reportedly because she felt its mission had taken on the air of a witch hunt.
In another possible sign of dissent, a second committee, headed by assistant managing editors Craig Whitney and Andrew Rosenthal, has taken it upon itself to gin up suggestions for improving in-house communications.
Meanwhile, the Times continues to take a licking in the press. Some of the harshest criticism came from New York magazine media columnist Michael Wolff, who attacked Raines' decision to suspend national correspondent Rick Bragg after learning that Bragg had relied heavily on the reporting of an unpaid, uncredited freelancer for one of his feature stories.
"Not only was what [Bragg] did not wrong, it's ridiculous he got reprimanded for it. It's a bureaucratic response," Wolff told the Hartford Courant. "There is a kind of literalism here that is the refuge of the non-brilliant."
Raines was also widely criticized for failing to speak out earlier after Bragg defended his practices by saying they were common at the Times. The silence from the top of the masthead left Times reporters no choice but to defend their honor by blasting Bragg publicly, prompting his quick resignation.
The New York Post weighed in on events this weekend by getting a professional oddsmaker to estimate the probabilities of various Times personnel resigning or being fired. His odds on Raines getting pushed out were 1:5.
Some papers have chosen to express their revised view of the Times with actions rather than words. The Lufkin (Texas) Daily News dropped New York Times editorialist Maureen Dowd's column from its editorial page on Friday in response to a column in which she misrepresented the meaning of a remark made by President Bush.
"The New York Times' considerable credibility problem is now our problem, as well," wrote editor Marc Masferrer in explaining the decision.
Earlier, Denver's Rocky Mountain News took a newly skeptical stance toward Times reporting, enacting a rule that reports from the Times based on quotes from anonymous sources must be cleared with top editors before being reprinted.
Also last week, the Richmond Times-Dispatch responded in print to readers who had demanded that the paper stop using The New York Times' news service, accusing it of liberal bias. The paper said it will continue to feature Times reporting based on the Times’ record of credibility.
Apparently, the day after Dowd's piece ran, the Sacramento Bee ran an editorial critical of President Bush, based on Dowd's distortion. According the James Taranto (WSJ's OpinionJournal.com), The Sac Bee apologized last Friday for being taken in by Dowd.
Since the Times was the 'victim' of any theft, I suspect that they'd have to press charges and cooperate in an investigation for anything to be done. They don't appear to be the least bit inclined to go that route.
And small wonder. That last thing they want is to open their records in open court and to have all their reporters and editors called to testify. If they brought criminal charges against Blair, every conservative legal foundation in the country would offer its servives to him free of charge. Can you say "slaughter pen"?
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.